Need Advice. OMD EM5 or X-E1 as FIRST SERIOUS CAMERA to learn Photography?

You summed it up nicely. If you don't plan on doing a lot of street and need the faster AF I say get the XE-1. I just bought mine with the zoom today for $1140.

Neither camera will make you a better photographer , they are  both great cameras , the only way for you to become a better photographer is by learning !

Either join a photography club , watch or read tutorials online or read and read books , on composition , post processing and exposure , whatever you can get your hands on , then put into practise what you have learnt  .

I have had DSLR's in the past and now own the OMD and I love it , but I wouldn't tell you what camera to get , you have done your research , you need to go to a camera store and feel them in your hands , see which feels the best and the most comfortable , that will be the right camera for you 

Good luck with your choice

Regards Sally

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sallyghl/

Difficult choice. Both cameras will probably be awesome, so you need to make up your mind what is more important for you.

If you really need this a little better IQ at high ISO, and shallower DOF - go with Fuji.

If it's performance, wider selection of lenses (which are cheaper also), and some other features like IBIS, weathersealing or tiltable touch screen that you think you would prefer - it's OM-D.

It would be best if you could check out both at a store - just handling the cameras may help you make the decision.

Also, you say that kit lens of the OM-D is crap, but most reviews i read were very positive, and I like a lot also, so I'm not sure where did you get it from. It's most of all fun.

So - speed and versatility of a robust camera - Olympus. Street photography - Fuji.

--
Inkheart

As a learning camera I would have to say the Fuji would be better, it has film like physical controls and from this aspect it has better handling and is easier to understand and use.

Its the simplest of cameras that make the better photographers, makes learning more fun and enjoyable and forces you to work more creatively.

But the OMD is the better system camera.

i'm a total amateur, but i don't think either camera will make you better.  i don't even know if you really want either of these, you might try them out if you've got a place that has them. eg, i got a Panasonic G3, and it blows away point and shoot cameras and phones. put simply, the image quality from either camera will be miles better than what you are accustomed to, and they'll also be quite similar to each other.

i also don't understand why the Fuji will make you work harder, and why that would be a good thing if true.

i don't think either camera will help you with composing and framing.  that's perhaps a skill not really dependent on the camera unless you intend on cropping your pics on a regular basis.

also, i personally tend to shoot in A (aperture priority) or S (shutter priority) modes, going wholly manual might be a nice exercise but my uneducated guess is that you'll be far more likely over or under expose and there will be no added benefit.

a massive advantage of M43 system are the large number of excellent lenses.  There are lenses for nearly all needs and desires, and new ones are added regularly by both Panasonic, Oly, and 3rd parties.

that's all.  one more suggestion: shoot RAW so you've greater ability to manipulate the images without loss of data.  and make sure you've got a large hard drive on your computer because raw images take up space.

good luck!

either one.

Depends on how they feel to you, strongly suggest visitng a camera shop and trying them out.

I have a e-pl1.  I loved it, so I upgraded to the OMD EM5.  I am in heaven!!!!!  I have always felt it was too complicated to venture out of auto.  BUT I just got this camera today and I have to Laugh-IT'S BEGGING ME TO PLAY!!!!!  That touchscreen is so much fun.  Fun is what does it, and I don't think I've had this much fun with a camera-ever.  I'm just dying to try it all out.  AND the pictures are stunning!

If you want to learn photography, the first step to learning it is CURIOSITY, and when I take my auto pics here, I have a camera that's screaming at me to do more and try more.  So don't think a camera with all the bells and whistles is not for a beginner.  You can use auto as long as you want, and still advance.  It's great.

Well, of course the Fuji Forum will say Fuji, and m43 forum will say OMD.  Would you expect any different?

I get a lot of good info from this website:

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/

This is a direct link to one of his lens reviews, about midway down he compares OMD, NEX and Fuji:

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/01/27/the-olympus-17-1-8-lens-review-on-the-e-m5-by-steve-huff/

Hint:  He likes the OMD and doesn't care for the Fuji, primarily because it doesn't have particularly reliable auto focus.   Would I lead you anywhere else

Remember you aren't just buying a camera, but a system.  Who has the most complete system???  Can you guess my answer???   In the long run you are going keep a body for a year or two.  Lenses are often kept and used for years and years and years.  Who has the best lens selection?

In the end, they are both great cameras and capable of taking great pics.  Frankly if you are a beginner, I might not recommend you buy a complex $1,000+ camera to start, but hey, I'm a bit of an equipment hound myself.  After this forum shouts OMD and Fuji shouts Fuji, you'll be in the same undecided  boat you are in now.  Do the reasearch and buy what feels best and don't look back.

Either or none. Frankly, I believe any camera with full manual controls will do it, even a high end compact camera that has full control of aperture, shutter speed, ISO, and ability to manual focus. I would recommend a digital camera over a film camera because your results are instantaneous, and digital is cheaper in operation than film, but you could honestly use a film camera also. You could spend a lot less or a lot more. The question you ask is similar to which car will make me a better driver, and pick a couple of brands/models.

However, given that you have narrowed your search to these two models, I would suggest you look at the system you want to spend your hard earned cash on, and then narrow down on the bodies and particular features, and try them out physically. The way the controls fall to hand, and the weight, feel, how you frame the shot all make a difference. In the end, lenses make the difference...bodies are not quite throw away, but there are so many iterations of bodies in relatively short times, I say you can always get a new body, but you will always be able to use the "old" glass, given you stay within the same system. Obviously micro four thirds has a lot more choice, but they are both fine cameras and the Fuji promises to become a reasonable system.

Have you checked out what people like Thom Hogan say?  Check out his site sansmirror.com...he looks at things from the business end as well and gives you a state of the art for each year by company... and tells you what his current mirrorless favorites are.

Either camera is a fine choice.  It will take hundreds of hours of dedication to master either camera and the art at the same time.

It will be a fun adventure, enjoy it!

--
Dan

If you plan to use only the 35mm on the XE-1, the X100(s) might be the more sensible choice. It's cheap enough that you could get an E-PL5 to go with it.

RX1

Only learning about photography will make you a better photographer. Not buying a new camera.

It is a huge fallacy, one we see all the time where a begginer believes that getting a new camera will "make them a better photographer".

It is like suggesting that a new driver get a 400 HP Ferrari as their first "serious" car.

Clearly an invitation to disaster.

The two cameras you mentioned are the top end cameras of both manufacturers' range and are intended for experienced amature/professional photographers. They are very complex and frankly will baffle a beginner.

In fact, getting an overly complex camera will impede your ability to learn the basics of photography: DOF control, exposure control over high/low key scenes, control over focal lenght depth compression and expansion, utilization of negative space, etc. In particular, control over depth of field is something you could not have learned with the cameras you are currently using so this will be new to you and mastering it is not simple.

You would be much better served getting an entry level u 4/3 camera (e.g. E-pl2 or G3) for about $300.00 with kit lenses (which are fine-not "junk" as you stated) a moderate zoom (e.g Oly 40-150mm for $99.00) and a fast legacy 50mm manual focus lens with adapter for portraits (about $50.00). Using a manual lens with stop down focusing and a DOF scale on the lens is also the fastest most intuitive means of leanring to control DOF known to Mankind.

Then take a class, read a book or two or both. Then apply what you have learned with a camera that will not overwhelm you with complexity which an OM-d or X-e1 surely will.

You can always buy a top of the line camera later after you have mastered your craft.  Your lenses will still be usable and you can sell the old body for close to what you paid for it.

TEdolph

You would profit from either camera since both allow you to to add DOF control to your repertoire. Apart from that it is pretty obvious that in practical terms you are rather inexperienced, no disrespect meant. Quite some of the data from the spec sheets looks quite different in the practical application.

I did own the Nex-7, X-E1 and E-M5. I kept the E-M5 but Imight switch for a X-E2. The E-M5 combines great use of the tilt-touch-screen with IBIS and quick AF and a DSLR ergonomic. This essentially makes it a very responsive and satisfying camera. The most essential drawback I see right now is that the ergonomics are hindered by Olympus decision to put design over function and to make it as small as possible.

The X-E1 has a more rangefinder orientated ergonomics. Some people will prefer that. The AF can be a bit frustrating. I had the same thing long time ago with Sigma lenses which sometimes simply missed. I had never fun taking the same pictures twice just to be sure to have it. The other drawback in my opinion is the missing tilt-screen. It really has a lot of practical uses. Last point is image stabilisation. It can do a very long way to get the pictures you like CONSISTENTLY. So if some better high ISO is really better than having IBIS any time with any picture is the question.

Image quality? I would say both have plenty.

In the end the best camera is the one to deliver consistently, easily and with fun. This is the camera you will love.  I see no benefit in a camera which makes taking a picture how and when you want it harder. Unfortunately it takes time and practice to really find out what is best for you. But surely you should at least try in a shop, putting aside the spec sheets. I needed 6 months to find out that the E-M5s ergonomics really isn't for me. On the other hand the AF and screen on the X-E1 makes life harder for me than I would like and I would really miss the IBIS on primes.

Neither, look to a DSLR first.

You will have access to more accessories and lenses as a whole. The DSLR weight and physical size come second.  If MFT's never existed I would still be with Nikon no doubt.

Don't discount the Panasonic GH-3 with the other MFT cameras if you do go that direction.

Except that I'd get a basic full size dslr first. If you are starting and are serious you want to master aperture/shutterspeed/iso and ev range and understand how these controls interact. I think this is easier to do on a simple dslr with large dedicated controls rather than a camera which is highly customizable where you set these controls up. The latter is fine once you understand the controls and you know what you want each to do for your particular needs.

Once you have the hang of these variables you will be able to move up to tjhe next level armed with knowledge about what you want the more expensive camera to do and you will spend your more serious $ more meaningfully to meet your particular needs.

And I'd add a basic software processing package to my budget. Something like Adobe Elements that has plenty of tutorial help built in. The camera is only part of the process that you are setting out to master.

--
Mike Fewster
Adelaide Australia

I still think a live view camera is better because it accellerates the learning curve.

Most entry level dSLRs don't have a good live view system.

Good point.

Tedolph

by making him master both at the same time?

Doesn't it make sense to start off with a simple but capable camera?

TEdolph

Look at both, the OMD and the GH3, this if you really need the top cameras now on Micro 4/3.

You may find another Micro 4/3 cameras and not so expensive that will fit your needs.

-- 
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.
Aleo Photo Site