malthusiantrap
Established
Hi RFF
A few weeks ago I was all set with an X100 and have started to allocate the funds to get this camera. However, given the excellent threads on RFF singing accolades on the EM-5 and the abundance of stellar reviews online I have started to consider the Olympus.
With the Fuji, I get excellent image quality and high ISO capability. It also has direct manual controls and has the great OVF/EVF feature. Unfortunately, the X100 has a fixed 35mm FL. While I like the 35mm FL very much, I want flexibility through interchangeable FLs on my only digital camera.
On the other hand, the Olympus EM-5 has interchangeable lens and comes with a plus of being able to take my existing M lenses. It has the much touted 5 axis image stabilization, fast AF and more features than the X100. I also feel that image quality approaches the X100 so they are pretty close to my eyes. Cost and size is also more or less the same with a pancake lens on the EM5 (although in the long run the EM5 will cost more given the availability of fantastic lenses in the M43 line
).
So in short, the X100 is simpler, closer to the look and usage of an M (albeit an AF one) and delivers superior images but the EM5 is an interchangeable lens camera that has much more technology in it and can also deliver excellent images compared to the X100.
I have decided to get the Olympus.
Any opinions on this matter is welcomed and appreciated!
A few weeks ago I was all set with an X100 and have started to allocate the funds to get this camera. However, given the excellent threads on RFF singing accolades on the EM-5 and the abundance of stellar reviews online I have started to consider the Olympus.
With the Fuji, I get excellent image quality and high ISO capability. It also has direct manual controls and has the great OVF/EVF feature. Unfortunately, the X100 has a fixed 35mm FL. While I like the 35mm FL very much, I want flexibility through interchangeable FLs on my only digital camera.
On the other hand, the Olympus EM-5 has interchangeable lens and comes with a plus of being able to take my existing M lenses. It has the much touted 5 axis image stabilization, fast AF and more features than the X100. I also feel that image quality approaches the X100 so they are pretty close to my eyes. Cost and size is also more or less the same with a pancake lens on the EM5 (although in the long run the EM5 will cost more given the availability of fantastic lenses in the M43 line
).So in short, the X100 is simpler, closer to the look and usage of an M (albeit an AF one) and delivers superior images but the EM5 is an interchangeable lens camera that has much more technology in it and can also deliver excellent images compared to the X100.
I have decided to get the Olympus.
Any opinions on this matter is welcomed and appreciated!
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Get the Olympus. I believe you'll be pleasantly surprised by its IQ, high ISO capability, and handling. Plus, you get the versatility of all those Panasonic and Olympus lenses.
rbelyell
Well-known
i think your analysis is pretty spot on, as i have both cameras. i do think both can happily co exist in ones bag, but if you want to shoot you MF lenses digitally, obviously the X is not the cam for you.
honestly, while i fully expected the oly to disappoint at low light, it actually exceeds the hype. imo, its very close to the X at 3200, really just a difference in processing, or 'look', but not much in noise or resolution.
at iso 200 i do find the X photos have more depth and edge to edge clarity, but i attribute this to the olys stronger AA filter. the oly is not pocketable--its 'chunkier' than it appears--; the X is pocketable and light.
as a 'go to' camera youve made the right choice; as a 'second' camera the analysis is more complex...
good luck!
tony
honestly, while i fully expected the oly to disappoint at low light, it actually exceeds the hype. imo, its very close to the X at 3200, really just a difference in processing, or 'look', but not much in noise or resolution.
at iso 200 i do find the X photos have more depth and edge to edge clarity, but i attribute this to the olys stronger AA filter. the oly is not pocketable--its 'chunkier' than it appears--; the X is pocketable and light.
as a 'go to' camera youve made the right choice; as a 'second' camera the analysis is more complex...
good luck!
tony
thegman
Veteran
I've only ever fondled in the shops, but I kind of prefer the X100. I find the EVF on both cameras a bit pokey compared to the EVF on say, a Sony A65. The X100 has the OVF though, and not much more than half the price of the Olympus, in the UK at least. The Olympus looks superb, but for me, too much money for what it is.
ChrisP
Grain Lover
I've used Olympus for a while (4/3 not m4/3) and used to own an x100. Olympus just seems to make much more well rounded cameras than Fuji (from my limited experiences and what I've read online). Olympus doesn't have any major flaws in any of their cameras except for having outdated sensors on everything pre-OM-D. Olympus menus makes more sense than fuji's, MF is usable with Olympus (not fuji), Oly cameras feel more responsive, Olympus doesn't update firmware often because they don't have to where as Fuji seems to do this all the time, AF on the Olympus is much faster.
Olympus seems to take care of all the little things that don't show up on spec sheet very well.
Olympus seems to take care of all the little things that don't show up on spec sheet very well.
malthusiantrap
Established
Coming from a Nikon D90 + 35/1.8, portability is my main consideration for the replacement camera. But as long as the Olympus fits in my bag comfortably it should be okay, as my pockets are for my phone and wallet, not for cameras.
malthusiantrap
Established
I agree, it is still too much money for what it is right now. I hope prices normalize when it becomes readily available.
Deep Fried
Established
isn't the X100 considerably cheaper? By the time you add a fast prime to the OMD the total bill will be nearly double, no? Just something to consider...
malthusiantrap
Established
Well the only lens I see myself using with the OMD is the 20/1.7 and the 14/2.5. Price is about $1600 which I guess is not bad compared to $1200 given that I have two FLs. I am also selling my rarely used D90 outfit and that will help out a lot towards the lenses.
Paul Luscher
Well-known
I went with the EM-5. But then I'm an Olympus fanboi anyway (OM-2, E-3...)
Any opinions on this matter is welcomed and appreciated!
You may want to factor in that the E-M5 is hard to buy right now. Both are great cameras, so you cannot go wrong otherwise.
Deep Fried
Established
The OMD looks really cool, but I'm not seeing anything great from the normal-wide primes. I think the X100 has a better lens than what is available for m4/3 right now.
malthusiantrap
Established
I already decided to go with the EM-5. Not being available right now is actually a good thing for me. It just means that I'll be holding on to my money longer.
Having money in one's pocket is always a good thing
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
I had an X100 and sold it when I got my OM-D. Have not looked back (though I did get a Leica M3 because the X100 made me really miss an optical viewfinder and a REALLY simple camera).
Here's what I think:
The X100 is not really simple at all. It has nice manual controls but it's still a complicated digital camera at heart. On the other side, the OM-D also has manual controls. In two comparable restaurant shoots, one done with the X100 and one with the OM-D, the OM-D got out of my way A LOT more than the X100. I rarely had to dive into menus on the OM-D and basically only had to change the aperture and sometimes the ISO and advance mode, all very easy on the OM-D.
The X100 isn't really better than the OM-D in high ISO/Image quality. I also thought there might be, but in practice it isn't so. The OM-D is really quite a performer.
The OVF on the X100 is kinda cool, but the EVF is not. I would not lump them together and put them against the A65. The OM-D's is much smoother and quicker than that of the X100, which as a noticeable lag. It is better than the EVF in the A57, which I have, and not as contrasty as the one I saw in the A77 which I didn't like at all (maybe it was set wrong?) I have found it very nice to use and though I liked the direct view of the X100's OVF I'd rather have a WYSIWYG finder...and less motion sickness than when I had the X100 set on auto image review, and the reviewed image would always show the parallax effect. Not pleasant.
At least in my direct comparison, I wouldn't agree with your analysis. The OM-D is a better designed camera and that makes it simpler to use, and the new sensor combined with Olympus's excellent, excellent JPEG processing makes it a great camera.
And I say that also admitting that I liked the X100. Alot. It was a really fun camera and it takes nice images. But it's limitations just became crystal clear when I got the OM-D.
I even thought I'd save the X100 as a companion to it, but found I rarely touched it, and simply wanted an M3 again for a REAL rangefinder experience. It plays nice in the camera bag with the OM-D, too. Check out the family portrait, attached.
Here's what I think:
The X100 is not really simple at all. It has nice manual controls but it's still a complicated digital camera at heart. On the other side, the OM-D also has manual controls. In two comparable restaurant shoots, one done with the X100 and one with the OM-D, the OM-D got out of my way A LOT more than the X100. I rarely had to dive into menus on the OM-D and basically only had to change the aperture and sometimes the ISO and advance mode, all very easy on the OM-D.
The X100 isn't really better than the OM-D in high ISO/Image quality. I also thought there might be, but in practice it isn't so. The OM-D is really quite a performer.
The OVF on the X100 is kinda cool, but the EVF is not. I would not lump them together and put them against the A65. The OM-D's is much smoother and quicker than that of the X100, which as a noticeable lag. It is better than the EVF in the A57, which I have, and not as contrasty as the one I saw in the A77 which I didn't like at all (maybe it was set wrong?) I have found it very nice to use and though I liked the direct view of the X100's OVF I'd rather have a WYSIWYG finder...and less motion sickness than when I had the X100 set on auto image review, and the reviewed image would always show the parallax effect. Not pleasant.
At least in my direct comparison, I wouldn't agree with your analysis. The OM-D is a better designed camera and that makes it simpler to use, and the new sensor combined with Olympus's excellent, excellent JPEG processing makes it a great camera.
And I say that also admitting that I liked the X100. Alot. It was a really fun camera and it takes nice images. But it's limitations just became crystal clear when I got the OM-D.
I even thought I'd save the X100 as a companion to it, but found I rarely touched it, and simply wanted an M3 again for a REAL rangefinder experience. It plays nice in the camera bag with the OM-D, too. Check out the family portrait, attached.
Attachments
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
Malthusiantrap...
Darn, overtaken by events and preaching to the choir. So what I meant to say was...Good choice! Tell us if you think so too when you get it.
Darn, overtaken by events and preaching to the choir. So what I meant to say was...Good choice! Tell us if you think so too when you get it.
malthusiantrap
Established
Thanks for your well written comparison between the two. What I know is based from various separate reviews of the two I've read on the net but reading your comparison based from actual use is valuable.
fireblade
Vincenzo.
Hi RFF
Any opinions on this matter is welcomed and appreciated!
i bought both and solved the dilemma
rbelyell
Well-known
it always makes me smile, and scratch my head, when i read how horribly complicated the x100 is, as if it was a freaking spaceship! its a camera for gods sake, and operating it is not brain surgery! frame, focus, shoot, good god!
and while ive weighed in on the oly being the right pick for the author, lets set the 'degree of difficulty' thing straight: fuji 2 pages of menus, one shooting focused, one setting focused. the oly 5--count 'em--FIVE pages of menus that lack any basic logic at all.
now i have and enjoy both cameras. i have no problem 'working' either. but certainly, judging only on navigability, the oly menu system is the single worse i have ever seen in ten years and a couple dozen digicams.
but please, lets refrain from hyperbole in terms of camera difficulty of operation. remember, frame, focus, shoot--not so hard really.
tony
and while ive weighed in on the oly being the right pick for the author, lets set the 'degree of difficulty' thing straight: fuji 2 pages of menus, one shooting focused, one setting focused. the oly 5--count 'em--FIVE pages of menus that lack any basic logic at all.
now i have and enjoy both cameras. i have no problem 'working' either. but certainly, judging only on navigability, the oly menu system is the single worse i have ever seen in ten years and a couple dozen digicams.
but please, lets refrain from hyperbole in terms of camera difficulty of operation. remember, frame, focus, shoot--not so hard really.
tony
nikku
Well-known
Then you're apparently not paying attention. The 25/1.4 PanaLeica Summilux is outstanding. The 14/2.5 Panny is highly underrated. The 20/1.7 Panny is a superb performer at an amazing price point. CV just came out with a native mount 17.5/0.95 manual focus gem. On the shorter end, the 12/2 is, from all accounts, nice, and on the longer end, the 45/1.8 is a stunner. BTW, all of these lenses can be used wide open with little penalty in sharpness, distortion, CA, or even vignetting! Add that to in-body stabilization that is nothing short of a miracle (4 stops easy, 5 if you're good) and files that are nice and clean up to 3200 ISO, and you can shoot in near darkness.
I think that the EM5 represents an excellent value, when you start to add everything together.