Olympus E-M5II or Fuji X-T1/Xpro2?

From what I've seen, the Nocticron is a clear match for the top Fuji glass. Check the following link for many shots using EM1 and Nocticron. Amazing photos although not posted at full size unfortunately. Note there's a mix of Leica in there too, so don't get carried away before checking EXIF

Jaeger0088 said:

deednets said:

Bhima78 said:

And here is a good example portrait he shot that easily matches the detail from the one you posted.

Photo By Vincent Tsai: G7 with Sigma 60mm

Click to expand...

Thanks you very much for trying to shed some light onto this! However, I am at a complete loss as to where you get this idea from, that the above shot "easily" matches the detail of my previously posted shot. Here is a 100% crop from both:

With all due respect, but I haven't seen so much bias for a long time, you seriously think the First crop "easily" matches my crop?? You did claim that, right??

Easily?? No difference even when showing some professional photographers??

Not sure what to say, but if you can't see a difference here, then I don't know where you are coming from, sorry.

Deed

Click to expand...

Blowing up the photos to such a huge proportion to find such little detail?...sorry, but I don't find that to be the point of photography...there's more to it than a single, tiny detail in your image...composition plays a bigger role in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Haha, you are now lecturing me?? If "blowing up to such proportion" (100% which I am sure nobody has ever done before...) doesn't mean anything to you, why did you bother to ask in the first place??

There is people who use PhaseOne or other medium format cameras, but I guess I am barking up the wrong tree here.

Sorry I wasted your time!

deednets said:

Jaeger0088 said:

deednets said:

Bhima78 said:

And here is a good example portrait he shot that easily matches the detail from the one you posted.

Photo By Vincent Tsai: G7 with Sigma 60mm

Click to expand...

Thanks you very much for trying to shed some light onto this! However, I am at a complete loss as to where you get this idea from, that the above shot "easily" matches the detail of my previously posted shot. Here is a 100% crop from both:

With all due respect, but I haven't seen so much bias for a long time, you seriously think the First crop "easily" matches my crop?? You did claim that, right??

Easily?? No difference even when showing some professional photographers??

Not sure what to say, but if you can't see a difference here, then I don't know where you are coming from, sorry.

Deed

Click to expand...

Blowing up the photos to such a huge proportion to find such little detail?...sorry, but I don't find that to be the point of photography...there's more to it than a single, tiny detail in your image...composition plays a bigger role in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Haha, you are now lecturing me?? If "blowing up to such proportion" (100% which I am sure nobody has ever done before...) doesn't mean anything to you, why did you bother to ask in the first place??

There is people who use PhaseOne or other medium format cameras, but I guess I am barking up the wrong tree here.

Sorry I wasted your time!

Click to expand...

I think that the first image has (rather obviously) had some negative clarity applied. You cant really compare two images processed by totally different people potentially in different programs.

--
Auto focus is a work of the devil.
I post from a tablet, spelling errors are common, berry common.
Streetsmartphotos.blogspot.com
https://www.flickr.com/gp/139346288@N08/06

dulynoted said:

deednets said:

Jaeger0088 said:

deednets said:

Bhima78 said:

And here is a good example portrait he shot that easily matches the detail from the one you posted.

Photo By Vincent Tsai: G7 with Sigma 60mm

Click to expand...

Thanks you very much for trying to shed some light onto this! However, I am at a complete loss as to where you get this idea from, that the above shot "easily" matches the detail of my previously posted shot. Here is a 100% crop from both:

With all due respect, but I haven't seen so much bias for a long time, you seriously think the First crop "easily" matches my crop?? You did claim that, right??

Easily?? No difference even when showing some professional photographers??

Not sure what to say, but if you can't see a difference here, then I don't know where you are coming from, sorry.

Deed

Click to expand...

Blowing up the photos to such a huge proportion to find such little detail?...sorry, but I don't find that to be the point of photography...there's more to it than a single, tiny detail in your image...composition plays a bigger role in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Haha, you are now lecturing me?? If "blowing up to such proportion" (100% which I am sure nobody has ever done before...) doesn't mean anything to you, why did you bother to ask in the first place??

There is people who use PhaseOne or other medium format cameras, but I guess I am barking up the wrong tree here.

Sorry I wasted your time!

Click to expand...

I think that the first image has (rather obviously) had some negative clarity applied. You cant really compare two images processed by totally different people potentially in different programs.

--
Auto focus is a work of the devil.
I post from a tablet, spelling errors are common, berry common.
Streetsmartphotos.blogspot.com
https://www.flickr.com/gp/139346288@N08/06

https://twitter.com/x/status/684368424626073604

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

Click to expand...

I do understand when people blur skin and potentially blemishes, but - seriously - to blur the eyes?? Really? Since when has this been a technique applies by any portrait photographer? Blurring the eyes??

One might of course be inclined to think that somebody here is trying to sing the song of virtues regarding a rather soft image.

To be hones I don't really care much about that people's preferences are, but what got to me was the claim that the first image "easily" matched the ... nevermind no need to reheat what's been said. Then the OP came up with the statement that framing, composure etc matters more than sharpness. Now there is a statement for you ... truth is that you can always blur images afterwards - if you think that this actually helps the framing and composure (totally at a loss here, but he got two thumbs up, so maybe a theory with some subscribers here on the M4/3 forum, who knows??)

... but you can not sharpen an image from a blurred original. Simple as that, why a sharp image is detrimental to composure framing etc is something I am maybe too tired to truly understand, but why would people buy lenses e.g. the 12-35/2.8 Pana, I own if sharpness really doesn't matter etc. etc ...

Nuff said, a slightly on the fruitless side of the fence this thread, my guess is that the OP has made up his mind, the Oly EM5 II is a fantastic camera so he will be fine with this ...

deednets said:

dulynoted said:

deednets said:

Jaeger0088 said:

deednets said:

Bhima78 said:

And here is a good example portrait he shot that easily matches the detail from the one you posted.

Photo By Vincent Tsai: G7 with Sigma 60mm

Click to expand...

Thanks you very much for trying to shed some light onto this! However, I am at a complete loss as to where you get this idea from, that the above shot "easily" matches the detail of my previously posted shot. Here is a 100% crop from both:

With all due respect, but I haven't seen so much bias for a long time, you seriously think the First crop "easily" matches my crop?? You did claim that, right??

Easily?? No difference even when showing some professional photographers??

Not sure what to say, but if you can't see a difference here, then I don't know where you are coming from, sorry.

Deed

Click to expand...

Blowing up the photos to such a huge proportion to find such little detail?...sorry, but I don't find that to be the point of photography...there's more to it than a single, tiny detail in your image...composition plays a bigger role in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Haha, you are now lecturing me?? If "blowing up to such proportion" (100% which I am sure nobody has ever done before...) doesn't mean anything to you, why did you bother to ask in the first place??

There is people who use PhaseOne or other medium format cameras, but I guess I am barking up the wrong tree here.

Sorry I wasted your time!

Click to expand...

I think that the first image has (rather obviously) had some negative clarity applied. You cant really compare two images processed by totally different people potentially in different programs.

--
Auto focus is a work of the devil.
I post from a tablet, spelling errors are common, berry common.
Streetsmartphotos.blogspot.com
https://www.flickr.com/gp/139346288@N08/06

https://twitter.com/x/status/684368424626073604

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

Click to expand...

I do understand when people blur skin and potentially blemishes, but - seriously - to blur the eyes?? Really? Since when has this been a technique applies by any portrait photographer? Blurring the eyes??

Click to expand...

Soneone might be lazy and lower clarity over the whole image. Ive seen it done. A lot. And you dont know if it was done or not. Thats my point.

deednets said:

One might of course be inclined to think that somebody here is trying to sing the song of virtues regarding a rather soft image.

Click to expand...

If you call that soft you have problems. The image is perfectly sharp. You don' t know how it was processed at all. And regarding the eyes they are rather difficult to compare. The image you call soft has some rather large reflections showing in the womans eyes. Those reflections themselves are part of the problem. The reflections wont be in focus if her eyes are and her eyes wont be in focus if the reflections are. And since the reflections cover the majority of the eye it is difficult to discern detail and you dont have the orignal eye to compare with (the tonal gradations and auch in that womans eye might just be smoother, you don't know)

My point was that you cant compare totally different images shot by totally different photographers, and processed by two totally different people. Even weather or atmospheric conditions could play a role in the perceived sharpness.

Your image does look sharper. But my point is that the comparison proves nothing

deednets said:

To be hones I don't really care much about that people's preferences are, but what got to me was the claim that the first image "easily" matched the ... nevermind no need to reheat what's been said. Then the OP came up with the statement that framing, composure etc matters more than sharpness. Now there is a statement for you ... truth is that you can always blur images afterwards - if you think that this actually helps the framing and composure (totally at a loss here, but he got two thumbs up, so maybe a theory with some subscribers here on the M4/3 forum, who knows??)

... but you can not sharpen an image from a blurred original. Simple as that, why a sharp image is detrimental to composure framing etc is something I am maybe too tired to truly understand, but why would people buy lenses e.g. the 12-35/2.8 Pana, I own if sharpness really doesn't matter etc. etc ...

Nuff said, a slightly on the fruitless side of the fence this thread, my guess is that the OP has made up his mind, the Oly EM5 II is a fantastic camera so he will be fine with this ...

Click to expand...

--
Auto focus is a work of the devil.
I post from a tablet, spelling errors are common, berry common.
Streetsmartphotos.blogspot.com
https://www.flickr.com/gp/139346288@N08/06

Something else to consider when comparing cameras/lenses :

Lenses seem to behave differently at different focal lengths and focal distances. For instance, my Fuji 18-55 f2.8-f4 is not very sharp at it's closest focal distance and longest focal length- in fact, it's downright soft compared to my Oly 14-42 IIR kit-lens at it's shortest focal distance and maximum focal length.

I have now learnt that if I want to go very close to my subject then I'm much better off using the Oly with kit-lens than the Fuji with 18-55. In addition to being sharper, I can also get closer - Oly lenses in general seem to have shorter minimum focal distances, which I find very useful. At longer focal distances the 18-55 starts to shine compared to the Oly lens.

Put differently - lens A might be better than lens B at certain focal- length and distances, and lens B might be better than lens A at different focal- length and distances.

I briefly considered moving to the x-pro2 from my e-pl5, but dismissed the idea. I am shooting at 24-400mm Eq focal lengths, which is served now by the 12-40PRO, 1.8/45 and 40-150PRO lenses +1.4TC. Total system weight ~1.9kg, lens cost as new: ~2500$ Camera cost: ~0 (E-PL5) to 1300$ (PEN-F preorder - not going there, just put here the most expensive μ4/3 option)

Fuji alternative would be: 2.8/16-55, 2.8/50-140, 2.4/60 Total system weight ~2.3kg, lens cost as new: ~3300$, camera cost: 1800$ (x-pro2, earlier versions wouldn't justify the change for me).

Is the fuji (namely x-pro2) +the above lenses better? Probably. However this advantage has to be paid by heavy $$$ (~2k$!) and around half kg extra weight. Even then, my target telephoto range is not met, the fuji lens tops at 210mm eq, whereas the oly at 300m eq, without TC, that's a lot to crop... Alternative of course would be to get the new 100-400, but that's even more expensive than the 50-140 and looses 1EV compared to the oly 40-150+TC.

Briefly put: that ~1EV doesn't worth me ~2k+$ and 500g over my existing setup. This 1EV can easily be compensated by the superior IBIS of e.g an e-m5ii body or a very fast lens, such as the rumored f1.2's.

Tomx72 said:

I briefly considered moving to the x-pro2 from my e-pl5, but dismissed the idea. I am shooting at 24-400mm Eq focal lengths, which is served now by the 12-40PRO, 1.8/45 and 40-150PRO lenses +1.4TC. Total system weight ~1.9kg, lens cost as new: ~2500$ Camera cost: ~0 (E-PL5) to 1300$ (PEN-F preorder - not going there, just put here the most expensive μ4/3 option)

Fuji alternative would be: 2.8/16-55, 2.8/50-140, 2.4/60 Total system weight ~2.3kg, lens cost as new: ~3300$, camera cost: 1800$ (x-pro2, earlier versions wouldn't justify the change for me).

Is the fuji (namely x-pro2) +the above lenses better? Probably. However this advantage has to be paid by heavy $$$ (~2k$!) and around half kg extra weight. Even then, my target telephoto range is not met, the fuji lens tops at 210mm eq, whereas the oly at 300m eq, without TC, that's a lot to crop... Alternative of course would be to get the new 100-400, but that's even more expensive than the 50-140 and looses 1EV compared to the oly 40-150+TC.

Briefly put: that ~1EV doesn't worth me ~2k+$ and 500g over my existing setup. This 1EV can easily be compensated by the superior IBIS of e.g an e-m5ii body or a very fast lens, such as the rumored f1.2's.

Click to expand...

I've said something similar before, but not as nicely laid out as your example - namely, you can't beat m43 on price/performance = value. Got hatched for saying it, but you've gone a long way toward proving the case.

I guess the one good thing that isn't measurable, about the X-Pro2 is for shooters with Leica M mount glass who want to use them on digital. That has proven tempting for me because I have rangefinder lenses, mostly Cosina-Voightlander lenses, but so far I resisted and kept digital and film equipment apart.

I suggest some take a look at Robin Wong's site to see what Olympus camera's can achieve with a good lens.

with the 45mm 1.8


With the 75 1.8


12-40 Pro

DanielBme said:

I suggest some take a look at Robin Wong's site to see what Olympus camera's can achieve with a good lens.

with the 45mm 1.8

http://robinwong.blogspot.ca/2011/08/olympus-mzuiko-45mm-f18-review-chinese.html

With the 75 1.8

http://robinwong.blogspot.ca/2012/07/olympus-mzuiko-75mm-f18-review-street.html

12-40 Pro

http://robinwong.blogspot.ca/2014/07/olympus-mzuiko-12-40mm-f28-pro-lens_6.html

--
Any man's death (and animal's) diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind
- John Donne

Click to expand...

I had a look at his sample shots and he does a good job regarding what he gets out of the camera and lenses used.

I found his 45/1.8 some time ago and a lot of the images are good examples of what the lens can achieve. However ... I then got stuck at the Hindu Temple, no backlit smoke inside a building etc but a full front of detail. Had a look at the 100% crops and I thought that this was less than convincing, in particular when compared to the 42.5/1.2. Admittedly in a different league altogether, but it seemed to me that a certain application for the 1.8 lens is great, but not across the board (e.g. the Hindu Temple shot, I wondered whetehr the 35-35/2.8 I have would be notably worse. My guess would actually be that the zoom might be better for this type of contrast and detail, but this is just a guess.

Since I have the 75/1.8 I found the sample shots reflecting what that lens can do accurately enough, I am not sure though whether I like the OOF rendition as they tend to be quite busy. I noticed too that I yet have to see sample shots of eyes (often enough used for comparison when not deliberately "softened" for a certain look...) where the iris has detail. Maybe a matter of the eye colour, but I find that I get eye detail "easily" (this time round it is actually true...) out of the Fuji system.





View at 100% if you can. The shot was a quick snapshot taken with the 35/1.4 lens the guy in the photo owns. I wanted to try that lens and asked him to do a quick pose. If I remember right, I asked him what he had been up to last night after I viewed the pics on my laptop...

Here are a couple of shots taken with the GX8 and 75/1.8 last week end, it shows that to get OOF areas, you need to shoot really wide open ...



... or enhance the distance ratio between foreground and background, not a good shot, but wanted to see how the lens rendered the foreground (vase on the left) half-background (figure on the right) and background (the blurry stuff behind the central figure):



Let's face it, a 150/3.6 FF is close enough to the traditional 70-200/2.8 zooms, but not really in the same league as the 42.5/1.2 (90/2.4 FF) or the Fuji 56/1.2 (85/1.8).

Here is one shot you might have seen, posted again for comparison, where the background is completely OOF. Not always wanted, but stopping down is easier than stopping "up" ... as I am sure you will know.



And here is a shot taken with the 75mm at F1.8 in hindside I should have used F1.8 at the market as well and thought I had only stopped down the 75 a little (F3.2 2/3 of a stop...):





Not World War 3 material really this thread, right??

Deed

Well, he has eye detail on this pic. I"m not sure there's really anything to complain about with this pic...it looks much sharper on this web page than it does here though.





and this one too







--
Any man's death (and animal's) diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind
- John Donne

DanielBme said:

Well, he has eye detail on this pic. I"m not sure there's really anything to complain about with this pic...it looks much sharper on this web page than it does here though.

and this one too

--
Any man's death (and animal's) diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind
- John Donne

Click to expand...

Won't argue this for the rest of the year, but the veins and the iris itself is different, the lashes in focus, maybe that is the limit for the sensor you think?

But this constant "smaller sensor - just as good, or better" ... well, dunno, but I seem to see stuff that I find easy to replicate any day of the week with my Fuji, but have not managed to get this far with my GX8.

Good enough?? For sure, but wiping the floor with larger sensors?? Maybe not. At least not in my book.

P.S.: I shoot FF too so have my theories regarding the limitations of the certain systems in question. Will leave it at that for now ... thanks for sharing the links!

Honestly it's hard to tell. To me the lashes could be because of various reasons, thickness, maybe mascara on for females. The veins, well some people have thicker or lighter veins..

The only way to get a good look is to take the same pic with post cameras, then compare. For portraits I don't think there's all that much difference between Olympus, Fuji, or say FF. For landscapes the higher dynamic range will definitely be better on FF. However, you really do need to pixel peep as I'm pretty sure you won't see a real difference viewing on the web. If you are printing large, yes you probably will. I have some decent sized pics from my em5, Nikon, and Fuji and nobody can really tell which came from which camera.

I had an EM5, then went to a Fuji XT1. I am camera free right now as I had to sell my gear to pay for surgery for one of my dogs. I'm now looking to buy again and trying to decide mainly between a Fuji XT2 or the Olympus EM-1 MK2. I'm leaning towards the Olympus due to size and weight. I like to travel so I think it would be a better match.

I had a Nikon D7100 last year for a safari I did. I took my Fuji with me as a secondary camera. I much prefer the pics of wildlife that came from the Nikon. I would love a Nikon D7200 but the combined camera plus a 17-50 2.8 is fairly large. Not large for my hands but large for travelling in the sense that I find I stand out more when trying to grab photos of people. In Morocco and India, it's just less obtrusive. In especially in places like Morocco where people really really have an aversion to having their photos taken.