Fuji XT-1 vs Olympus OMD EM-1

[spencerD]

Hello all,

I'm coming from an Canon 40D and am looking for an upgrade and a camera to get me excited again and lighter would be nice.
I'm not giving up on DSLR's but not incline to switch makes and Canon's offering does not inspire at the moment. The 7D would be what Id lean towards but it's been out how many years?  So at this point would wait and consider it's replacement.

I enjoy shooting Landscapes as well as travel pictures. When I have the time like using a tripod at base sensitivity, enjoying the moment and process never been a fast shooter. With the end goal of printing my few successes.  At up to 13 x 19.

Is the Fuji up to that? Keep reading that some find detail, leafs, ect..
Smeared? I shoot Raw for the most part.  Seems at some sites the Olympus EM-1 despite smaller sensor is sharper?
Like most nice to have a camera that can take quality images at higher sensitivities, but my focus is at base for my landscape and travel when possible.

Any thoughts or recommendations would be much appreciated.

Dave

[Glenn NK]

Although I see many photographers talk online about preferring "real world" comparisons of cameras, I still think that comparisons should be done under conditions that are tightly controlled (light, subject, tripod, aperture, shutter speed, ISO, all the variables).  For this reason, I do comparisons over at DPR:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m1/16

Pick the bodies you want to compare and select various parts of the composite scene and see for yourself.

I just picked the E-M1 and the X-T1, and it seems that the Fuji holds up very well and may even be sharper.  But I only looked at ISO 100 under Daylight.

You could also compare a M43 to a FF of any brand (even a Nikon D810 with its FF Sony sensor - arguably currently one of the best).

Glenn

[spencerD]

Hello Glen,

Thanks for the comments.
Did look at DPreview, the resolution chart clearly favors the Fuji, otherwise it depends on where and what you click on.
So call it a draw at base sensitivity. The Sony7r? has by far the highest resolution, but don't like the style more of a computer with a lens on it vs a real feeling and looking camera. My view only certainly.
Have the Sony RX100M2 it takes nice pictures but not so enjoyable to shoot with. My old Canon G10 and S90 far more engaging to shoot with and to me enjoying the process is almost as important as the end results, I'm not a pro so enjoyment counts a lot!

The reality for me anyway, is even at the relative low by todays standards of 10-14MP I have never nailed a shot and printed at 13 x 19, well more like 12 1/2 x 18 1/4 depending on camera and said Gee if only it had higher resolution!!

Dave

[Telecaster]

I made plenty of crisp 12x18" prints from Canon 20D files (8mp) back when that camera was my travel favorite. Found one of 'em a couple weeks ago that my dad had rolled up & stowed away in a filing cabinet. Still looks great. In my experience high quality 12x18" prints from the Fuji (I have an X-E1) & Olympus (E-M1) are equally possible.

-Dave-

[Glenn NK]

Hello Glen,

Thanks for the comments.
Did look at DPreview, the resolution chart clearly favors the Fuji, otherwise it depends on where and what you click on.
So call it a draw at base sensitivity. The Sony7r? has by far the highest resolution, but don't like the style more of a computer with a lens on it vs a real feeling and looking camera. My view only certainly.
Have the Sony RX100M2 it takes nice pictures but not so enjoyable to shoot with. My old Canon G10 and S90 far more engaging to shoot with and to me enjoying the process is almost as important as the end results, I'm not a pro so enjoyment counts a lot!

The reality for me anyway, is even at the relative low by todays standards of 10-14MP I have never nailed a shot and printed at 13 x 19, well more like 12 1/2 x 18 1/4 depending on camera and said Gee if only it had higher resolution!!

Dave

I like the look of the Oly M1 and the Fuji X-T1.  Maybe it's my age showing - I like the retro look because for more than forty years, that's what my cameras looked like (Pentax S and SV, Canon A-1).

I think what I like most about the X-T1 is having the dials on top where I can see them and twist them (again, probably my age as the Pentax S had two shutter speed dials).

Glenn

[deejjjaaaa]

Is the Fuji up to that?

XT-1 vs old (pre E-M1 generation) E-M5 @ nominal ISOs (not Ssat ISO as DxOMark reports) = http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm#OM-D%20E-M5,X-T1

as you can see past nominal ISO1600 Fuji switches to ISO-by-tag = an instruction for a raw converter to do a hidden (from you) expocorrection... nothing wrong w/ that - for example MFDBs do that a lot

[deejjjaaaa]

Although I see many photographers talk online about preferring "real world" comparisons of cameras, I still think that comparisons should be done under conditions that are tightly controlled (light, subject, tripod, aperture, shutter speed, ISO, all the variables).  For this reason, I do comparisons over at DPR:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m1/16

I am sorry to rain on your parade about tight controlled anything there but to use dpreview comparisons means not to respect yourself - for examples shots from E-M1 were pre firmware update that introduced EFCS (and for example E-M1 ISO200 exposure was @ 1/80 - shutter shock zone) and no, they don't bolt a camera to a ton+ cinder block, so that matters... E-M1 syncs @ 1/320, X-T1 @ 1/180... that's the difference in how fast shutter blades are moving... just compare shots from E-M1 @ ISO200 and ISO1600 (where exposure time was 1/640 - safe for shutter shock zone) or even ISO800... dpreview execution quality is below any standards.

http://s30.postimg.org/gsobxxyzl/socalleddpreviewquality.jpg

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

is it DP Review quality or is it OM-1 quality? I mean, if a camera has a shutter shock at 1/80, than it is the camera problem, not DPR. Besides, when compared with other cameras that also use the same speed, Oly at 200 looks softer.

[deejjjaaaa]

is it DP Review quality or is it OM-1 quality? I mean, if a camera has a shutter shock at 1/80, than it is the camera problem, not DPR. Besides, when compared with other cameras that also use the same speed, Oly at 200 looks softer.

it is the review quality because E-M1 now has EFCS (and hence shutter shock is gone) and if you really want to shoot on tripod you are not using wobbling tripods like dpreview does...

[deejjjaaaa]

Any thoughts or recommendations would be much appreciated.

what goes towards X-T1 ?

1) you might like Fuji's ergonomics
2) Fuji, albeit no Kodak, has a long history of dealing with colors - so you might like Fuji's colors (OOC JPG)
3) Fuji now has a good lens selection and you might like their lenses better
4) sensor is bigger (1.5 crop vs 1.9 crop of E-M1) - so, as there is no replacement for displacement, above deep shadows S/N is around 0.5 stops better, that simple based on a bigger light gathering sensor size - however in deep shadows (= DR) X-T1 does not perform much better (in fact noticeably worse that XE-2)...
5) sensor is bigger so things like DOF, etc are ~1/2 stops better
 
what goes towards E-M1 ?

1) you might like Oly's ergonomics
2) Olympus, albeit it has no history with films like Kodak or Fuji, still is not in the last place colors-wise
3) m43 has the biggest native mount optics selection
4) some people do like IBIS
5) flash, shutter & x-sync = 1/8000 & 1/320 (1/250 remote optical TTL), remote optical TTL exists, HSS naturally exists - while Fuji is 1/4000, 1/180, no remote TTL, unnaturally no HSS for Fuji...
6) Olympus does not have issues related to x-trans demosaicking
7) you can switch to Panasonic m43 cameras while keeping lenses & flash - may be you like video, there Fuji is simply a non player.

[bcooter]

The fuji has nice color, more pastel out of camera, though we know most color is modified in post.

The em-1 is probably one of the most jewel like, solid cameras sold in any format. If you put a sony A7 series, a Fuji Xti and an em-1 next to each other and was asked which is the most expensive camera, hands down most people would say the olympus.

The  em-1 sensor is good but at  4/3 the sensor is small, so you need fast primes.  A 2.8 zoom is in reality a 5.6 zoom in full frame look, a 1.7 prime 3.5 etc. etc.

The menu of the em-1 and em-5 is one of the most confusing menus on the planet and honestly will take you 5 hours to learn to customize it to your liking, because when you perform a setting,
want to change it it reverts back to the start of the menu and since some of the functions has multiple depths of screens, you will need to sit down with a notepad as you set up the camera.

Once set up your fine.

All olympus em series has challanged track focus, though single focus it's as fast, or faster than any camera made.

The em-1 uses a panasonic sensor the predecessor em-5 a sony and the em-5 to me shoots a file much better than the em-1 as it picks up more colors and allows for more post correction, though the em-1 gives about a 1/2 stop improvement in iso and both cameras shoot way above their sensor size in quality.

I really wish olympus had gone apsc or full frame and believe if olympus made a full frame em-1 they couldn't keep up with the demand.

The em series is special, most of the lenses are only rivaled by leica in build quality and feel.   It's a special little camera, but once again the sensor is 1/4 the size of full frame.

Actually I'd just be happy if the em-1 used the em-5 sensor, over the moon if it was full frame or at least apsc.

IMO

BC

 

[JV]

Both systems are good and will serve you equally well I feel

It is all about personal preference really.  Just hold them and try them out.  Go with whatever one feels best. 

I personally have a preference for Fuji and am selling my (older) m43 gear right now.

The Fuji glass is excellent and although there is definitely more m43 glass out there I don't really have the feeling I am missing anything.

The X-T1 is the best Fuji camera but personally I prefer the ergonomics and the simplicity of the X-Pro1.

It's all good!

[scooby70]

The  em-1 sensor is good but at  4/3 the sensor is small, so you need fast primes.  A 2.8 zoom is in reality a 5.6 zoom in full frame look, a 1.7 prime 3.5 etc. etc.

I hope that we can all get our heads around crop factors these days. Personally I think that crop factor DoF is done to death on the net and is less of a real world issue than reading on line forums would have us believe, but it's a personal decision.

DoF wise you only "need" very wide aperture lenses with MFT if you are trying to match the thin DoF you get from a 35mm camera at f1.4-2.8. How often do we really need DoF that thin? It's a personal decision and personally with 35mm DSLR's I often find myself wanting more DoF not less and once you decide to select f2.8 or smaller to get deeper DoF you can easily match the DoF with MFT at f1.4 and of course there are very good f0.95 lenses available for MFT and the native AF lenses are often good at f1.4/f1.8-2.8 whereas some 35mm lenses are much less good at the widest apertures.

Personally I'd forget the crop factor when comparing MFT and APS-C cameras and I'd worry less and maybe not at all about trying to match 35mm format thin DoF with either MFT or APS-C. With any modern camera I'd think more about how big I want my images to be and how they are going to be viewed and of course, features, the lenses and accessories available and the kit in use.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... How often do we really need DoF that thin?...

Not at all indeed. Unless you are a portrait, people, or life-style photographer.

[spencerD]

Hello everyone,

Thanks for the responses.

I have held both cameras and my take is for look and feel Fuji by a landslide (my opinion only)
Love my Canon G10 in part for the exposure comp wheel, just feels good.

The EM1 does seem easer to change settings, faster on the fly and touch screen is great!

Im at the stage that I'm wanting a camera that makes me feel good to look and hold, so am leaning towards the Fuji, with photo quality being equal or a tad better.

I have a Sony100 M2 and it blows away my Canon G10 at certain things high sensitivity certainly, but I feel pleasure holding and shooting with the G10 the Sony I feel little excitement it's just is there and does a good/excellent job. Crazy as it seems I enjoyed using my Canon S90 more than the Sony!

Question anyone do a lot of landscapes with the Fuji and make prints?

My standard how does a print look. Get/make a good print then I feel I have a success, so much looks great on screen but not so good in prints.

Dave

[AFairley]

I can only speak to the X-E2 and the E-M5, having owned both of them.  I found I could get more out of the Fuji files ultimately, but were trickier to deal with in post than the Olympus files.  I shoot urban landscape, BTW.

[David Sutton]

Using the X-T1 (and X-E2 as a back up) mainly for landscape. Before that I had a system based around a Canon 5d-II.
I'm printing to 24 inches wide and I can't see anything wrong with the files. They are at least as good in print as the Canon. ("Good": meaning sharpness, detail, dynamic range, colour and malleability in post).
I still haven't worked out a uniform approach for raw conversion. In Lightroom I tend to turn off or minimise capture sharpening and use Topaz Detail instead as the first or second layer in Photoshop. By doing this I haven't seen the "watercolour effect". For files where detail is critical I use PhotoNinja for the raw conversion. Regardless, the Fuji images can take, and often need, more sharpening in post than those from the 5DII. The 5DII went crunchy quite quickly by comparison.
I think most cameras nowadays work well enough, I go for I can most easily make work in the field even when I'm cold and tired.

[Paulo Bizarro]

I have used Fuji X for a while, borrowed stuff from a friend:) I had the XPro and XE1, lovely cameras. They also have very good lenses, like the 14 2.8, 23 1.4, and 56 1.2.

I now use a couple of EM1's with 12 2, 25 1.4 (Panasonic-Leica), and 75 1.8. The Oly lenses are smaller, because the sensor is smaller. I mostly shoot landscapes, seascapes, and travel. The Oly system is very good, and IQ is up there with the best. The only caveat with the EM1 is that for long exposures, it is better to engage the LENR for the camera to subtract the noise using the dark frame. I have no problem with that, I can wait another 30 sec or a couple of minutes.

Oly are introducing very good PRO lenses: 7-14 2.8 and 40-150 f2.8 (2015), already have the 12-40 f2.8. I favoured the Oly vs Fuji in the end because the system is good enought for me, the EM1 and lenses are very robust, and in my country (Portugal) Oly support is much better than Fuji.

[spencerD]

Thanks all, been helpful.
Really sounds like one can't go wrong with either system, as long as one is not sucked into the MP race.
Guess it's becomes how sharp is sharp? Unless one takes side by side pictures online or large side by side print,  on their own each camera print will look sharp. MF is going to be higher resolution, does that mean all Dslr's and smaller are crap? Guess not.

Have compared my G10 14 MP against the Fuji XT-1 Fuji kills it, yet somehow  I have prints up to 13 x 19 that are tact sharp, details everywhere, from old boat to reeds in the water, reflections, mist, even a local pro I know was impress.

Yet based on side by side the G10 vs Fuji is very soft!

Shows how good the EM-1 is that even with a smaller sensor it's neck and neck with fans of both, coming more down to ergonomics vs image quality. As which one is picked. Think Ill splurge on the Fuji as I unashamedly  like the way it looks and feels and the big view finder is nice now that i need reading glasses dang it!

Unless others have another recommendation will go with the kit lens 18-55mm as I tend to prefer wide angle landscapes with perhaps the 10-16mm  and possible the 70-200mm in the future.

On my Canon 40D my go to lens was the 17-40L with the occasional use of the Sigma 10-20mm.
Find the 70-200mm f4 L only suits my eye for occasional landscapes and concert, wildlife and street shooting, non of which Im, very good at.

Really just want a camera that is fun to shoot that happens to take good images! That holds up in prints as thats my yardstick of a successful shot.

When i purchased the Canon S90 I was amaze how much fun and the quality of (good to me) pictures I got with it and found I was using more than my Dslr for all put tripod shots. Again in prints looks very sharp yet side by side the Fuji kills it!


Dave

[armand]

The grass is always greener on the other side.

When I got my XE-1 (now an XT-1) they did not have the EM-1 nor the Olympus pro zooms, only the Panasonic. With those I might have chosen the EM-1 but the ergonomics on the EM-5 were suboptimal and buying the extra grip kind of defeated the purpose.
You have more lenses and primes on m4/3, the Fuji has mostly good quality across the board for their XF lenses, no really bad lens. The XTrans is something I could have lived without, for me it's more of a nuisance than it's worth it, and the sensor it's not the best compared with top APS-C. Better than my D90 but not by much.

Shooting is pretty fluent, some settings take time to change and focus is not that fast still (I'm talking mostly about single shot), my D90 still feels faster. Quality is very good once you can live with the annoying postprocessing; some shots will likely require a different program than Lightroom which I still prefer because of familiarity and their Fujifilm simulations, Provia in particular is quite accurate and appealing.


Now I'm looking to see what the replacements are for the D7100 and if they bring any new better lenses and/or if they upgrade the EM-1 with a better sensor (similar to the EM-5 maybe). Meanwhile I can just use the Xt-1 as the likely limiting factor in getting all the shots that I want is not the camera anymore.