Choose X-T1 or E-M1?

[AlterEgo]

In the midst of this claimed superiority of E-M1

Е-М1 has smaller sensor (that's a fact) and different color (that's a taste) in OOC JPG and with default camera profiles/raw converters (may be less so when you craft your own)... in terms of the lenses everybody can decide for himself... different ergonomics also appeal differently... the key thing is not resorst to the hysterical stream of consciousness, that is perfectly illustrated by news feed @ www.fujirumors.com (which speaks volumes about the Fuji audience in general).

, if you get your sensor dirty you will find it more difficult to clean it as technically you have to send it back to Olympus.

depends on your ruki.sys, some people can't even clean their own tables from dust leaving that for others.

Now some super users claim the Olympus never gets dust on its sensor but for the mortals this is another thing to consider.

Olympus has ultrasound vibration of what covers the sensor surface, not a simple sensor shake... that indeed works better than a simple sensor shake, but certainly not 100% bullet proof... I no longer own E-M1 (or other m43 cameras), but I'd greatly prefer Olympus implementation of dust busting over what I have in Sony (was A7, not A7RII)... any time that is.

[Bob Rockefeller]

that is perfectly illustrated by news feed @ www.fujirumors.com (which speaks volumes about the Fuji audience in general).

Oh, please. There a fanboys for nearly everything, these days. Olympus, Fuji, Sony, Canon, Nikon...

Back to my original subject: what differences are there between the E-M1 and the X-T1 that would cause someone to choose one over the other. There is no doubt these are both fine cameras - it's the nuances that will make one fit one person well, while someone else is served better by the other.

Most of the conversation on this thread has been helpful.

I'm gathering that these are the things that could lead one away from an E-M1:
   Smaller sensor size creating higher noise at equivalent ISO
   IBIS may make sensor cleaning more difficult
   Some of the M.Zuiko premium lenses have a lot of plastic in their construction
   Shutter shock at lower shutter speeds (without anti-shock=0 which does not apply to continuous release)

And these may lead one away from the X-T1:
   Lenses of equivalent aperture and focal length are somewhat larger and heavier
   None of the very fine primes are stabilized
   The well respected 16-55 f2.8 is not stabilized

What have I missed?

[SZRitter]

Oh, please. There a fanboys for nearly everything, these days. Olympus, Fuji, Sony, Canon, Nikon...

Back to my original subject: what differences are there between the E-M1 and the X-T1 that would cause someone to choose one over the other. There is no doubt these are both fine cameras - it's the nuances that will make one fit one person well, while someone else is served better by the other.

Most of the conversation on this thread has been helpful.

I'm gathering that these are the things that could lead one away from an E-M1:
   Smaller sensor size creating higher noise at equivalent ISO
   IBIS may make sensor cleaning more difficult
   Some of the M.Zuiko premium lenses have a lot of plastic in their construction
   Shutter shock at lower shutter speeds (without anti-shock=0 which does not apply to continuous release)

And these may lead one away from the X-T1:
   Lenses of equivalent aperture and focal length are somewhat larger and heavier
   None of the very fine primes are stabilized
   The well respected 16-55 f2.8 is not stabilized

What have I missed?

Processing RAW files (unless you specifically were interested in jpeg only) is trickier (or at least it used to be) with the X-Trans sensor layout. For a long time, Adobe was getting mediocre, at best, results from that sensor due to the filter array. I know it has been improved, but I wouldn't be surprised if you can still get a bit more out of the traditional Bayer than the X-Trans in certain respects.

[rdonson]

Processing RAW files (unless you specifically were interested in jpeg only) is trickier (or at least it used to be) with the X-Trans sensor layout. For a long time, Adobe was getting mediocre, at best, results from that sensor due to the filter array. I know it has been improved, but I wouldn't be surprised if you can still get a bit more out of the traditional Bayer than the X-Trans in certain respects.

I'm more than happy with my X-T1 files since learning how to process them in Lr.  You simply can't sharpen X-Trans the same way you can with Bayer.  Another point is don't use "Adobe Standard" when importing your files into Lr or ACR.  That produces images as dull as dishwater.

http://petebridgwood.com/wp/2014/10/x-trans-sharpening/

I have printed up to 17x22 without a problem from my Fuji files on my Epson P800

[Robert Falconer]

I'd propose to study BClaff's data = http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Fujifilm%20X-T1,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M1

Fuji has advantage almost exactly as the size of APS-C sensor vs m43 sensor (no, it is not 1 stop, quite less than that... Panasonic sensor is 1.9 crop actually, not 2 crop) ... so whether somebody wants to trade what you see in tests vs way better AF / IS and no issues with X-Trans demosaicking is a question to answer

I don't read charts. Shooting professionally with both cameras in challenging real world circumstances, I can say that to my eye the Fuji sensor produces files that are generally richer and have more depth. The Olympus files typically look a bit "thinner", somehow. And detail gets mushy faster, particularly as you climb up the ISO range. On the upside, when used with the PRO and premium Zuikos, the Olympus files do have excellent microcontrast and acuity.

[Robert Falconer]

This is a solid point. But I wonder if the E-M1's IBIS means that you can more often keep it in its "good" ISO range compared the Fuji's unstabilized lens? I'm thinking mostly of the 60mm f2.4 macro, the 23 f1.4, and the 16-55 f2.8.

The answer to your question is yes. But remember that technique only helps you if your subject is stationary.

[Robert Falconer]

Back to my original subject: what differences are there between the E-M1 and the X-T1 that would cause someone to choose one over the other. There is no doubt these are both fine cameras - it's the nuances that will make one fit one person well, while someone else is served better by the other.

I'm not sure anyone here can really help you, Bob, unless they have a better idea of what your shooting requirements and parameters are.

Both of these systems have their relative strengths and weaknesses, but both are also capable of producing outstanding results. To wit:

For Olympus see >> http://buchangrant.format.com/

For Fuji see >> http://www.lovegrovephotography.com/

Your own skills and ability to quickly master the camera will honestly be the biggest determining factor, I think.

Generally speaking, the E-M1 is operationally faster [faster focus, much better facial recognition accuracy]; easier to hold; has a tougher body (I think); and offers IBIS.

Meanwhile, the X-T1 can produce a bit richer cleaner files [also at base ISO] under a bit wider lighting envelope, and has a much better menu system (IMO).

Aesthetics and feature sets beyond that come down to personal preference and what you want to shoot. If you're going to shoot in challenging light a lot, I'd automatically pick the Fuji … and indeed that's what I personally do in the field.

Now to really mess you up: When I'm walking into a photographic situation where I have no idea what to expect, and I absolutely, positively have to get the shot with the minimum of fuss … I still bring my Nikon D3s. 

[Telecaster]

IMO the best way to decide between two competing systems is to try both of 'em. Arrange to borrow or rent, then get some hands-on experience. You'll likely find your decision will make itself.

-Dave-

[JV]

I don't read charts. Shooting professionally with both cameras in challenging real world circumstances, I can say that to my eye the Fuji sensor produces files that are generally richer and have more depth.

+1.  Also the reason why I personally would choose the Fuji over the Olympus...

[Bob Rockefeller]

I don't read charts. Shooting professionally with both cameras in challenging real world circumstances, I can say that to my eye the Fuji sensor produces files that are generally richer and have more depth. The Olympus files typically look a bit "thinner", somehow. And detail gets mushy faster, particularly as you climb up the ISO range. On the upside, when used with the PRO and premium Zuikos, the Olympus files do have excellent microcontrast and acuity.

Is this a reflection of greater dynamic range in the Fuji images? Or more the difference between a Bayer sensor and an X-Trans?

[Bob Rockefeller]

After much reading, gathering of advice, and shooting with both systems, my take comes down to:

If you are doing most of your shooting on-the-run (event, travel, street, etc.), you may like the E-M1 better. If you do most of your shooting more slowly (studio, portrait, landscape, etc.), you may like the X-T1 better.

Why?

The systems have more in common than not. They share high quality construction (except for the X-T1's doors), ample lens selection, high quality optics (if you avoid the lower-end Olympus M.Zuiko lenses), large and excellent EVF, convenient size, significant updates to firmware, and excellent image quality. Neither have above average video capabilities nor dSLR-competitive auto-focus tracking (yet).

Some things are simply personal preference. Do you like more marked control dials? A deeper grip? Are raised control buttons important to you?

The differentiators, in my mind, are:

Fuji X-T1 advantages
Slightly better image quality if you use the "right" RAW converter (but the situation is steadily improving)
Slightly lower high ISO noise
No shutter shock to manage around


Olympus E-M1 advantages
5-axis IBIS - all lenses are thus stabilized
Somewhat more consistent interface
Lenses are slightly smaller and lighter
Off-camera optical TLL flash control is possible

I'm taking both to a friend's wedding in a couple of weeks and that will drive my own personal decision to one or the other.

[AFairley]

I'm more than happy with my X-T1 files since learning how to process them in Lr.  You simply can't sharpen X-Trans the same way you can with Bayer.  Another point is don't use "Adobe Standard" when importing your files into Lr or ACR.  That produces images as dull as dishwater.

http://petebridgwood.com/wp/2014/10/x-trans-sharpening/

I have printed up to 17x22 without a problem from my Fuji files on my Epson P800

Sharpening at the same slider settings is much more aggressive in LR6, so I think the settings in the link in the quote would need to be dialed down - for sure the "tack" setting in LR6 is going to look oversharpened and introduce "squiggles."  Fitzgerald (forget the first name, Barry?, but a Google search will find his blog) has posted a set of X-Trans profiles optimized for LR 6 on his blog (it's the zip numbered 4), that seem to work well.  And agree, with proper sharpening, 17x22 prints are no sweat from X-Trans, even processed entirely in LR (the current version, that is).

[BradSmith]

Bob, you said:

After much reading, gathering of advice, and shooting with both systems, and.........

.......I'm taking both to a friend's wedding in a couple of weeks and that will drive my own personal decision to one or the other.

Bob, given what you already knew about both systems at the time of your first post (a lot), given that you've already used both, given that you're going to use both again soon......why is anyone's personal preferences of any importance to you? 

As I said in post #8, and as many people have said in this thread since then, they are both excellent systems and an individual's choice of which is right for them seems to most often come down to how they are to control, handle and use.  Those are purely personal like/dislike issues.  I'm pretty damn anal in my analyses of things (engineer), but you are way out there ahead of me.  Once again, I suggest you use them at the wedding, and then choose the one that FEELS best from a user standpoint.  If they are tied in your mind after that, choose the cheapest system.
Done.
Brad

[SZRitter]

I have another interesting point, and it is extremely application specific, so bear with me.

Diffraction Limitation and it's effect on usable apertures: So, I like to do longer exposures on occasion, and stacking filters can only get you so far. On a system where lens diffraction sets in later (i.e. larger sensor), you can use smaller apertures to help lengthen your exposure time. So, if long exposures are a thing for you, than considering a larger sensor is possibly a wise investment.

[rdonson]

Sharpening at the same slider settings is much more aggressive in LR6, so I think the settings in the link in the quote would need to be dialed down - for sure the "tack" setting in LR6 is going to look oversharpened and introduce "squiggles."  Fitzgerald (forget the first name, Barry?, but a Google search will find his blog) has posted a set of X-Trans profiles optimized for LR 6 on his blog (it's the zip numbered 4), that seem to work well.  And agree, with proper sharpening, 17x22 prints are no sweat from X-Trans, even processed entirely in LR (the current version, that is).

http://petebridgwood.com/wp/2015/06/lightroom-6-1-and-fuji-x-trans/

BTW the following presets haven't been updated since 2014 so it might not be up to date.

http://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/blog/2014/02/updated-x-trans-sharpening-presets-lightroom

Here's his latest presets

http://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/blog/2015/8/all-of-my-fuji-x-trans-sharpening-presets-for-lightroom-in-one-place

[Robert Falconer]

I have another interesting point, and it is extremely application specific, so bear with me.

Diffraction Limitation and it's effect on usable apertures: So, I like to do longer exposures on occasion, and stacking filters can only get you so far. On a system where lens diffraction sets in later (i.e. larger sensor), you can use smaller apertures to help lengthen your exposure time. So, if long exposures are a thing for you, than considering a larger sensor is possibly a wise investment.

Except that you're forgetting an important piece of that equation. Yes, diffraction sets in sooner with a m43 system, but you only have to stop down half as far to begin with to get equivalent DOF.

I don't normally like to stop m43 lens down below f/8, but I don't need to, because I'm getting the same DOF as a full frame camera at f/16.

And if you're using wider lenses (which is often the case in these types of shooting situations, e.g. landscape work), that much DOF is plenty.

[SZRitter]

Except that you're forgetting an important piece of that equation. Yes, diffraction sets in sooner with a m43 system, but you only have to stop down half as far to begin with to get equivalent DOF.

I don't normally like to stop m43 lens down below f/8, but I don't need to, because I'm getting the same DOF as a full frame camera at f/16.

And if you're using wider lenses (which is often the case in these types of shooting situations, e.g. landscape work), that much DOF is plenty.

I'm not forgetting anything, you are missing the point. This was expressly in relation to shutter speed. If I am shooting bright sun and trying to elongate my shutter speed as much as possible, f16 is two stops better than f8.

[BAB]

I have both the Fuji AF just misses the boat so many times it always wants to choose a brighter background area. It's so touchy trying to keep the focus area in play on moving targets. I like the Fuji files better than the Oly files I like the Fuji experience better than Oly but the Oly comes through with an easier AF system. Putting AF aside my Leica M 240 files blow both Fuji and Oly away! So for me I'm back to my Leica M240. That's unless I'm shooting fast moving kids or need long lenses.

[armand]

I have both the Fuji AF just misses the boat so many times it always wants to choose a brighter background area. It's so touchy trying to keep the focus area in play on moving targets.

I'm not yet sure but I have the feeling this is worse after the last firmware update. It just wants to go for the damn background. I can cope with it at some extent but it should be much easier than this.

[speedyk]

Which one is nicer to focus manually? Can the AF be overridden easily just by moving the focus ring on both of them?