How well do you think the X-Pro 1 will stack up against the Olympus OM-D?

I'm due for a new camera for those times when I want to travel light light and leave my old faithful Nikon D300 at home and I've been looking at the Oly OM-D and the X-Pro 1 but was just wondering what I'd be gaining or giving up with one over the other.

Right now there are only a few higher end mirror-less cameras on the market that I like and the Fujifilm and Oly OM-D are at the top of my list. Also I have no glass for either so I'm looking to build a new system.

--
Allen
http://allenrbarrett.com/

It's more of an aps-c sensor vs mft sensor comparison, as both will make great photos, do high ISO well, etc.

The advantages of a larger sensor will be making larger prints, more DOF, more crop wiggle room & PP wiggle room, and more pixel level resolution and a few other things I'm forgetting.

You can't really go wrong with either, so I'd say follow your heart.

The OM-D looks very interesting to me as well. What decided me against it was my experiences with the X100. After experiencing the Hybrid VF and the external control scheme and the inconspicuous looks and the wonderful IQ I know that if I had purchased something else, I would just feel like I still had to have the XPro1.

I'll be reading the reviews of the the OM-D out of curiosity, but I just can't imagine it being good enough to make we wish I had it instead of the X-Pro1.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelthek/

Allen, I am in exactly the same boat. I have a ton of Nikon gear but want something smaller.

I just sent Fuji India an email asking if they have any idea of availability and if they honor the Global warranty (Olympus India state, plainly, that they do).

Since I also do not have any lenses I am sort of leaning towards the Oly due to the availability of more lenses, and with some of the recent Fuji problems, but the Fuji looks very good
--
Anticipate the Light and wing it when you get it wrong

Tom
http://taja.smugmug.com/

From an image quality perspective.

M43 has a solid lens line up already though , but for the Fuji the 18mm looks decent, the 60mm very good and what i've seen of the 35mm - awesome.
--

http://www.samwaldron.co.nz

I've been shooting w/ an X100 as my carry everywhere this past year (pretty invested long time Canon shooter on the DSLR side). I recently was making the same decision and it was a relatively easy call for me.

The X-Pro1 has two main things really going for it: 1) the Hybrid OVF and 2) the X-Trans sensor - APS-C sized, no AA filter, that new CFA. Also while it seems like they won't be fixing the X100 (grumble grumble whatever), it looks like they've at least paid attention and fixed most of the the issues w/ the XP1: fast startup, responsive when writing, q-menu, extra fn button. We've yet to see if the MF is much improved (can't be worse), or how the AF performs. Unfortunately, w/ the focal plane shutter, you lose the X100's quietness and fast flash sync, and while the dial locks are great, they haven't added an ISO dial (although at least AutoISO is in the ISO menu now).

I've been happy w/ the X100 and not super hot to trot to buy a new system, but the OM-D was pretty compelling, so I pre-ordered. My list/thinking...

• Weather Sealing: this was a biggie for me. I do a lot of traveling for work and leisure, and I definitely needed something more rugged than the X100 (which fogs over at the slightest hint of moisture). The E-level weather sealing is fantastic. Hopefully there'll be a weather sealed pancake prime lens soon...

• Size: While the XPro1 is bulkier, an OM-D w/ a pancake prime (like the Panasonic 20mm or Oly 17mm) is pretty much the exact same size as the X100. This is great IMO. The additional grip + vertical grip is also a nice option when looking for more to hold onto.

• EVF: I can live w/ the Oly EVF. While I love the OVF on the X100, it's one of the great pleasures of shooting w/ it IMO, so it's understandable that this is probably a dealbreaker for some. For me, the EVF on the OM-D should be a compromise I can live with (also the frame rate on the VF2 is much less laggy than the X100's EVF).

• Sensor: while it's smaller, and has lower DR (nothing in the samples suggest any of the silky smooth goodness of the X100), using the latest Panasonic m43 sensor, high ISO shooting actually looks pretty decent - in real life probably better than my X100, which tends to band above ISO 3200. Also, that 5-axis IBIS looks dead sexy and should be fantastic for long shutter handhelds (smaller sensor and more DOF will help too). Obviously the trade-off is that DOF isolation is that much harder, but overall IQ looks good enough.

• AF: The E-M5 is going to have best of breed AF, including shooting 4fps w/ continuous (3D matrix) AF. There's face detection (would save so much misfocusing when doing social shooting w/ the X100), and touch-point AF as well. Also, the fly-by-wire focusing is actually known to work (shocking, I know).

• Handling: w/ two dials and two fn buttons (also a configurable movie record button) it should be perfectly fine. The grips can apparently have different functions assigned, which is nice...

• Lens selection: probably most importantly, m43 is head and shoulders where either the X-Mount or E-Mount will be anytime soon. There's a big selection of decent to great primes that are pretty compact (the Panny 20mm, Zuiko 12mm, Zuiko 45mm are at the top of my list right now), as well as some OK zooms (not really my thing). While the promise of M to X adapter mount is nice, MF w/o peaking seems pointless for all but the most leisurely shooting. (Oly also has some philosophical disagreements w/ peaking, much to its detriment, but w/ a much better native lens selection and an AF-enabled 4/3 adapter, it's not a dealbreaker).

Lastly, a couple other reservations about the XPro-1. There's the issue of cost - the XPro-1 is going to clock in at twice the price w/ a lens (and the 18mm isn't looking so hot). And for me, the bigger thing, the lackluster updates on the X100 would make me wait until the reviews rolled in for the XPro-1. While Fuji has made many changes in response to X100 complaints for the XPro-1 , over the course of 4 or 5 firmware releases for the X100 , there haven't been substantive fixes to most of the X100's issues, from simple things like the ISO menu (the dial still works reverse in choosing ISO from EVF vs OVF, AutoISO is still buried multiple menus away) or the RAW/fn2 button, to much serious issues like the useless (and light dependent!) MF, AF speed, aperture dance, or AEL/AFL (AFL-S also AEL regardless of your AFL/AEL setting). Based on the past year w/ the X100, I think it'd be overly optimistic to think that any issues w/ the XPro-1 would be fixed/updated...

lhl said:

it looks like they've at least paid attention and fixed most of the the issues w/ the XP1: fast startup, responsive when writing, q-menu, extra fn button.

Click to expand...

Very interesting post and you have given me a lot to think about.

One comment. I believe there is only one Fn button on the X-Pro1. The raw button has become the q-button and I don't think they have added any programmable ones.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelthek/

A very compelling set of cameras.

I have preordered both.

Hopefully the Fuji will blow my socks off as it will be delivered first I presume and than I likely will cancel my OM D preorder.

If I am at all uncertain I will take both and than sell the one that I think works less well for me.

Perry

I also looking at these two cameras.

How good the image quality on the X-pro1 will be the deciding factor.

Both cameras will produce the same sized images so a side by side photo comparison should not be that difficult when they both come out.

The OM-D has the everything but kitchen sink, most notable of which is the fast autofocus and IBIS.

The image quality, autofocus accuracy and speed, and for some, the manual focus of the X-pro1 will be what decides it for most people. Nailing those might be enough to sway people away from the whole package approach of the OM-D.

Can't wait for image side by side comparisons of the same subject.

The image quality on the xpro1 seems to kill the om-d.

These are OM-D samples, not impressed at all.



iso 1600 fairly noisy sky



^ iso 200, noisy sky/smoke, details gone on the stones / dark stuff

I have been reading post here in the forum saying that they think that the 18mm lens is not that good (I am not experienced enough to judge the quality).

I would like to ask, if from the sample images, the "not so good" 18mm would produce better images than the OM-D at the same focal length?

Would the APS-C size sensor still make the images from the X-pro1 with the 18mm be of higher quality then the best of what Micro 43 can offer?
Thanks.

IHL pretty much nails the comparison.
The Oly should be terrific.

I really want a quality optical viewfinder.
Along with a camera that I can carry and use on an everyday basis.

EVF's are getting very good but I yearn for a great optical view so the Xpro-1 is getting my vote.

I have a Canon S90 and it is an amazingly capable camera but using it has convinced me that I need a viewfinder for anything more than simple snapshots.

Likewise I'm on the lookout for a good full frame Canon 5D.

I made the mistake of looking through the viewfinder of my EOS3 and realized I want a bright, clear, full frame DLSR without the brick-lie cumbersome mass of the Canon Pro style DLSRs. Sold my 1D MarkII due to it's cumbersome size.

-Framus

I have both an X100 and an m43 system. I love the X100 as a change of pace in terms of shooting style and for its amazing IQ and low light capability. But for a system , I'm not interested in a X100 type of camera so I'll be skipping the XPro1 and upgrading my m43 body to the OMD. IHL pretty much nails the various advantages of the OMD. It's a much more versatile and "athletic" camera than the Fuji will be. I love the Fuji approach and OVF for more contemplative shooting experience, but it would frustrate me to death as a primary system camera. and while the OMD will never quite match the Fuji for ultimate IQ, I find existing m43 gear more than good enough for 99% of the shooting I do. And with the IBIS system, it ends up being about 90% as good for most low light shooting. And the lens selection is just incredible with m43 - the Fuji will probably catch up eventually but I'll be surprised if such a versatile lens lineup will really work with the OVF. And I already have all of the m43 lenses I want. I also really love the lightning fast AF, the tilt up screen, etc. There's just a LOT to like in m43 as the bodies get better and better.

So it really comes down to your shooting style, the importance of that last couple percentage points of IQ, how versatile you want/need your system to be, etc. the OMD is gonna do it for me, but I wouldn't argue with anyone who reaches a different conclusion - its not like I didn't give the Fuji a good long look. If it was less expensive I might have tried to swing both, but a X-Pro prices it would have to be all or nothing and I don't see it as all...

-Ray
-------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/collections/72157626204295198/

Is it certain that the second image is iso 200?
It does not look good indeed. It would be very disappointing.

Not sure if notnyt is trolling or not. Those are samples, however they are both processed with the in-camera art filters ("Creative Program" in the EXIF). Interestingly, they were shot w/ v0.8 FW (there are some v0.9 samples floating around) on camera serial #1.

If you're interested in seeing all the samples, which includes some "regular" shots, here's the link (full size in the bottom right of each photo): http://tu.pcpop.com/all-760980.htm

These are all shot w/ the new kit lens on pre-production firmware in JPEG, so I wouldn't get too worked up either way. I think it's a given that the X-Pro1 will have better IQ (the 35mm/60mm sample JPEGs look great), but I'd be pretty surprised if the OM-D IQ was much worse than say the GX1.

Indeed those look much better. Excpet that all were made in what seems to be pretty pretty good luminosity.

With strobes or in a bright day, I've got very good photos out of my f200exr, used as a backup when my s3 died on me while in Brazil. I was amazed at how good the results were (maybe a bit too amazed, but I was expecting something rathe rugly, and no, it was indeed very nice).

I want to see in normal indoor lights how it fares. Then I'll have a proper comparison point to my x100, which indoors requires 1/40 to 1/60 at f2.8 or f4 and iso 3200 (plus a bit of fill light sometimes in LR). And the files hold up pretty well I think (I posted half a dozen photos in another thread to show just that to someone who was in the fence about buying or not :
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=40545551

I imagine the xpro will get similar results (and in fact better ones, since I'll have a 50mm lens on it, and for some of the photos the result would have been nicer with that focal lenght)

All that being said, and despite the fact that the OM-1 was my first reflex camera, I am almost certain to go the x pro route, provided I manage to gather the money...

EDIT: I saw the full size now, but the black and white image of the city square does not look any better, and usually BW is a bit more forgiving...)

I'd say the days of forum pixel peepers are dying a quick death. Unless you're talking specific needs such as studio, sport or large scale landscape work - any of the latest crop of "prosumer" cameras, no matter where you turn, are going to give great results.

It really comes down to two things if cost isn't a factor:

1) Sensor size. For some, DOF control and crop factor is a big deal.

2) Handling. Manual controls, OVF, EVF, Swivel screen, Classic or modern, Size etc etc.

Here's a French site w/ some (non-Olympus) test images (v0.95 FW) w/ full-size JPEGs and ORF RAW files (however ACR and C1 won't process them yet) w/ a few different lenses: http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1381/compact-olympus-om-d-e-m5-exemples-photos-15.html

Pixelpeeping at 100% the images definitely aren't as clean as some of the X-Pro1 samples, but they look decent enough. I don't think there's a right answer necessarily, just one of the tradeoffs/considerations that will be different for each photographer. For me, I think the sensor isn't going to be the limiting factor for getting the shots (and enjoying the process) as much as some of the other considerations, but we'll see in a few months.

That's a bit optimistic. There will always be pixel peepers, and they will always be the loudest shouters. It's why these forums become difficult to deal with at times.

The OM-D will likely outsell the X-Pro1, simply because it's cheaper and the system is more mature. The X-Pro1 will likely take better pictures, but enough to sway people over the other disadvantages? Not in general... X-Pro1 is likely for a certain small segment of people, the OM-D is something that will please a wider variety.

All imo of course.

Both cameras look great, both have strengths and weaknesses, but I'm sure both will make the majority of people who buy them happy.

inteliboy said:

I'd say the days of forum pixel peepers are dying a quick death. Unless you're talking specific needs such as studio, sport or large scale landscape work - any of the latest crop of "prosumer" cameras, no matter where you turn, are going to give great results.

It really comes down to two things if cost isn't a factor:

1) Sensor size. For some, DOF control and crop factor is a big deal.

2) Handling. Manual controls, OVF, EVF, Swivel screen, Classic or modern, Size etc etc.

Click to expand...

--
http://asylum-photo.com

I normally don't care to look at photos at 100%. In this instance however, since they were posted here in such a big size, I had a hard time believing what seemed to me to be pretty bad (once more, at the size it was posted --- once zoomed out to the minimum size, they looked fine, and when printed as a souvenir, they'll also probably print very well -- and indeed most cameras will : I pronted, very small, for a necklace frame, a photo taken with my cell phone, and at that size it printed fine, but viewed on screen I'd say 1 out of every 3 or 4 pixels was noise...).

If I was one to consider images only at 100% size, I'd not have only s3, s5 an S-UVIR as dslr... What I like about them is what I see, as a result, at normal sizes. When I want to go big, I make a pano, so I can have big, but still at 300 dpi.

The x100 allowed me to free myself from the need of using flash indoors for baby photos (the link I posted above). The xpro will allow to continue that way, with more flexibility. But if the files at 100% looked like that, I don't think I could dismiss it, although I know I would never print that big (equivalent to 100% viewing on screen) : I would even be afraid to crop, and that it would make detail (or lack thereof) visible...

edit : i forgot to mention I completelly agree with your statement about prosummer cameras. And I made more or less the same point, about my f200exr.