Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: M43 compared to Fuji APS-C  (Read 36185 times)

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5565
    • Photos
Re: M43 compared to Fuji APS-C
« Reply #40 on: May 03, 2016, 12:19:59 pm »

The zoom thing is a funny point you mention.  I think a lot of people often overlook this.  Coming from Canons, the Olympus zooms work in the same direction.  My transition in all the gear I use is the same.  Fuji's go the opposite way, as do the Nikons, and some others.  I believe this is the same with the lens mount too.  Not 100% certain.  This is one of those things that if you cross systems often enough, its nice to keep in the flow.

All the olympus cameras seem to fare very well with about a stop of overexposure on the meter depending on the subject.  I find this in both evaluative, and center weighted metering.  So in a way, your finding may be correct.

Coming from a Nikon + Fuji systems I didn't have this problem until now (I think the Tamron 150-600 that I have zooms the "wrong" way but I use very rarely).

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5565
    • Photos
Re: M43 compared to Fuji APS-C
« Reply #41 on: May 05, 2016, 11:21:14 pm »

Looking through the lens reviews at photozone I recalled one problem with the m43 lenses: they rely a little too much on software correction. Fuji is significantly better behaved although they have outliers also. Seeing that Leica also uses it I guess it's deemed an acceptable compromise for cost and size.

One possible gem: the Samyang 7.5mm 3.5 fisheye. Sharp, almost as light as the Pana and much much cheaper.

petermfiore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2705
    • Peter Fiore Fine Art
Re: M43 compared to Fuji APS-C
« Reply #42 on: May 06, 2016, 07:04:13 am »

Coming from a Nikon + Fuji systems I didn't have this problem until now (I think the Tamron 150-600 that I have zooms the "wrong" way but I use very rarely).

In the Fuji menu you have the option to reverse lens focus direction...works just like my Canons now. A huge advantage with mirrorless.


Peter
« Last Edit: May 06, 2016, 07:52:43 am by petermfiore »
Logged

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5565
    • Photos
Re: M43 compared to Fuji APS-C
« Reply #43 on: May 06, 2016, 10:46:32 am »

In the Fuji menu you have the option to reverse lens focus direction...works just like my Canons now. A huge advantage with mirrorless.


Peter

Fuji has the same logic as Nikon so no problems here, Olympus on the other hand ...

I guess Fuji for you it's like Olympus for me; question is how do you cope with zoom and focus in opposite directions?

petermfiore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2705
    • Peter Fiore Fine Art
Re: M43 compared to Fuji APS-C
« Reply #44 on: May 06, 2016, 02:22:43 pm »

Fuji has the same logic as Nikon so no problems here, Olympus on the other hand ...

I guess Fuji for you it's like Olympus for me; question is how do you cope with zoom and focus in opposite directions?

In the Fuji menu I change the direction of focus to match the same direction as Canon...I only use primes.

Peter

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5565
    • Photos
Re: M43 compared to Fuji APS-C
« Reply #45 on: May 06, 2016, 02:52:59 pm »

...I only use primes.

Peter

Now I get it

TonyVentourisPhotography

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 391
    • Unlocking Olympus
Re: M43 compared to Fuji APS-C
« Reply #46 on: May 06, 2016, 03:34:49 pm »

In the Fuji menu you have the option to reverse lens focus direction...works just like my Canons now. A huge advantage with mirrorless.


Peter

True...but so does hasselblad.  All the HCD lenses are made to be corrected in software before the user sees whats going on.  You would think at the price of those lenses they would be perfect. 

So m43 lenses need to get corrected.  However... you dont see these adjustments nor can you turn them off in most software.  Only a few raw developers dont recognize or apply them.

If you compare the uncorrected to the camera corrected files it is pretty interesting.  You are not losing anything in the corrected files that you would miss.  Honestly...I don't care how my baseline file gets to where it is...as long as it delivers.  Whatever is baking into the file to correct for distortion and aberration, they do a darn good job of it.  Honestly that is one area where Olympus delivers...their lenses live up to the name.  I know my Oly Pro lenses are equal or superior to all my L glass.  And that's even "after" their software corrections.  Then again, my 24-105L has nightmarish distortion and that was "good enough" to be L grade for everyone without corrections.  Pity.  Then again, Everyone who is publishing awesome work with these software corrected lenses doesn't seem to be complaining.  The only people ive ever heard make noise about this issue are reviewers posting charts.

Again, just my opinion from real world use with these lenses.
Logged
Tony
Unlockingolympus.com (ebooks & blog on getting the most from your OMD & Pen)
tonyventourisphotography.com (Commercial Photography)

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: M43 compared to Fuji APS-C
« Reply #47 on: May 06, 2016, 04:50:12 pm »

Looking through the lens reviews at photozone I recalled one problem with the m43 lenses: they rely a little too much on software correction.

I strongly suspect certain of the lenses have been designed with software correction in mind. Others may benefit from it without, depending on your tolerance level, requiring it. The Pana-Leica 25/1.4 is an example of the former. Uncorrected it exhibits noticeable barrel distortion. But the barreling is smooth in character, as opposed to mustache-y, and so easily correctable.

Quote
One possible gem: the Samyang 7.5mm 3.5 fisheye. Sharp, almost as light as the Pana and much much cheaper.

Yes, this is an excellent lens. Crazy sharp.

-Dave-
Logged

BobDavid

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3307
Re: M43 compared to Fuji APS-C
« Reply #48 on: May 07, 2016, 01:59:02 am »

The Oly 75mm f/1.8 is a stunning lens. It's a bit pricey, but well worth it.
Logged

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5565
    • Photos
Re: M43 compared to Fuji APS-C
« Reply #49 on: May 07, 2016, 10:04:15 pm »

It's difficult to justify the 75 1.8 for a travel system when I already have the Fuji 90 2.0 which is even better.


As we are at it today I finally got to play with the Pana 35-100 2.8. This is where the size advantage of m43 becomes really apparent.
First shots were more like wtf then I realized I should disable the OIS on the lens (camera should have done it though).


Overall it's nice but nothing earth shattering.
Focus is ok-ish but not fast (see the first attached shot where it missed). Sharpness is good, so is the bokeh. I think it would do better with landscapes which is fine because that's why I got it.

TonyVentourisPhotography

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 391
    • Unlocking Olympus
Re: M43 compared to Fuji APS-C
« Reply #50 on: May 08, 2016, 01:38:24 pm »

I realized I should disable the OIS on the lens (camera should have done it though).

Depends how your options are set for IS on lens vs body in the custom menu.  You can give lens IS priority.  Maybe it was set as such.
Logged
Tony
Unlockingolympus.com (ebooks & blog on getting the most from your OMD & Pen)
tonyventourisphotography.com (Commercial Photography)

Dan Wells

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1044
Re: M43 compared to Fuji APS-C
« Reply #51 on: June 29, 2016, 12:53:49 am »

Fuji has better IQ than m43 (admittedly, I haven't used the latest 20MP m43 sensor, but the E-M1 is still on the 16mp, which I am quite familiar with). Of course only the X-Pro 2 actually has extra resolution - with the exception of that body, all Fuji bodies and most modern m43 bodies are 16 MP. The X-T1 (16 MP Fuji I have the most experience with - I presently shoot the Pro 2 with a T1 backup body) has quite a bit (more than a stop, maybe 2) of extra dynamic range against 16 MP m43, plus there is extra apparent resolution, which is probably a combination of XTrans and lower noise, even at modest ISO. Once you jump to the X-Pro 2, there is no real contest. Also remember that Fuji gives you 1 additional stop of DOF flexibility for any given maximum aperture (and the m43 lenses are generally not faster to make up for it).

Both offer fairly complete lineups of excellent lenses. m43 has an advantage in that they also have a significant number of cheap lenses - all the Fujinons are quite good, but you'll pay for them... If you want to add a cheaper lens in a focal length you don't use often, there is likely to be an m43 option, while the only possibility for Fuji is a manual focus Samyang/Bower/Rokinon.

The biggest advantage to m43 (other than video, where m43 has a huge lead - the X-Pro 2 is the only Fuji that shoots decent video at all, and it's quite good, but not 4K) is the Olympus "Hand of God" image stabilization - it really is amazing, and it'll stabilize anything from a lensbaby to a $1500 pro lens. The long Fuji telephotos are just as good(I've gotten shots at stupid shutter speeds with the 100-400, sometimes pushing it with the 1.4x on there as well), but the primes aren't stabilized, and the stabilization on the shorter zooms is decent, but nothing like the long stuff.
Logged

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5565
    • Photos
Re: M43 compared to Fuji APS-C
« Reply #52 on: June 29, 2016, 07:54:29 am »

I got to use it for 2 weeks during a recent trip, I'll post some impressions in the next few days when I get a little more time.

donbga

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 454
Re: M43 compared to Fuji APS-C
« Reply #53 on: June 29, 2016, 10:20:26 am »

That said, even at 200 ISO I find the sensor noise way too much

What noise at ISO 200? Sorry but that's just rubish.
Logged

viewfinder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 124
Re: M43 compared to Fuji APS-C
« Reply #54 on: July 01, 2016, 04:05:22 am »

Something I don't think mentioned so far is format aspect........Aps-C is 'long' at 2:3 and m43 is much nearer to 'square' at about 3:4.    So, much depends on whether you need/like particular format shape.    When I have been engaged in stage productions the Aps-C 'fits' the longer stage shape (for full stage shots obviously) with minimal cropping from top and bottom edges but m43 is effectively useless in this application.   Then again, having 'cut my teeth' on Rollieflex cameras I much prefer a shorter, nearer to square, aspect for much pictorial shots and m43 is much closer to this....Aps-C requires so much cropping from either end that it's quality advantage (over m43) is quickly lost.

...........So, I have come to see Aps-C/M43 considerations as 'horses for courses' and tend to choose along those lines for what I plan to do.
Logged

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5565
    • Photos
Re: M43 compared to Fuji APS-C
« Reply #55 on: July 01, 2016, 09:26:45 am »

I have used an E-M5 ii along with the 12-40 2.8, 35-100 2.8 and Samyang 7.5 2.8 fisheye during a recent trip. I also had a couple of primes when not hiking but they say no use.

I got rained on one of the evening but I used a plastic sleeve so I might have used the Fuji just fine; when not enough time I think you will have an advantage for the weather resistance per system weight.

Image quality is good in decent light. The increased DOF for a certain shutter speed can be nice in landscape. I think the E-M5 stabilization is overrated, at least at some shutter speeds that I've used. Yeah, it's nice for primes but it's not better than a good OIS lens. It might have been some shutter shock?.

The system with the pro zooms can make for nice, sharp and contrasty images when the light doesn't cooperate that much. If you get the exposure right and like contrasty images the quality is good and noise is not that much of an issue as I was afraid.
If however you have to push the shadows ugly things can happen. I have to test with some prints to see if the print shows less than the screen but even at iso 200, push the exposure 0.5 and shadows 50+ and you can have plenty to deal with. Another thing that I don't like with pushing the shadows is that it quickly gains a purple cast, much more than the other systems.

Weight wise it's ok, not a big difference compared to a Fuji if you don't need weather resistance and keep yourself at 2-3 smaller lenses.

I might revise some of this after some prints, although I came up with less keepers than I was hoping.

PS. for some reason the images looked much nicer on a Surface 3 pro, even at 100% zoom, compared to my home monitor.

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5565
    • Photos
Re: M43 compared to Fuji APS-C
« Reply #56 on: July 01, 2016, 09:38:32 am »

Samyang 7.5 3.5 Fisheye

Initially I got a Rokinon version and it was kind of crap; it wouldn't focus on anything beyond 10-15m, only at F16 objects at distance were somehow in the DOF (very soft though).
I got a Samyang version and things were much better. It's sharp enough and easy to use. Keeping as fisheye works better if you can because when you try to correct it to a rectilinear projection it looks very ugly at the corners and edges. I hear good things about the Panini projection (and seen some great examples) but you have to use Hugin for it.

I used along the 12-40 zoom during a more difficult hike where the 35-100 stayed in the backpack (only time I wanted it was when we got near some mountain goats).

Here are some examples, uncorrected

TonyVentourisPhotography

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 391
    • Unlocking Olympus
Re: M43 compared to Fuji APS-C
« Reply #57 on: July 03, 2016, 09:49:48 am »

but even at iso 200, push the exposure 0.5 and shadows 50+ and you can have plenty to deal with. Another thing that I don't like with pushing the shadows is that it quickly gains a purple cast, much more than the other systems.
.

I would love to see your raw file that behaves like this.  I've pushed my files well past this with great results.  I use 2 e-m1s on a daily basis and find them doing better than my canon 5d2.  I. Also find my results clean and excellent in print.  In fact, prints even at ISO 5000 can be clean when prepared right and shot well in raw.  I've never seen a file take a purple case from just a small adjustment.  Especially ISO 200.

Just to clarify, I don't doubt or knock your experience, I am just more curious than anything since I've had such an extremely opposite file experience.
Logged
Tony
Unlockingolympus.com (ebooks & blog on getting the most from your OMD & Pen)
tonyventourisphotography.com (Commercial Photography)

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5565
    • Photos
Re: M43 compared to Fuji APS-C
« Reply #58 on: July 11, 2016, 01:32:31 pm »

I would love to see your raw file that behaves like this.  I've pushed my files well past this with great results.  I use 2 e-m1s on a daily basis and find them doing better than my canon 5d2.  I. Also find my results clean and excellent in print.  In fact, prints even at ISO 5000 can be clean when prepared right and shot well in raw.  I've never seen a file take a purple case from just a small adjustment.  Especially ISO 200.

Just to clarify, I don't doubt or knock your experience, I am just more curious than anything since I've had such an extremely opposite file experience.

Maybe I wasn't clear, those statements are meant to be mostly separate. As in pushing the shadows/exposure the noise goes up faster than I would like even at base iso. The other separate statement is about the purple shadows which tend to happen at base iso with hefty processing or at higher iso with moderate processing.

Here is one example (a little extreme maybe): https://www.dropbox.com/s/6p0mx1hd2x76nly/Olympus_test1.ORF?dl=0

SZRitter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 384
Re: M43 compared to Fuji APS-C
« Reply #59 on: July 11, 2016, 02:18:23 pm »

Maybe I wasn't clear, those statements are meant to be mostly separate. As in pushing the shadows/exposure the noise goes up faster than I would like even at base iso. The other separate statement is about the purple shadows which tend to happen at base iso with hefty processing or at higher iso with moderate processing.

Here is one example (a little extreme maybe): https://www.dropbox.com/s/6p0mx1hd2x76nly/Olympus_test1.ORF?dl=0

I have found, at least with my E-M5 mk1, that there is a bit of a "shoulder" to the color accuracy, so if you push it too far one way or another, it hits that shoulder. The exact image you put in there is definitely far exceeding that boundary, and is personally a shot I would take two or three different exposures of and do a fusion of them.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up