Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: jemsurvey on February 08, 2017, 04:05:10 pm
-
Hello All,
I have been an Olympus m4/3 user for many years and before that an Olympus film camera user. I would like to get into an APS-C size sensor in a mirrorless type camera with good EVF. I have been looking around but nothing seems to perk my interest in this category except the Fuji X-T2. I have seen some very good images, they appear to have good to very good lenses and the reviews have been mostly above average, but I do have some concerns about this system and am hoping the collective knowledge of users on this site can offer some feedback.
I am disappointed the Fuji does not have IBIS as I've been around awhile and I don't see myself getting younger anytime soon. I know several of their zoom lenses have OIS but I'm don't have experience with lens stabilization to know what to expect, especially coming from the Oly with a formidable IBIS system. And I don't see any of the Fuji primes with OIS. What can I expect realistically from the OIS lenses? In general do the body and prime combinations result in a fairly balanced unit? I have seen some of the primes appear to be on the larger size.
After exhaustive on-line reading a couple issues concerning sharpening in Lightroom and grid artifacts have me wondering a bit. I don't really want to learn another RAW process as I have been happy with the Lightroom RAW workflow and results. Any feedback from users about these issues (or non-issues) would be appreciated.
And general comments on the X-T2 and Fuji system are welcome.
Also I am open to any other camera recommendations and I appreciate all input.
Thanks again,
John Marrocco
-
I think the XT-2 looks nice too but have the same reservations. I've held one and if feels great in the hand. Substantial but not overly heavy.
Images from the system generally look great. If you are primarily a landscape shooter who uses a tripod the lack of IBIS shouldn't matter. I do enough other shooting in low light that I wanted the stabilization.
I shoot Pentax and love the IBIS and the ruggedized bodies and lenses. I can't recommend them to you if mirrorless is a requirement but if you are willing to reconsider they have some compelling offerings and a path to full frame you could take with the right lenses.
Sony, in particular the A7rII, looks awfully nice too but that also misses your requirement of APS-C.
-
If in camera stabilization is a priority, then Fuji is a no go. Their lens stabilization works well with those lens that have it. I moved from Olympus to Fuji and must say that the stabilization issue isn't a concern for me but then I shot for years using cameras and lens prior to stabilization availability so it is an addition and not a priority.
Love the Fuji cameras!
Dave S
-
If you shoot moving things or you carry a tripod than Fuji is more flexible. If you need a shallow DOF Fuji should be in advantage also.
If however you shout things that tolerate lower shutter speeds, need deeper DOF and the light is not the greatest Olympus will likely have an advantage handheld.
Processing wise, if you don't pixel peep LR is ok without much effort. I do think they dropped the ball color wise vs earlier Fuji cameras but still looks good. For larger prints or if you pixel peep you will need to work harder, and a different raw converter might help also.
-
I prefer to not have the bulk of full frame, though I have looked at Pentax in the past. IBIS not the full determining factor as I used to shoot medium format film handheld all the time...but that was 35 years ago...not as steady now so IBIS would be nice for sure and I prefer working with primes rather than zooms. Most of my shooting these days is walking around, very little tripod work. Mostly process in B&W and would print up to 17" x 22", maybe something occasionally larger.
-
So what exactly do you hope that the APS-C will do for you that the m43 doesn't?
-
My thinking was the larger sensor would give a bit better output at larger print sizes, which up to now I been using the m4/3 files at about 12 x 16 print size.
-
It shouldn't be such a big difference if you get the 20MP sensor for m43.
-
Assuming you are using the 20mp sensor and some of the better m43 lenses, there should be no reason you can't print 24 wonderfully and even to 30" no problem. I was printing that large with the 16mp sensor and it was fine. In fact I have printed extensively from a 12mp sensor at 24" and it is surprisingly good. It all comes down to the rest of the factors.
There is very little quality wise going from a 20mp m43 to a 24mp aps-c. In fact, the jump even to a 24mp full frame isn't as large as you might expect. I own m43, aps-c, 36mm, anda 49mm medium format. Honestly I only use the m43 and the medium format now. Everything in between is just bulky and rarely has a benefit for me at least. I get the results I am after and am quite happy.
The best thing to do is rent another system and try it out back to back. This is best because you get to see it in your workflow. Sensor size is just one small factor. Workflow is huge, ergonomics and feel, lens preference, etc... all make a difference that is more noticeable.
-
I prefer to not have the bulk of full frame, though I have looked at Pentax in the past. IBIS not the full determining factor as I used to shoot medium format film handheld all the time...but that was 35 years ago...not as steady now so IBIS would be nice for sure and I prefer working with primes rather than zooms. Most of my shooting these days is walking around, very little tripod work. Mostly process in B&W and would print up to 17" x 22", maybe something occasionally larger.
If you're comparing a SLR style Fuji with a Sony A7 there can't be much in it bulk and weight wise and if you prefer primes I'd have thought that any significant differences in the size of the camera and lens or even camera and multiple lens package could again be rather minimal.
My mini SLR style Sony A7 and 35mm f2.8 fits in the same small bag my RF style Panasonic MFT GX80 and 17mm f1.8 fits in. That's hardly big. Indeed, I can carry a bag containing my A7+lens and two more prime lenses and filters and it all almost certainly ways less than my Canon 5D and just the one lens.
-
I started with Nikon APS-C then Fuji then Nikon 35mm then m43.
I rarely if ever use the Nikon D90 (although remains a great camera) but do alternate between the others.
If I would have no specific constraints I would use the Fuji. Has good ergonomics and it's easy to use, has great colors to start with and I have the best lenses in Fuji.
On Nikon I have ok to good lenses but to get better than Fuji I would have to pay probably more and have more weight; the files are the most malleable though.
Olympus has a great ratio of weight to quality with the weather sealed lenses making it a good choice for backpacking. It could be the lightest with the smaller primes but Fuji is not that far if you only take a couple of lenses.
If I would make a very brief comparison: Nikon D750, Fuji X-T1/2, Olympus E-M5ii
Ergonomics - Fuji is great, Nikon is very close, Olympus has some way to go (E-M5ii, small buttons and complicated menu)
Focus - Nikon would have the advantage for moving although the X-T2 is much better than I expected; static they would be roughly equal, maybe a touch faster on Nikon but more accurate on the mirrorless
Dynamic range - Nikon is the best, no questions; then Fuji and Oly with Fuji being better
Colors - Fuji is what I prefer, even more on the X-T1; Oly has some good profiles though and Nikon is ok, you can easily work with it.
Lenses - should be roughly even if you start from scratch and have no specific requirements; I have better lenses in the Fuji system, their primes are in general very good and size is acceptable.
Print size - Nikon and Fuji are ahead, Oly is still ok despite 16mp vs the 24mp
High ISO- Nikon then Fuji then Oly as you would expect based on the sensor sizes; Oly is better than I expected but still under Fuji.
-
If you are worried about Lightroom, Fuji X-T2 files in the latest (CC 2015.8) have no artifacts of any kind. Sharpening works exactly like any other camera too. The camera profiles are not bad at all, either very close or spot on with the in camera ones. I think Fuji gave a lot of help to Adobe this time around to make everything work well.
You can check it yourself with these RAW samples I've found online (https://www.dropbox.com/s/4lq46m3zqqvvim4/Fuji%20X-T2%20Samples.zip?dl=1).
-
A few years ago, I augmented my system (Nikon D810) with a Fuji X-T1. Since then I’ve upgraded to the X-T2. Both cameras are excellent, though the X-T2 is unquestionably an improvement over its predecessor. The Fujinon lenses, particularly the primes, are really quite good, both optically and in their build quality. Though my Fuji kit won’t be replacing the Nikon anytime soon, as a walk-around solution or if circumstances prevent me from taking the much heavier and bulkier Nikon system, the Fuji is a viable compromise which has never disappointed me. Regarding post-processing, the X-Trans sensor does create some workflow problems. I’ve been a Lightroom user since Version 1. Unfortunately, Adobe demosaicing of X-Trans files leaves much to be desired. Granted, it has gotten better, however I personally am still not really happy with the results. For me, Iridient Developer (for Mac) produces the best results. Because of that, I usually first import the RAF files into Iridient Developer (from LR) and have ID do the demosaicing, produce a 16-Bit TIFF, and export it back into Lightroom. Not exactly ideal, but doable and I find the results noticeably better than when I rely solely on Lightroom. Regarding IBIS, as a landscape photographer, most of my work is done on a tripod so it really isn’t an issue for me. Having said that, the question of whether IBIS might be implemented in a future Fuji camera is a topic often discussed on Fuji forums. Fujifilm is a company which generally listens to the wishes of their customers. Perhaps it’s only a question of time. Best of luck with your decision!
Larry
-
I would love IBIS in a Fuji but then I recall you are supposed to send your Oly back for sensor cleaning and things look a little better.
-
I would love IBIS in a Fuji but then I recall you are supposed to send your Oly back for sensor cleaning and things look a little better.
Is this a fact? You can clean Sony sensors that have IBIS yourself without issue. Do you know for sure that the Olympus sensors need to be cleaned by Olympus.
-
Assuming you are using the 20mp sensor and some of the better m43 lenses, there should be no reason you can't print 24 wonderfully and even to 30" no problem. I was printing that large with the 16mp sensor and it was fine. In fact I have printed extensively from a 12mp sensor at 24" and it is surprisingly good. It all comes down to the rest of the factors.
There is very little quality wise going from a 20mp m43 to a 24mp aps-c. In fact, the jump even to a 24mp full frame isn't as large as you might expect. I own m43, aps-c, 36mm, anda 49mm medium format. Honestly I only use the m43 and the medium format now. Everything in between is just bulky and rarely has a benefit for me at least. I get the results I am after and am quite happy.
The best thing to do is rent another system and try it out back to back. This is best because you get to see it in your workflow. Sensor size is just one small factor. Workflow is huge, ergonomics and feel, lens preference, etc... all make a difference that is more noticeable.
Amen to that.
-
Is this a fact? You can clean Sony sensors that have IBIS yourself without issue. Do you know for sure that the Olympus sensors need to be cleaned by Olympus.
A quick search didn't give anything as an official policy but as far as I recall it was mentioned multiple times that Olympus was recommending against user wet cleaning, you can find it on dpreview and bythom among others. Many users said Oly's automated sensor cleaning is very effective and you shouldn't need to do it, grain of salt required.
Can it be done by user? Sure, there are many that can but I would check with Olympus before if this voids the warranty. Supposedly if you turn the camera on the sensor doesn't move as freely. So far I didn't have to do it on the Oly while I did it multiple times on the Nikon and Fuji but then again, I have more lenses and change them more often on these 2. Granted, most manufacturers probably recommend against user wet cleaning but I don't think it voids the warranty unless you screw up. Oly also has some anti-static coating on the sensor that you might be removing with wet cleaning.
An older discussion here: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=74701.0
-
I appreciate the discussion and food for thought. Its really down to staying with Oly and getting the E-M1 II or the Fuji X-T2. I'm leaning towards sticking with the m4/3 mainly for the IBIS as I do think I would miss it and Fuji has a limited range of glass with OIS. Though for some reason there is something pulling men to try the Fuji. Not quite sure why but I find their cameras intriguing. I wonder if anyone knows if there is a practical difference in image quality with the Fuji 14 bit files as opposed to the Oly 12 bit files?
Thanks again
-
I appreciate the discussion and food for thought. Its really down to staying with Oly and getting the E-M1 II or the Fuji X-T2. I'm leaning towards sticking with the m4/3 mainly for the IBIS as I do think I would miss it and Fuji has a limited range of glass with OIS. Though for some reason there is something pulling men to try the Fuji. Not quite sure why but I find their cameras intriguing. I wonder if anyone knows if there is a practical difference in image quality with the Fuji 14 bit files as opposed to the Oly 12 bit files?
Thanks again
There is a bit of a difference between the way X-Trans and traditional Bayer layouts handle, depending on your RAW convertor. Supposedly those extra 2-bits should give you a bit better quality, but in practice it is probably negligible. Maybe I missed it, but how invested are you in m43 gear right now? What would be the cost difference of switching?
If it makes you feel better, I've been shooting an X100s side by side with my E-M5, and the image quality difference is usually not huge. In ISO 200 or ISO 100 shooting, if it wasn't for the difference in how LR handles the color array, I'm not sure I would notice a huge difference. If you work the highlights and shadows quite a bit in a single exposure, yes, you can see a slight difference. Learning to shoot the E-M5 to maximize its sensor was the biggest improvement.
-
I'm not that invested as I have an E-M5 and two lenses. I had a theft of a couple Oly lenses and body so I need to replace which is why if I'm going to switch now is the time.
-
My thinking was the larger sensor would give a bit better output at larger print sizes, which up to now I been using the m4/3 files at about 12 x 16 print size.
At 12 x 16, I don't think you will notice a major difference.
I recommend you rent a Fuji setup for the weekend, and see if it works for you. Shoot side by side with your M43 gear for a real comparison.
-
I have tried every fuji released up until the Xpro2 and Xt2. Haven't had time to rent them yet. I have wanted to add them to the stable for the same reason I sold my Leica kit. They feel good. The Xt1 with the 23mm F/1.4 reminded me of old school cameras. There is something "nice" about holding it. Canon & Nikon SLRs, Olympus E-M1, Sony... they just feel like they are made for business. A little of the classic charm is missing. The E-M1 series certainly doesn't lack in use though.
Fuji still has some use quirks...and the bracketing thing is FINALLY worked out I believe. Their lenses are a nice size...not compact...but not big. I miss the IBIS every time I use them. Honestly...the only Fuji that ever convinced me was the X100. 35mm with a 28mm and 50mm option, LEAF SHUTTER, 3-stop ND filter, macro mode, and it fits in my pocket. Oh, and its built in flash is programmed as a fill flash by default and it works GREAT. Only camera ever that this actually works the way we want it to and looks natural, not flashed. I skipped the S and T models... I dont get along with X-trans. I love it for everything but nature and landscape. As a "personal camera" it would be handling a lot of my nature work. I will be renting the F model as soon as I can. Just hoping. If not, my X100 bayer still is in my bag every day and its my fast 35mm lens even when I shoot with other kits. Its a lens with a body attached.
Part of Fuji is the charm and physical touch. Once you get past that, they are on very even footing with Panasonic, Olympus, and Sony. I like their lenses better than Sony. I like some of their primes better than the m43 equivalent. I DO NOT like their zooms. The Oly 12-40 is a magical lens to me.
As for models... the XT1 and 2 have been the best performers. The lower models would never focus well for me, including the XE line. The XPro is nice too...but I just never found need for the OVF as much as I love them. I would honestly try them. Lensrentals.com is great. I use them a lot. No connection or affiliation, but you get good gear every time!
-
I miss the IBIS every time I use them.
I'm sorry but what exactly are you shooting? If it's moving IBIS doesn't help (outside video) and you need to shoot under 1/30-1/60 for IBIS to help with the primes, slower for the OIS zooms.
The Oly 12-40 is a magical lens to me.
Anything in particular that you have in mind?
I have it as well as the 18-55 from Fuji. Outside of the 24 equiv vs 27 equiv and weather sealing I don't see one being better than the other. Both need software correction (Oly even more so considering it has ~ 8% barrel distortion wide) and sharpness is a wash, a little better in the midrange for Oly, a little better at the long end for Fuji.
http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/783-fuji1855f284?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/m43/862_oly1240?start=1
-
Jem,
I have both systems, the original Olympus E-M1 and the Fuji X-T1/T2 and like them both quite a bit. The lenses for both systems are also, on the whole excellent.
While I have a few Oly primes, I personally use the fast Panny zooms, the 12-35 and 35-100 f/2.8 zooms for the vast majority of my work with the E-M1. I very much like the build quality, responsiveness and overall performance of the E-M1. The nice thing about it is you can take it, and the two zooms in a small camera bag (e.g. the Think Tank Mirrorless Mover 20) and have a very capable system for travel, days out, etc.
(http://photos.imageevent.com/puma_cat/omdpics/websize/Oly%20Kit.jpg)
I also have been shooting with the Fuji X system since late 2012; originally the X-Pro1, and subsequently the X-T1 extensively until September when I received the X-T2.
The cameras in both systems are about the same size, but the lenses in the Fuji X-system are slightly larger than the Olympus lenses due to the larger sensor size, but they are still compact enough to be able take easily for a day out shooting or for travel. Of course, they are fully capable for use in a professional context.
On the whole, I personally prefer the Fuji X system. The images overall have a certain "magic" in them that is hard to put your finger on, but that I don't see in the Oly files. The quality of the files of the Oly are excellent, but for me personally, they don't have the overall qualities and color I get from the Fuji X system. I also really prefer the Fuji files for their rendering of skin tones, which I find to be gorgeous, and in comparing the 16 megapixel sensors, the Fuji has better noise performance at high ISO and considerably better auto white balance.
Regarding Fuji RAW (RAF) conversion, I primarily use LR along with Iridient Developer for RAW demosaicing. I use it as a plug-in and and "out and back" only takes about 30 seconds, and have virtually no problems rendering detail in grass, leaves, foliage or other types of high frequency detail. The detail that Iridient can pull out of a Fuji RAF is really quite remarkable. It also has better and more control over recovering shadow and highlight detail than LR does.
Regarding IBIS vs. OIS, personally I prefer OIS because it works better than for larger lens movements than IBIS, but Oly has really done a remarkable job with IBIS on the E-M1 MkII, achieving, from what I've heard from reputable sources, about 6 stops of image stabilization. As I have extensive experience shooting motorsports with big glass handheld, image stabilization has not been a problem for me per se, and in low light, I use a tripod. I even turn the IS off in my Canon pro lenses as it gets in the way for motorsports.
The X-T2, on the whole, and others have pointed out, is quite a step up in performance over the X-T1 on a number of levels, and when you put the vertical power booster grip on it, it turns into quite a veritable performance beast, basically a mini-Canon 1Dx MkII. It's the first mirrorless I've shot with that will allow me to finally sell my Canon 1D-body for my pro motorsports work (my back can't take that big beast anymore...)
Some racing images from the X-T2.
(http://photos.imageevent.com/puma_cat/indycarsonomaraceway2016/Will%20Power.jpg)
(http://photos.imageevent.com/puma_cat/indycarsonomaraceway2016/Hunter-Reay%20T%202.jpg)
(http://photos.imageevent.com/puma_cat/indycarsonomaraceway2016/Dixon%20T1%20Evening_1.jpg)
I think the suggestion here to rent an X-T2 and couple of lenses for a week or two and gather your own assessment is an excellent one. They are both excellent systems.
-
When Will Micro 4/3 Equal Medium-Format Film? We Have the Definitive Answer (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2016/03/when-will-micro-43-equal-medium-format-film-we-have-the-definitive-answer.html)
-
Thanks all for the input. I will be renting a Fuji system to see what I think.
Stephen can you give a brief description of you workflow with LR-ID? Do you start in LR and how much work do you actually do in ID. I seems to me the X-Transformer option to convert to a DNG would be ideal....if it was available for Mac.
-
Thanks all for the input. I will be renting a Fuji system to see what I think.
Stephen can you give a brief description of you workflow with LR-ID? Do you start in LR and how much work do you actually do in ID. I seems to me the X-Transformer option to convert to a DNG would be ideal....if it was available for Mac.
Hi Jem,
I'm away from home right now where I use Iridient Developer, but it runs like any other plug-in in LR. You simply right-click Edit In, and select Iridient Developer. It brings up IRD (my abbreviation for Iridient Developer), and then I select the detail tab for sharpening (you can create your own tweaked presets but the best base preset, Fuji X-Trans Iridient Reveal, is really, really good) and then just select Process and Overwrite file. It has specific sharpening Iridient Reveal presets for each camera, so the X-T2 is a little bit different than the X-T1. I also have a couple of my own presets based on X-trans Iridient Reveal; I tweak the base X-T2 Iridient Reveal sharpening algorithm for my racing photos for a just a touch more micro contrast (clarity), for example. It then creates a TIFF version of your file, which then appears back in LR. It's actually quite simple. I personally don't like creating DNGs as they throw away all the original RAW file metadata, they are limited to 12-bit, and IIRC, they only represent Adobe profiles. Oh, BTW, Iridient has some very nice sharpening presets that are optimized for Fuji X-Trans monochrome as well. When I get home, I will see if I can capture some screen shots that show you my simple little workflow. I really like it a LOT. And Brian Griffiths, the one-man band behind Iridient is brilliant; he keeps making it better and better. Adobe should basically just hire him and put him in charge of RAW conversion algorithms, IMHO (I'm not the first person to suggest this, either! ;))
-
Hi Jem,
I'm away from home right now where I use Iridient Developer, but it runs like any other plug-in in LR. You simply right-click Edit In, and select Iridient Developer. It brings up IRD (my abbreviation for Iridient Developer), and then I select the detail tab for sharpening (you can create your own tweaked presets but the best base preset, Fuji X-Trans Iridient Reveal, is really, really good) and then just select Process and Overwrite file. It has specific sharpening Iridient Reveal presets for each camera, so the X-T2 is a little bit different than the X-T1. I also have a couple of my own presets based on X-trans Iridient Reveal; I tweak the base X-T2 Iridient Reveal sharpening algorithm for my racing photos for a just a touch more micro contrast (clarity), for example. It then creates a TIFF version of your file, which then appears back in LR. It's actually quite simple. I personally don't like creating DNGs as they throw away all the original RAW file metadata, they are limited to 12-bit, and IIRC, they only represent Adobe profiles. Oh, BTW, Iridient has some very nice sharpening presets that are optimized for Fuji X-Trans monochrome as well. When I get home, I will see if I can capture some screen shots that show you my simple little workflow. I really like it a LOT. And Brian Griffiths, the one-man band behind Iridient is brilliant; he keeps making it better and better. Adobe should basically just hire him and put him in charge of RAW conversion algorithms, IMHO (I'm not the first person to suggest this, either! ;))
Here's a link to a tutorial covering Iridient Developer integration in Lightroom done by Brian Griffiths himself: http://www.iridientdigital.com/iridientdeveloper/tutorials/IridientLightroomWorkflow.html
Best of luck, Larry
-
I shoot Olympus M43 and have looked quite closely at Fuji. The suggestion of hiring some Fuji equipment is the best idea, imho, and developing some of the RAWs at home to see how it all sits with one's workflow.
So far, I've concluded that while there would be some positive differences there would also be disadvantages for me (convenience, IBIS) and so considering the expense of changing brands it isn't really worth it given that the difference in sensor size between the two isn't all that large. Fuji still looks like a brilliant system, though. Moving over to FF would be entirely different.
I will say that I am getting excellent results from developing my Oly RAWs using DxO Optics Pro. The results strike me as markedly superior to Lightroom especially for higher ISOs when DxO's Prime denoising engine kicks in. This has given me a welcome boost in file quality. That said, DxO Optics Pro is a bit crude compared to Lightroom. The basics are very good but it comes without tools like gradient effects or brushes. I'll usually do a basic edit in DxO then send the file to Lightroom as a DNG for further work.
-
Oh, Jem, BTW, Capture One 10 is really good, too. REALLY good, IMHO. I've been using C1 since Version 7 for X-trans when they were the only game in town for proper X-Trans sharpening back when I had my X-Pro1. C1 version 8 was a big step up from 7, 9 was, uhm, "okay", but 10 is a big step up again. The color profiles from it are gorgeous, and the control you have in it for curves, e.g. luminance channel curve adjustments only is brilliant. The sharpening/demosaicing is very comparable to Iridient, but Phase One doesn't support compressed X-T2 RAF files yet, which I still do not understand. If Brian at Iridient can support compressed X-T2 RAF as a one-man shop, there is no reason I can see why Phase can't. I still think, that on the whole, Capture One does the best RAW conversion for any camera I shoot with, Oly, Canon 1-D series, or Fuji. I understand that some folks have issues with X-Trans, or only want to work exclusively with ACR or LR, and I totally get that, but using IRD or C1, I don't have any of the problems with demosaicing that some folks gripe about, and I examine my files closely on a profiled 5K Retina iMac for sharpening/micro-contrast and a 27" NEC PA72-BK-SVII for color accuracy. Just my 2¢ ;)
-
Here's a link to a tutorial covering Iridient Developer integration in Lightroom done by Brian Griffiths himself: http://www.iridientdigital.com/iridientdeveloper/tutorials/IridientLightroomWorkflow.html
Best of luck, Larry
Ah, excellent, thanks, Larry. I forgot that Brian had that tutorial. Thomas Fitzgerald had one, too, a while back. He's also a big fan of Iridient and Capture One 10. Just do a search on his blog.
Thomas Fitzgerald Photography (http://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com)
-
The work I do that is handheld is generally nature with a long lens. I shoot amphibians A LOT and am at ground level where a tripod often doesn't make sense...especially when creeping up. Using a 300mm view is ideal I find for the shots I make. Hand holding non Olympus gear was always impossible to me. I never got the shots I needed. The 40-150 and IBIS has been a completely revolutionary way of working hand held. I can get tack sharp at 1/100 instead of 1/500 when shooting it fully zoomed. That made a difference last season. IBIS below 70mm has never been much of an issue. I do a lot of my nature work handheld unless it is big landscape with filters, etc... IBIS has been great. Also for commercial portrait work that I do. Handheld, even with lights, I can't shoot a DSLR at below 1/250 with a 135mm lens and get sharp images. I need to use an OIS lens, but some of the lenses I prefer don't have that. That's just me. With the Olympus I can shoot at any speed and get excellent results. (and yes I know lights freeze subjects, but you still ghost the rest if you move)
In regards to the 12-40... I love the rendering. I love the close focus. I can leave my macro at home most of the time. In use it has virtually no distortion, so it blends perfectly into my architectural work. The look and drawing of the lens matches my Schneider 35XL very closely so I can use it with my tech cam side by side and not have to rework the results as much to match. Again, these are subjective qualities, and for me it works. Not always for everyone...but for me it is the perfect all rounder. And the zoom ring moves in the direction I prefer. The Fuji is backwards to me. And its rendering just never sat with me well.
I'm sorry but what exactly are you shooting? If it's moving IBIS doesn't help (outside video) and you need to shoot under 1/30-1/60 for IBIS to help with the primes, slower for the OIS zooms.
Anything in particular that you have in mind?
I have it as well as the 18-55 from Fuji. Outside of the 24 equiv vs 27 equiv and weather sealing I don't see one being better than the other. Both need software correction (Oly even more so considering it has ~ 8% barrel distortion wide) and sharpness is a wash, a little better in the midrange for Oly, a little better at the long end for Fuji.
http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/783-fuji1855f284?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/m43/862_oly1240?start=1
-
When Will Micro 4/3 Equal Medium-Format Film? We Have the Definitive Answer (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2016/03/when-will-micro-43-equal-medium-format-film-we-have-the-definitive-answer.html)
Shooting 645 film a lot still, and I have to say, the answer is yes and no. Between color rendition and DR, print film is still king in a single exposure. But, when you talk about other aspects (workflow, color reproduction, apparent sharpness, etc) then the digital starts to edge out. So it's a give and take. Using a Epson V600 and a low ISO (Portra 160, Ektar 100), I get a very good, about 30mp image with a lot of DR.
-
All great info and thanks for the links. I will try out ID and take a look at Capture One. Really looking forward to seeing how the Fuji works out.
-
The work I do that is handheld is generally nature with a long lens. I shoot amphibians A LOT and am at ground level where a tripod often doesn't make sense...especially when creeping up. Using a 300mm view is ideal I find for the shots I make. Hand holding non Olympus gear was always impossible to me. I never got the shots I needed. The 40-150 and IBIS has been a completely revolutionary way of working hand held. I can get tack sharp at 1/100 instead of 1/500 when shooting it fully zoomed. That made a difference last season. IBIS below 70mm has never been much of an issue. I do a lot of my nature work handheld unless it is big landscape with filters, etc... IBIS has been great. Also for commercial portrait work that I do. Handheld, even with lights, I can't shoot a DSLR at below 1/250 with a 135mm lens and get sharp images. I need to use an OIS lens, but some of the lenses I prefer don't have that. That's just me. With the Olympus I can shoot at any speed and get excellent results. (and yes I know lights freeze subjects, but you still ghost the rest if you move)
In regards to the 12-40... I love the rendering. I love the close focus. I can leave my macro at home most of the time. In use it has virtually no distortion, so it blends perfectly into my architectural work. The look and drawing of the lens matches my Schneider 35XL very closely so I can use it with my tech cam side by side and not have to rework the results as much to match. Again, these are subjective qualities, and for me it works. Not always for everyone...but for me it is the perfect all rounder. And the zoom ring moves in the direction I prefer. The Fuji is backwards to me. And its rendering just never sat with me well.
The long lens slow shutter nature is not that common but I get it now why you need it. The increased DOF is also helpful. Some zooms with OIS will be quite close though.
Regarding the portraits, while I have difficulties getting sharp images at 1/FL with my DSLR it's easier on the Fuji. Used to be easier on the 16MP sensor but you can't have the cake and eat it too. On the other side the Fuji primes under 100mm equiv are brighter even before you take the sensor size advantage. The only one that used to match it is the PanaLeica 42.5 F1.2, now with their PRO line they will be touch ahead (before considering the sensor size) but quite big and expensive.
While I like the 12-40, the close focusing being a bonus, that distortion is entirely software corrected though.
Back to the original post, if I were to start again from scratch I wouldn't have 3 systems so close together. A m43 and full frame would make more sense. If I was to have just one system though the Fuji is quite competitive; I don't think I would choose m43 as my only system.
For the OP though I'm not sure it makes much sense to switch to Fuji if there is significant cost involved. For printing in those sizes the difference will not be that big. Now, if he's considering getting the E-M1ii then the X-T2 with the 18-55 is still cheaper.
-
.... It's the first mirrorless I've shot with that will allow me to finally sell my Canon 1D-body for my pro motorsports work (my back can't take that big beast anymore...
I like these photographs!- the colors are also very nice.
-
I like these photographs!- the colors are also very nice.
Thank you..
-
Now, if he's considering getting the E-M1ii then the X-T2 with the 18-55 is still cheaper.
Yes, I am looking at the E-M1 II with the 12-40 (currently with promotions $2700.00) or the X-T2 with the 10-40 (currently with promotions $2500.00). So only $200.00 less for the Fuji setup. And both bodies are on backorder at B&H.
-
Yes, I am looking at the E-M1 II with the 12-40 (currently with promotions $2700.00) or the X-T2 with the 10-40 (currently with promotions $2500.00). So only $200.00 less for the Fuji setup. And both bodies are on backorder at B&H.
Which lens for the Fuji? I take that 10-40 is a typo as I'm not familiar with such a lens (would be awesome though). If you talking about 10-24 then they are quite different lenses, the Oly equivalent being roughly the 7-14.
-
Sorry, that was a typo. I meant the 10-24 Fuji and yes I realize they are very different but I want to cover the 24-35mm equiv. range. Even better deal Fuji kit with 18-55, grip and add 10-24 for only $200.00 more than the Oly with 12-40. Gets me more coverage and battery grip. I have read the 18-55 is a pretty decent lens.
-
The 10-24 is the best around 14-20 but it's good enough the rest of the range, particularly on a 24MP body.
My last backpacking trip I went with the X-T2 and both 10-24 and 18-55. Redundant for a good range but it allowed me to change the lenses less.
Edit:
They were good enough on their own in case the other lens would break.
I did lose the weather sealing but for the half day when it really rained I was so frozen and visibility was so poor that I had no desire to photograph anything. For the couple of hours when it was so so I had an Optech plastic sleeve.
-
Sorry, that was a typo. I meant the 10-24 Fuji and yes I realize they are very different but I want to cover the 24-35mm equiv. range. Even better deal Fuji kit with 18-55, grip and add 10-24 for only $200.00 more than the Oly with 12-40. Gets me more coverage and battery grip. I have read the 18-55 is a pretty decent lens.
You could say that, yes....
(X-Pro1 image)
(http://photos.imageevent.com/puma_cat/fujixpro1pics/Bay-Bridge-3%20copy.jpg)
It's actually quite an impressive lens; Imaging Resource and Lloyd Chambers at Diglloyd show impressive sharpness in lab and real world testing, respectively. This is a much higher quality lens than a standard Canikon "kit lens".
-
Really like the lighting on the bridge. Pretty good detail in there also.
-
Really like the lighting on the bridge. Pretty good detail in there also.
Thanks. That's not a HDR image, either. One frame, one exposure. The image has been downsampled from full size; it has quite a bit more detail on a 5K Retina iMac. ;)
-
Thanks again for all the input. Placed an order for an X-T2. I had a chance to handle one and study for awhile (though not shoot with it) and also to work on some RAF files from an X-Pro2.
I played around some this past weekend comparing outputs from Iridient Dev and Lightroom. I was a bit underwhelmed by what I was getting from ID. In all but a couple cases the output from LR in my opinion looked superior or equal to that from ID. I only saw better retained detail in ID on 2 photos out of almost 2 dozen I worked with. I had a difficult time with the colors in ID and although the sharpening seemed ok I found it difficult to control noise. In fact in a few cases when I was happy with the results in ID when I sent the file back to LR and opened it I was surprised that it appeared to gain some noise. Now some of this may be my unfamiliarity with ID, but I guess I was expecting to see more of a difference. I'll keep plugging away with it, especially after I get some of my own files to play with.
For now waiting for the Fuji to get of backorder.