Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: Bob Rockefeller on September 13, 2015, 09:12:38 am
-
No, I'm not looking to start a fanboy flame war. And no, I'm not trolling either group. But I am trying to decide which of these two excellent camera systems fits me best. So I'd like to learn other's perspectives that I may have overlooked in my thinking.
I have them both, for at least a little while longer, and I'm getting a good side-by-side comparison for my own uses. And it's clear to me that they are both far more than good enough to replace any dSLR I might choose. They are both excellent cameras with well developed (and developing) surrounding systems - I just don't want/need to own both. Not that price is immaterial, but I don't intend to make the choice on that.
In my case, I see these compelling features for each system:
Olympus OM-D E-M1
5-axis, in-body, image stabilization
Phase detect auto focus pixels cover more of the frame
The PRO lens series is weather resistant
Lenses are generally smaller and lighter with equivalent maximum aperture
Has a true 1:1 macro lens with a 120mm equivalent field of view
Deeper body grip and more robust door construction
Fiji X-T1
APS-C size sensor
Good high-ISO noise characteristics
Every lens is of exceptional build and optical quality, some are simply world-class
Prime lenses have generally larger maximum apertures
Very well respected by many publicly active Pro photographers
What have I missed, or mis-understood?
-
A big question is "which one feels more natural to your way of working?"
For me, between those two the X-T1 is lightyears ahead of the E-M1 for the way I work, approach photography and interface with my camera. That's partly due to the fact that I grew up on photography in the manual film SLR days and the X-T1 works pretty much like those cameras did where the Oly has a less intuitive and laid out menu driven approach to photography, in comparison.
The downside for my on the X-T1 is the X-trans color array which I don't like as much as a traditional Bayer approach.
But again, it's a very personal decision. Both are more than capable.
-
Bob:
Your list is a great start for sure.
I have been tempted to look at the Olympus, mainly for the screen/video work. But have the X-T1 and still use it often.
Your point on the lenses for the Fuji is good one, as all their glass just works and works well. With the latest Firmware, 4.0, my AF is excellent now with all my glass and I really give Fuji Credit for this. Low AF is excellent now, I just don't get many misses anymore.
After looking at the A7rII, I realized I wasn't giving Fuji enough credit on their EVF, which is also very well designed.
My only real issues with the Fuji:
LR can't get the finer details out of the files, at least to my eyes. Rocks, lichen, etc can take on a plastic look. The only software I have used that can get the details is Irident but it has really no tools and you can't output it as a dng, and re-import to LR, (would love that just for the raw conversion, then finish the work in LR. LR has definitely gotten things better as the haloing around finer details seems to have corrected (tree leaves blue sky). And Adobe seems to have made it a point to work closer with Fuji so I am still hoping for improvements.
The 16MP size of the sensor, I would prefer 20MP to 24MP just for my work and prints. I stitch a lot with the Fuji but there are times I can't and the file size is just a bit small for a 30 x 40 print at 300 dpi. I had hoped to see Fuji grow the MP on the sensor, but that seems not to be happening.
You can't get 100iso in raw, never have understood that, but since the days of the Fuji S2 200 iso has always been the raw limit.
Paul
-
Hard choice for sure.... I have both systems and use both and the list above is a good start. I love the Fuji and used it yesterday at an art fair where we had fun taking photos and my wife used the Olympus. Let me say this and we will have a small report doing up soon about this, the Olympus is one fine system, Small, light weight and the Pro series of lenses are some of the best I have ever used. And, the IBIS is incredible. My story on the Olympus will cover my use of it at a recent state fair. Amazing images using 8mm - through 40-150mm lenses. Also have a story coming on shooting flowers with the extension tubes. My answer is if you are not going to print larger than 17x22 and want a light weight very capable system then the Olympus (any of the bodies) and the Pro series lenses are a great choice. The total system weight is real light and is a breeze to travel with and according to Chris the video quality is excellent.
As far as Fuji goes I have reported on this system here on the site and really enjoy it. I have a ton of lenses for it and they are really good. I would not be surprised to see a 24mp Fuji X-trans this year. There have been lots of rumors. The X-trans as different as it is does an amazing job rendering images. If you find LR doesn't work well, try Capture One. I think C1 really does a great job with the files. There are a few C1 engineers that shoot with the Fuji so I know they are super committed to this line. The easy of use, natural menu system are just some of the nice features. I have taken Fuji files to 30x40 inches and they are very good.
So, no better answers for you. The question for you is what do you want? What is the largest size you want to print? I can't pry the Oly from my wife. I have asked her to write an article about her experiences using it. Her images are incredible. And, as you will see in my upcoming article the high ISO is really good too.
I guess reading this over I just made it more difficult to make a choice.
Kevin Raber
-
I don't know the Fuji, but three more things about the e-m1 that you might consider:
1) M4/3 lens mount means greater lens availability. I use both Oly and Lumix lenses on my e-m1.
2) Wifi. With my smartphone, I can control the camera remotely while seeing the viewfinder image on my phone. Great for macros, birds, portraits.
3) Available battery grip doubles battery life and makes camera easier to handle with long lenses.
-
24MP X-trans would be the ticket for me. Wow. That would be something.
Paul
-
I don't know the Fuji, but three more things about the e-m1 that you might consider:
1) M4/3 lens mount means greater lens availability. I use both Oly and Lumix lenses on my e-m1.
2) Wifi. With my smartphone, I can control the camera remotely while seeing the viewfinder image on my phone. Great for macros, birds, portraits.
3) Available battery grip doubles battery life and makes camera easier to handle with long lenses.
The Fuji has WiFi and a battery; both very similar to the Olympus.
There are somewhat more lenses for m4/3, but I'm not sure that the range is any greater - there's a fair amount of overlap in the Panasonic and Olympus lines. That said, there are differences, such as the Panasonic 40-100 in place of the Olympus 40-150.
-
I guess reading this over I just made it more difficult to make a choice.
Kevin Raber
:)
I didn't so much touch on the negatives, wanting to concentrate on the good stuff. But if Fuji has a negative, to me, is the choice of in-lens image stabilization. I like being able to shoot the Olympus 17mm f1.8 in very low light and have the in-body stabilization to help with that. Fuji has ISO as its only tool there (other than flash, of course).
-
My take on these two systems.....The capabilities are 99% equivalent and the images will be indistinguishable. Therefore, it comes down to FEEL and ease of use for YOU .....and COST.
Feel......Try to find a store that has both and hold them. If your location prevents this, simultaneously rent each with comparable mid range zoom lenses. Adjust the controls. Do they feel naturally located for YOU. How does portrait orientation feel? How do you like the EVF's of each. In other words, how do they FEEL and WORK for YOU. This is the key differentiator.
Cost......Secondly, price out each system with the lenses you know you'd get. In my world, this is the second key differentiator.
I did exactly this when I chose my system 6 months ago.
Brad
-
I did exactly this when I chose my system 6 months ago.
Brad
What did you pick? How has it worked out for you?
-
I loved the x-t1 feel and x-pro1...but cant live with xtrans yet. I have an original x100 with me everyday. That being said... The E-m1 has taken over as my primary camera when i dont need medium format tech cams for my work. For the shooting i do just nothing can compare for me. Heres a few reasons:
1: close focus distance. Unreal. The lenses focus so close compared to other lenses! I love getting close. The 12-40 and 40-150 especially close fo us. With a tc... I have a 420mm equivalent focusing at like 2 or maybe 3 feet. I have been making shots i never could before. (Also considering the size and weight and what positions i get that combo into when shooting amphibians in the wild...)
2. IBIS is exceptionally good. It really works.
3. Focus is remarkably fast and accurate especially in some crazy low light conditions. I can make all the fujis hunt. Ive always missed shots due to the fujis hunting. All of them. The e-m1 always nails it.
4. Full customization and custom settings that can be programmed into the control dial. Having manual + 4 custom settings in the dial is amazing for speed an effeciency in the field.
5. Live composite is amazing for startrails, fireflies, and other long multi-exposure items. I love using this.
So for me the camera allows me to make the shots i want much easier than other cameras. I give up nothing to even my canon ff systems.
-
I've used Canon DSLRs for over a decade. Late last year I bought a Fuji X-T1. I love it. It feels so natural to me. It may seem weird but in many ways it reminds me of my old Canon F1 film camera only a heck of a lot lighter and with a much brighter view finder.
X-Trans threw me for a bit of a loop when I first got the camera. Sharpening in Lightroom was radically different from all the Bayer sensors I've used and I just wasn't getting the results I'd hoped in RAW. Then I found this article and I've been delighted with the image quality ever since.
http://petebridgwood.com/wp/2014/10/x-trans-sharpening/
All this said, I've used my friend's E-M1 and it is a great camera as well. You've got a choice between two wonderful cameras.
-
What did you pick? How has it worked out for you?
The point of my reply was that you've chosen two excellent systems and understand the strengths of each. Now it is personal based on what FEELS best to you, recognizing the cost of each system. My point was, I believe it shouldn't matter to you which I decided was best for me.
Brad
-
Forgot to mention one more major point...for me...
Bracketing. I can bracket in every possible way on the E-M1. It has some seriously amazing bracketing options. And I have customized my lens button function to enable the exact bracketing mode I prefer. Instant access when I need it. No digging through menus, or having to set up how many shots in how many stops. And it also fires them off at its fastest frame rate available. And I can trigger them from my phone if I don't want to touch the camera at all, even with a release. Thank you olympus! Someone gets it! (i do 360-panorams and this is the best feature ever when shooting nadir shots with the camera hanging from a boom arm!)
Fuji on the other hand doesn't realize that people bracket shots. Actually, maybe they are still on the days of film...because you can't bracket more than one stop above and below. Thats it. And its a pain to turn on and off.
And having to bracket manually with the shutter speed dial for anything more means I have to touch the camera, which means I may throw off my registration between shots even if I'm on a tripod. This is the other big feature that kept Fuji out of my heavy duty use camera list. Fuji feel great...but if can't serve my purpose and make the shots I need it to in the most efficient way...Its just not worth it. Im a sucker for big sensors, but nothing has yet pulled off the shots I make like the E-m1.
-
Fiji X-T1
...Good high-ISO noise characteristics...What have missed, or mis-understood?...
Fuji for a nominal ISO after 1600-2000 simply writes an instruction in a raw file for a raw converter to add a hidden expocorrection (or may be even does not do this - it is up for a raw converter to know)... so you mean good low ISO noise characteristics, right ?
-
The Fuji has WiFi and a battery; both very similar to the Olympus.
Panasonic 40-100 in place of the Olympus 40-150.
Panasonic 35-100
-
The 16MP size of the sensor
Fuji is bound to switch to 24mp APS-C sensors eventually, and m43 already have 20mp sensor available (as in GX8)... that is if you plan what will be in the next 1-2-3 years in either system
-
Long time ago, the X-E1 and the E-M5 were just launched and I had to choose between those two.
At that time the E-M5 felt a little too tiny and I didn't like that you practically had to add the grip for proper handling instead of having it built in. The E-M1 fixed this.
The other factor was the quality of the kit zoom, and despite the Olympus being WR the Fuji was running circles around it.
That being said, with all I know know the choice would be much harder.
I love Fuji colors but I don't like X-Trans; I can live with it but it is a nuisance.
Fuji's focus is acceptable but it has flaws. The lenses are however great and that's what's keeping me the most with the system.
From what I've seen the m43 have some noise at base iso which I dislike profoundly.
I also have a full frame Nikon now that gets a fair share of my time and because of this I would probably choose the Olympus now, as the APS-C is too close to full frame.
If I didn't have the full frame the choice would be again harder. Is anything in particular that you need and one system doesn't provide?
For people shots and some landscapes (depending on the converter) the Fuji seems to have the uppper hand. For handhold shots of fixed objects they seem even.
Fuji is however great for b&w even with(or because of) x-trans.
-
PS. the reason I added Fuji was because Nikon decided that quality APS-C dedicated lenses are not needed (except the tank of 17-55 and the 35 1.8 DX)
-
As noted by someone here....the m43 show a bit of noise even at base ISO. This drives me nuts too. It's more of a fine grain...but it doesn't mess up any details, nor does it alter color or introduce artifacts. And this is only visible in certain items. I find I sharpen the Olympus a lot less and this looks better in that regards. Doesn't make the grain as obvious.
However when it came down to swirly artifacts and other strange xtrans issues versus a slight grain...the grain won every time. Even printed at 30 inches without upres, ide rather see grain than swirls...as much as I love Fuji.
-
Fuji for a nominal ISO after 1600-2000 simply writes an instruction in a raw file for a raw converter to add a hidden expocorrection (or may be even does not do this - it is up for a raw converter to know)... so you mean good low ISO noise characteristics, right ?
I meant relatively low noise at higher ISO.
I don't understand what you mean about Fuji's handling of ISOs above 1600. Could you explain that some more?
-
As I read the input here, take pictures with both camera, and read reviews across the web, I wonder if the questions boil down to one:
Does the E-M1's smaller sensor size suit better me than the X-T1's lack of stabilized "fast glass" (f2.8 or better - except for the 50-140 f2.8)?
The smaller, stabilized, sensor in the E-M1 leads to overall higher noise (at equivalent ISO) and greater depth of field (at equivalent focal length and aperture). But the lack of stabilization on Fuji fast glass, and smaller apertures on the stabilized lenses, can lead to the same place - higher ISO and greater depth of field.
On so many other points the cameras are essentially, or exactly, equal.
Are there some other significant differences?
-
Bob, I went through the same amount of mental gymnastics before choosing my X-T1. You can't go wrong with either camera. Until you put either one of these in your hands and use them you won't be able to really decide. The sensor size, noise levels, which produces better IQ, etc. are simply pixel peeping that in the end don't matter all that much because the differences are small. Decide based on which one feels right to you.
-
Are there some other significant differences?
I think there is a significant difference that hasn't been emphasized here. The Olympus cameras are "fully typically digital" - and I don't mean that in a bad way. Wheels to control things, menu diving for the rest, etc. and VERY highly configurable so that you don't have to do a lot of menu diving - once set up to your liking.
The Fuji X-T1 more "analog" in the control layout as a "significant" difference in the handling of the two cameras. Fuji is all rings and dials and buttons and "everything visible at a glance."
I think this difference in "style of use" is probably more significant than the differences in image quality for all but very large prints.
Therefore, I think renting each and using it for a week or so will tell you more than "spec comparisons" would ever do. You can't lose either way.
Rand
-
The Olympus cameras are "fully typically digital" - and I don't mean that in a bad way. Wheels to control things, menu diving for the rest, etc. and VERY highly configurable so that you don't have to do a lot of menu diving - once set up to your liking.
The Fuji X-T1 more "analog" in the control layout as a "significant" difference in the handling of the two cameras. Fuji is all rings and dials and buttons and "everything visible at a glance."
This is true and is a significant difference.
The E-M1 has a pretty traditional, modern, dSLR-style interface - lots of buttons that can change the effect of the anonymous dials. Customizable buttons and a nice Super Control Panel allow you to avoid the worst of the menu hunt (through what may not be the best organized menus in the business).
But it's very different, mostly analog, approach the X-T1 has taken. As I use the X-T1, I'm struck by how well Fuji has done in this analog regard, and how many times the real nature of a digital camera pokes through.
For example, the aperture ring on many of their lenses is not marked, either because the lens has a variable aperture or they just didn't do it. In those cases, the aperture ring becomes "just another dial" on a modern camera. Not a bad thing, but a crack in the veneer.
Another example is the case of changing auto-focus modes (single point, group, or wide tracking). That can be done from within a menu or from the Quick Menu display. No analog possibilities there. And still another is selecting ⅓ point shutter speeds - the dial is in full stops (plus maximum flash sync) and you use a modifier to get "in between."
None of that suggests Fuji engineers made bad choices or a poor design; simply that a modern, advanced, digital camera has gone far beyond what analog controls would reasonably allow for.
-
I had an Olympus, loved the IBIS. I could mount an old 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit and have a 180mm f/2.8 stabilized lens. But... as a number of people have stated, the Oly did have noise at base iso that was annoying to me. I've never really had a problem with the X-trans sensor and now it's even better in Lightroom. While the difference in size is small, sensor real estate matters, maybe that's the source of the base iso noise in the Oly.
In any case, I shoot almost all primes with my X T-1 and find them to be absolutely superb. Yes, my D800E on a tripod with live view, beats all... if you make a large enough print. But who really makes many 30x40 prints? Honestly.
The op is in a pretty much no lose situation. It all depends on what you love and what bothers you about a given system. For me, I could not abide the noise, for others it's x-trans. I'm hoping for a 24MP X Pro-2. I always liked the form factor of my X E-1.
Best of luck.
-
Something not mentioned so far is the difference in format shape......both cameras are 16 mp but cropping away pixels may be undesirable for larger printing sizes. If you like/use/prefer, the 'squarer' format as favoured by m43 then that camera will give you the best compromise as the APS-C requires the sides cropped off to emulate it, thus losing pixels. If you prefer a longer fomat shape or are engaged in stage photography etc then the APS has the upper hand and the m43 will lose the most pixels because the top and bottom edges have to be cropped away....
-
I would propose that the Fuji wins on overall IQ and high ISO performance, with an overall greater richness and depth in the files [though the Olympus offers excellent image acuity and strong performance, too, below ISO 800. I prefer not to go past 1600 with the Olympus [3200 if I must], though with the Fuji I will push to 6400 if need be. 3200 most assuredly looks better from the Fuji than it does from the Olympus.
Generally, however, I find that the Olympus sensor needs a better "quality" of light to perform optimally.
As Kevin said, Capture One is excellent for the Fuji files. Meanwhile, the Olympus files seem to do best with DXO Optics Pro. Olympus Viewer software is excellent, too, but it's dog slow and the interface isn't particularly intuitive.
Ergonomically, it mostly comes down to personal taste when comparing the X-T1 and E-M1. The former is more retro, something we veteran shooters often tend to gravitate to, and a facility that enables fast control of dials without having to hunt through menus, potentially speeding up operation.
The Olympus body is probably a bit more rugged overall, and the deeper grip is definitely beneficial. Despite a more contemporary control interface, the Olympus controls are superbly laid out once you have everything configured to your taste. Olympus' menu system is atrocious, though.
I would say EVFs are a wash. And I would say lens quality between the two lines is similarly a toss-up; both make superb optics with lots of choices for discerning shooters.
Autofocus speed goes to the Olympus … by a nose. Though the X-T1's new tracking modes with the 4.0 firmware update offer more versatility, I think.
The m4/3 system will be a bit smaller overall once you factor in lenses.
At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself: what am I going to shoot with this camera?
There will definitely be an X-Pro 2 next year, and you can expect at least 24mp. That's all I can say.
-
I would propose that the Fuji wins on overall IQ and high ISO performance, with an overall greater richness and depth in the files [though the Olympus offers excellent image acuity and strong performance, too, below ISO 800. I prefer not to go past 1600 with the Olympus [3200 if I must], though with the Fuji I will push to 6400 if need be. 3200 most assuredly looks better from the Fuji than it does from the Olympus.
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.
-
I would propose that the Fuji wins on overall IQ and high ISO performance
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
-
But I wonder if the E-M1's IBIS
also - Fuji does not have EFCS either, so even pseudo EFCS in E-M1 scores...
-
though with the Fuji I will push to 6400 if need be. 3200 most assuredly looks better from the Fuji
Fuji does not go with real gain in camera after ~ISO1600 past that you simply get a tag in a raw file instruction raw converter to add a hidden exposure correction... so if you are a raw shooter you do not compare ISO6400 @ Fuji with ISO6400 @ Olympus... you equal the exposure (aperture and exposure time) and select the best ISO for both cameras... and that is not ISO6400 mind you... certainly for a OOC JPG shooter that's does not work, there you compare @ equal ISO
-
Fuji does not go with real gain in camera after ~ISO1600 past that you simply get a tag in a raw file instruction raw converter to add a hidden exposure correction.
Since DxOMark does not test x-trans sensors, is there a definitive comparison of Fuji's ISO vs measured ISO somewhere else?
-
Since DxOMark does not test x-trans sensors, is there a definitive comparison of Fuji's ISO vs measured ISO somewhere else?
yes, I posted the link... or you simply can convert Fuji raws to DNG with Adobe tools and check the tag that control a hidden exposure correction (along with the constant tag in DCP camera profile) for ACR/LR... that simple... you can see what Fuji does @ higher nominal ISOs
-
yes, I posted the link... or you simply can convert Fuji raws to DNG with Adobe tools and check the tag that control a hidden exposure correction (along with the constant tag in DCP camera profile) for ACR/LR... that simple... you can see what Fuji does @ higher nominal ISOs
That link suggests the the X-T1 loses no dynamic range above 3200 indicated ISO. It doesn't tell me whether Fuji's ISO is "real" or overstated.
Something like this: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Olympus/OM-D-E-M1---Measurements
Am I missing something about the data?
-
That link suggests the the X-T1 loses no dynamic range above 3200 indicated ISO.
it shows that Fuji stops applying either analog (pre ADC) and/or digital (post ADC) gain and simply switches to tag in raw file...
-
It doesn't tell me
then some reading of the author is prescribed = http://www.dpreview.com/members/9263714680/forums/posts?forum=1020
-
In the midst of this claimed superiority of E-M1 ( I wonder why so many people still get the X-T1 if E-M1 is so much better), 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.
Now some super users claim the Olympus never gets dust on its sensor but for the mortals this is another thing to consider.
-
In the midst of this claimed superiority of E-M1 ( I wonder why so many people still get the X-T1 if E-M1 is so much better)
Horses for courses - the X-T1 has its individual strenghts.
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.
I hadn't read anything on that. What makes it more difficult than any other sensor?
-
Horses for courses - the X-T1 has its individual strenghts.
I hadn't read anything on that. What makes it more difficult than any other sensor?
IBIS - the sensor is not fixed which makes cleaning more challenging.
For the X-T1 is similar to the DSLRs (a little easier, as there is no mirror and it's closer to the mount).
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ;)
-
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-
-
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...
-
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?
-
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.
-
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).
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Which one is nicer to focus manually? Can the AF be overridden easily just by moving the focus ring on both of them?
-
Which one is nicer to focus manually? Can the AF be overridden easily just by moving the focus ring on both of them?
Can't speak to the OLy, but the Fuji X-T1 with latest firmware allows you to put it into AF+MF mode so that after AF locks you can fine tune with focus ring. In addition, many of the prime Fuji lenses have the focus ring work like a clutch. Pull back on the focus ring, it clicks into place for full manual focus. Very nice.
Rand
-
Which one is nicer to focus manually? Can the AF be overridden easily just by moving the focus ring on both of them?
Interesting, there must be some changes inside the bodies, as my XT-1 was transformed with the 4.0 firmware and AF. Low light is now around 98% hit, and in focus, and low contrast subjects also hit most of the time. I have not worked with moving subjects, so that may be the difference. But for static, the difference really was impressive. Even on small birds, with the 55-200, the difference was impressive.
But to me, where Fuji has done the most work is the glass, they really have some excellent lenses. If Fuji does come out with a 24MP camera, I will be in big trouble. Sadly it seems the X-pro will be first and that is not a favorite of mine, so hopefully it will flow to he XT-1 platform.
The AF on the XT-1 can be over-ridden with a front dial, and on some of the lenses you have a MF-AF clutch. Lenses that come to mind, the 14mm F2.8, 55-200, and I believe the 60mm Macro also.
Paul
-
Of note the EM1 + EM5 II are getting a firmware update in November.
http://www.43rumors.com/e-m1-and-e-m5ii-firmware-updates-coming-end-november-e-m1-gets-silent-shutter-fokus-bracketing-2425fps-electornic-stabilization/ (http://www.43rumors.com/e-m1-and-e-m5ii-firmware-updates-coming-end-november-e-m1-gets-silent-shutter-fokus-bracketing-2425fps-electornic-stabilization/)
Also why would the choice be between the EM1 + XT1, when the EM5 II [in my view] is the better Olympus camera at the moment. Not to mention that an EM1 II is not far away.
-
Of note the EM1 + EM5 II are getting a firmware update in November.
http://www.43rumors.com/e-m1-and-e-m5ii-firmware-updates-coming-end-november-e-m1-gets-silent-shutter-fokus-bracketing-2425fps-electornic-stabilization/ (http://www.43rumors.com/e-m1-and-e-m5ii-firmware-updates-coming-end-november-e-m1-gets-silent-shutter-fokus-bracketing-2425fps-electornic-stabilization/)
Also why would the choice be between the EM1 + XT1, when the EM5 II [in my view] is the better Olympus camera at the moment. Not to mention that an EM1 II is not far away.
some people like the handling (specifically the crowd considering Fuji bodies at all)... EM1 handles better than any EM5*
-
Of note the EM1 + EM5 II are getting a firmware update in November.
http://www.43rumors.com/e-m1-and-e-m5ii-firmware-updates-coming-end-november-e-m1-gets-silent-shutter-fokus-bracketing-2425fps-electornic-stabilization/ (http://www.43rumors.com/e-m1-and-e-m5ii-firmware-updates-coming-end-november-e-m1-gets-silent-shutter-fokus-bracketing-2425fps-electornic-stabilization/)
Also why would the choice be between the EM1 + XT1, when the EM5 II [in my view] is the better Olympus camera at the moment. Not to mention that an EM1 II is not far away.
With that firmware release in November it's unlikely the E-M1 II is that close. There are some rumors for 1 year from now.
-
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.
Or you could simply use a neutral density filter(s) to cut the light transmission and help you elongate that shutter speed further … despite your assertion that filter stacking "can only get you so far".
Again, no functional disadvantage for m43 in this regard.
-
I just came across a FB post regarding a failed camera strap eyelet on the EM1. Not a unique occurrence by the replies.
Can't directly link to post, so look for it on this page.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/336135023136969/?fref=ts
-
some people like the handling (specifically the crowd considering Fuji bodies at all)... EM1 handles better than any EM5*
In your opinion. :P
Besides how could you know about what those choosing between the Fuji and the Olympus may like? Have you asked them all?
-
With that firmware release in November it's unlikely the E-M1 II is that close. There are some rumors for 1 year from now.
My dealer mentioning something to about a new EM1 camera being forthcoming, but he was under NDA re details. Don't think it was the new EM10 II as it was only a few of weeks back and the EM10 II was well known by then.
-
My dealer mentioning something to about a new EM1 camera being forthcoming, but he was under NDA re details. Don't think it was the new EM10 II as it was only a few of weeks back and the EM10 II was well known by then.
I hope, that will give me another choice for a smaller weather sealed camera system for hiking/traveling light. Has to lose that low iso noise though.
Funny (or not) that my local camera store doesn't stock any Olympus (only Panasonic on the m43 side) as they are concerned Olympus will go belly up.
-
The AF on the XT-1 can be over-ridden with a front dial, and on some of the lenses you have a MF-AF clutch. Lenses that come to mind, the 14mm F2.8, 55-200, and I believe the 60mm Macro also.
Paul
The only one that I've seen on the higher end that doesn't have the MF-AF switch is the 27 2.8, and the 14 and 23 don't have the clutch but pull-push the focus ring to bring them in manual focus.
It's also worth mentioning that from firmware 3 I think you have MF override on AF.
-
I'm interested in the same topic and have some thoughts on the subject. I have a canon 5dii, fuji x100s, and a panasonic G7. By far, the G7 is the most fun too use and I think the same can be said about most higher end m43 cameras; there just so damn compact and operationally fast. Add in the IBIS, and the Olympus offerings are enticing.
I will say fuji x-trans files are better looking in general than m43 files, but the m43 files are not far behind. Think about how you want to use the system as a whole. Olympus has some very useful lenses in their pro series zooms and that kit will be hell of a lot smaller than any other system for what you get. Also is weather sealing important to you? Most the weather sealed zooms for Fujifilm are massive by comparison to the Olympus or Panasonic lens equivalents, which is an important point for outdoor landscape photographers.
Ask yourself how you want to approach photography and choose a system that best supports that. If massive gallery prints are your desire, neither of these camera may be a good choice.