Fuji vs m43 - how much better is Fuji?

Hi guys,

I want to get a new system and thinking about Fuji vs m43 (see shopping list below). I do photography as a hobby and not professional. I like to shoot architecture, wildlife, street, and landscape. And I prefer zooms over primes as this gives me more options when traveling.

Which option would you recommend, in which lens system should I invest? Is the bigger sensor of Fuji worth to invest more money (Fuji is the more expensive system according to my shopping list)? The m43 lenses would also be a bit smaller and easier to carry.

What is the high ISO performance of G9 vs X-T3/H1 like? Any differences in Autofocus speed/accuracy? What are the differences in the handling, considering Fuji has so many nice manual dials and the Pana not that much?

Shopping alternatives:

1. Panasonic G9
   7-14mm F4
   Panasonic 14-140mm I
   Panasonic 100-300mm II or Panasonic 100-400mm
   --> 3700-4300 Euros
2. Fuji X-T3/XH1
   XF 10-24mm
   XF 18-55mm + XF 55-200mm or XF 18-135
   XF 100-400mm
   --> 5100 Euros

There were seven reasons I did not go with m43 when I switched to mirrorless from Nikon DX DSLRs.

1. No phase detection auto focus. This was a deal killer for me. I need a camera capable of AF on a moving subject. Anything less is point and shoot pocket camera tech in my mind.
2. Image quality was a step down from my seven year old Nikon D7000, especially in high ISO and dynamic range. I also found that I could not get colors to my liking with m43.
3. I don't like the 4:3 image ratio. I started out with the 35mm film format with a 3:2 aspect ratio and much prefer it for my landscape photography.
4. Most of the more affordable m43 lenses are under-designed optically and rely too heavily on in- camera digital correction, IMO.
5. The high quality m43 lenses tend to be very expensive and too large and heavy for such a small sensor.
6. The sensor tech of m43 cameras lags behind that of APS-C. Apparently Sony does not put there best sensor tech (like BSI or stacked) in m43 sensors and they need it.
7. I prefer the Olympus bodies to Panasonic, but I don't think Olympus can afford to keep losing money forever, so I expect Olympus to abandon the camera market within the next four years.

I believe m43 appeals more to those coming from cell phones and the tiny sensor point and shoot cameras of yesteryear than they do for those coming from an APS-C DSLR. The m43 format is mostly compromises in the negative direction while only offering smaller size and and weight for enticement to DSLR users. I also strongly believe that without phase detection auto focus the m43 format has no long term future.

Florian32 said:

Hi guys,

I want to get a new system and thinking about Fuji vs m43 (see shopping list below). I do photography as a hobby and not professional. I like to shoot architecture, wildlife, street, and landscape. And I prefer zooms over primes as this gives me more options when traveling.

Which option would you recommend, in which lens system should I invest? Is the bigger sensor of Fuji worth to invest more money (Fuji is the more expensive system according to my shopping list)? The m43 lenses would also be a bit smaller and easier to carry.

What is the high ISO performance of G9 vs X-T3/H1 like? Any differences in Autofocus speed/accuracy? What are the differences in the handling, considering Fuji has so many nice manual dials and the Pana not that much?

Shopping alternatives:

1. Panasonic G9
   7-14mm F4
   Panasonic 14-140mm I
   Panasonic 100-300mm II or Panasonic 100-400mm
   --> 3700-4300 Euros
2. Fuji X-T3/XH1
   XF 10-24mm
   XF 18-55mm + XF 55-200mm or XF 18-135
   XF 100-400mm
   --> 5100 Euros

Click to expand...

Your assumption that zooms give you more options might need to be discussed on another day. A little hint as to what I am getting at is shallow dof where any crop sensor is at a disadvantage when compared to full frame. The 7-14 pana has an equivalent F8 when compared to FF. The Fuji an F6 equiv. not much subject isolation either, but better. A Fuji 16/1.4 has an equiv of F2.1 FF and although a wide angle lens, can provide some great subject isolation.

If this is of little interest to you, then both systems give you plenty of ok image quality. I have used MFT for a few years alongside Fuji and found the following differences in Fuji’s favour:

• better image quality overall
• closer to what I was aiming for regarding colours
• 2:3 more like I see vs 4:3
• low light better on Fuji
• external dials and buttons.
• aperture ring
• I use the X-Pro2 mainly, form factor a big one
• 15 minutes longest shutter speed
• 1/32.000s maximum
• lenses
• shallower dof

What’s better on MFT:

• can be smaller
• IBIS
• more dof

I am writing this on an iPad otherwise I could post some pics.

Good luck with your decision!

Deed

If you're not dead set on the 10-24, you could do the following for ~4750 euro (converted from USD, so math may be a bit off) and have a bonkers good setup.

• X-T3
• XF 16-55mm
• XF 50-140mm
• XF 100-400mm

Could always add the 10-24 later or save up for the 8-16mm if you find yourself needing the extra width. Noted that you stated that you prefer zooms, but Samyang/Rokinon 12mm could also be an inexpensive gap strategy and get you an extra few mm from the wide end.

Personally, I like the 4:3 aspect ratio and appreciated that from my 645 MF days. That's the best I can say for that side of it.

The Panasonic 7-14 is a very nice lens, but the Fuji 10-24 is stellar. The other lenses... look at what those Fuji lenses produce compared to 4:3rds postings. If planning to travel, you might consider the 50-230 and forget about the longer, heavier lens for now. If coming from dSLR, you need to proceed with some caution before tackling the longer zoom lengths. These slow zooms seem impossible, but they are very capable wide open (both the 50-230 and the 55-200) - and the OIS benefit is substantial.

You wouldn't expect the low light performance differences between these formats to be significant. They are significantly different, though. That will be especially apparent when the time comes to invest in some prime lenses (almost inevitable for Fuji shooters, it seems).

Florian32 said:

Hi guys,

I want to get a new system and thinking about Fuji vs m43 (see shopping list below). I do photography as a hobby and not professional. I like to shoot architecture, wildlife, street, and landscape. And I prefer zooms over primes as this gives me more options when traveling.

Which option would you recommend, in which lens system should I invest? Is the bigger sensor of Fuji worth to invest more money (Fuji is the more expensive system according to my shopping list)? The m43 lenses would also be a bit smaller and easier to carry.

What is the high ISO performance of G9 vs X-T3/H1 like? Any differences in Autofocus speed/accuracy? What are the differences in the handling, considering Fuji has so many nice manual dials and the Pana not that much?

Shopping alternatives:

1. Panasonic G9
   7-14mm F4
   Panasonic 14-140mm I
   Panasonic 100-300mm II or Panasonic 100-400mm
   --> 3700-4300 Euros
2. Fuji X-T3/XH1
   XF 10-24mm
   XF 18-55mm + XF 55-200mm or XF 18-135
   XF 100-400mm
   --> 5100 Euros

Click to expand...

Fuji XT3 hands down

Better IQ

Better noise or lack of at High ISO

Better AF-C

Better ergo

Better looks

Better lenses

Better build

Period (from former MFT owner)

exactly 43,75% better.

Or a little more serious. Nobody can answer that question to you. Especially not here in a Fuji gear forum. Of course we prefer Fuji that's why we shoot Fuji.

I have tried out m43 some time back. It was the Panasonic GM1. I was surprised by the snappy AF in poor light and really liked two lenses:

the 14-140: I don't like superzoom but this one I liked a lot.

http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com/?p=4352

and the 45/1.8:

http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com/?p=5923

So if weight is a serious issue and your are not interested in primes and shallow DOF I would think twice before I get a heavier and costlier system. m43 didn't work for me but that doesn't mean it isn't the perfect system for you.

The Panasonic 100-400 looks really sweet too and it is much smaller and lighter than the Fuji 100-400 plus it's a 800mm compared to 600mm. So it gives more reach. I can't say anything about it's performance though.

Maybe you have the chance to try before you buy.

Very basically : with Panasonic, you'll get (excellent) IBIS, better AF in lowest light, and the 14-140 (unique superzoom with very little compromises due to the 10x range). For the rest, Fuji is better. But the most important thing once on the field is ergonomics and UI : if you prefer PASM, buy Panasonic. Personally, I used to switch from Panasonic to Fuji specifically to avoid PASM, and I'm happy so far. But it is a matter of taste.

I don't know how to answer this question, but it would be interresting to evaluate how many switch from M43 to Fuji, and how many switch from Fuji to M43.

IMO, they are the Fuji of m43 in terms of form/function, IQ, and glass quality.

Compared to Fuji, you'll lose a little in resolution and high iso performance but you gain the difference in size with a smaller and lighter kit.

--

Fuji X-T3 | Fuji X-E3

As someone who switched from M43 to Fuji a few months ago I'll tell you first hand that it was worth it. Panasonic has IMO the best lower price range cameras around. The GX85 is incredible for its price point and then some. For the fact that you can toss the $150 25mm 1.7 on a $600 camera and get amazing results (outside) is why I push everyone with smaller budgets to go that direction.

That said, once you cross a grand for a body Fuji wins. The glass at the same price point range is better as well. The extra light with apsc vs M43 shouldn't be ignored but where Fuji excels over 4/3 is in ISO performance. The G9 does a little better than its less expensive siblings but still doesn't match that of my XH1. Speaking of which, Panasonic has better ibis but Fuji is better than anyone else but them and is rumored to be releasing a FW update for the XH1 to improve IBIS further.

If you're going to invest in a system make it an investment, meaning not something you're going to sell any time soon. With M43 you will likely always have that thing in the back of your head that says "maybe I should have gone with Fuji". That doesn't really happen in the opposite direction I'd venture a guess to say.

Lastly, it's been beaten into the ground but Fuji color is really great and possibly the area that really blows Panasonic out of the water as far as I'm concerned. If you shoot raw, maybe not such a big deal but if you shoot jpeg it's the biggest selling point.

Florian32 said:

Hi guys,

Click to expand...

Hello,

Florian32 said:

I want to get a new system and thinking about Fuji vs m43 (see shopping list below). I do photography as a hobby and not professional. I like to shoot architecture, wildlife, street, and landscape. And I prefer zooms over primes as this gives me more options when traveling.

Click to expand...

Understood.

Florian32 said:

Which option would you recommend, in which lens system should I invest?

Click to expand...

Since you're on the 'Fujifilm X System' on the forum, it is likely you'd get more recommendations for the Fujifilm system here.

Florian32 said:

Is the bigger sensor of Fuji worth to invest more money (Fuji is the more expensive system according to my shopping list)?

Click to expand...

It's not that much a sensor size thing. It's about finding the system that fits your needs and you tastes the best.

Florian32 said:

The m43 lenses would also be a bit smaller and easier to carry.

Click to expand...

I am not very aware about µ4/3 lenses, but usually when you consider 'equivalent lenses' (e.g. something like 40mm f/1 on µ4/3, 60mm f/1.4 on APS-C and 80mm f/2.0 on FF (note: I deliberately choose non-existing lenses to prevent any debate on specific lenses)) they usually have very similar weights.

Florian32 said:

What is the high ISO performance of G9 vs X-T3/H1 like?

Click to expand...

If you choose equivalent lenses, you will get very similar low light performance. You can't put the lenses out of the equation. it's not about comparing both camera at the same ISO, it's about comparing a body + lens kit and assessing how it performs in given lighting conditions.

Florian32 said:

Any differences in Autofocus speed/accuracy?

Click to expand...

I don't know, sorry.

Florian32 said:

What are the differences in the handling, considering Fuji has so many nice manual dials and the Pana not that much?

Click to expand...

That's very personal. Try both!

Florian32 said:

Shopping alternatives:

1. Panasonic G9
   7-14mm F4
   Panasonic 14-140mm I
   Panasonic 100-300mm II or Panasonic 100-400mm
   --> 3700-4300 Euros
2. Fuji X-T3/XH1
   XF 10-24mm
   XF 18-55mm + XF 55-200mm or XF 18-135
   XF 100-400mm
   --> 5100 Euros

Click to expand...

Having just switched from m43 to Fuji, here are my thoughts. (G85 with 15 1.7, 25 1.4, 35-100 2.8) (currently xt20 with 23/2 35/2).

If size and weight is a concern, especially in the long telephoto range, m43 has the advantage.

IBIS is another nice thing to have, so depending on what you shoot, may be important.

IQ of course Fuji is better but it's not a big difference. High ISO I'd give Fuji 1 stop advantage. In good light, negligible difference.

M43 sensor easier to work with software for post processing. Fuji has better sooc jpegs.

In your case, for travel and zooms I'd pick the m43 option.

In my case i shoot a lot of people, primes in the 35/50mm range, so the size difference is null. The high ISO was important to me. And i don't really shoot telephoto. So i switched to Fuji.

Looking at the files, I'd be happy with either format.

Just my opinion.

Good luck

jonikon said:

There were seven reasons I did not go with m43 when I switched to mirrorless from Nikon DX DSLRs.

1. No phase detection auto focus. This was a deal killer for me. I need a camera capable of AF on a moving subject. Anything less is point and shoot pocket camera tech in my mind.

Click to expand...

I had many M43 cameras and the autofocus was always fast and accurate

jonikon said:

1. Image quality was a step down from my seven year old Nikon D7000, especially in high ISO and dynamic range. I also found that I could not get colors to my liking with m43.

Click to expand...

I don't like the jpeg colors of Panasonic, but Olympus colors are excellent.

In low light, image stabilization is a huge advantage on Nikon, Canon, Fuji and old Sony cameras. No need to use high ISO on static subjects.

jonikon said:

1. I don't like the 4:3 image ratio. I started out with the 35mm film format with a 3:2 aspect ratio and much prefer it for my landscape photography.

Click to expand...

I can agree with that, but I am discovering more and more the charms of the 4:3 format. You just must change your way of thinking. And I do use more often the 16:9 format now. ~80% of photos in 4:3 and ~20% in 16:9 is a superb combination.

jonikon said:

1. Most of the more affordable m43 lenses are under-designed optically and rely too heavily on in- camera digital correction, IMO.

Click to expand...

Not a problem, what counts is the results.

jonikon said:

1. The high quality m43 lenses tend to be very expensive and too large and heavy for such a small sensor.

Click to expand...

My Panasonic 15/1.7 and... Sigma 60/2.8 are both excellent and light.

jonikon said:

1. The sensor tech of m43 cameras lags behind that of APS-C. Apparently Sony does not put there best sensor tech (like BSI or stacked) in m43 sensors and they need it.
2. I prefer the Olympus bodies to Panasonic, but I don't think Olympus can afford to keep losing money forever, so I expect Olympus to abandon the camera market within the next four years.

Click to expand...

Pure speculation.

jonikon said:

I believe m43 appeals more to those coming from cell phones and the tiny sensor point and shoot cameras of yesteryear than they do for those coming from an APS-C DSLR.

Click to expand...

Not for me. I am using for a long time Pentax SLRs, bought a M43 camera and a few lenses for the light weight, and now I am using more and more the m43 system and less and less the Pentax. Except for very high ISO (> 1600 ISO; maybe 2% of my photos) and pixel peeping, I.Q. is very similar.

jonikon said:

The m43 format is mostly compromises in the negative direction while only offering smaller size and and weight for enticement to DSLR users. I also strongly believe that without phase detection auto focus the m43 format has no long term future.

Click to expand...

Florian32 said:

Hi guys,

I want to get a new system and thinking about Fuji vs m43 (see shopping list below). I do photography as a hobby and not professional. I like to shoot architecture, wildlife, street, and landscape. And I prefer zooms over primes as this gives me more options when traveling.

Which option would you recommend, in which lens system should I invest? Is the bigger sensor of Fuji worth to invest more money (Fuji is the more expensive system according to my shopping list)? The m43 lenses would also be a bit smaller and easier to carry.

What is the high ISO performance of G9 vs X-T3/H1 like? Any differences in Autofocus speed/accuracy? What are the differences in the handling, considering Fuji has so many nice manual dials and the Pana not that much?

Shopping alternatives:

1. Panasonic G9
   7-14mm F4
   Panasonic 14-140mm I
   Panasonic 100-300mm II or Panasonic 100-400mm
   --> 3700-4300 Euros
2. Fuji X-T3/XH1
   XF 10-24mm
   XF 18-55mm + XF 55-200mm or XF 18-135
   XF 100-400mm
   --> 5100 Euros

Click to expand...

Hi Florian, I have been a loyal milc m43 user since Gh1, had pretty much every m43 body /lens over the years incl the 14-140 I which I got with my Gh 1, I recently had the gh5 and I swapped to g9 on its release. m43 is a great system, but I think the larger sensor is better. I shoot x-t100 with all those lenses above and many more and I would not go back to m43, despite the many, many years loyally following their progress, why? The x-t100 is such a great camera and the detail and easy way it delivers fabulous results is just brilliant. The x-t100 comes with a few limitations, video being one, if you want the best 4K, X-T3 is the better choice, if you really want ibis, ( I shoot mainly ois zooms above so all is good) then X-H1. Things I love about x-t100 is the size, it means with the l-plate grip it can be beefed up or you can you light, street! The unit is also a PASM shooter delight with dedicated ev dial and dedicated iso dial. After many tests of the G9 against the x-t100 the differences were obvious and I have no intentions of going back to m43! Good luck with your decision.

Belgarchi said:

jonikon said:

There were seven reasons I did not go with m43 when I switched to mirrorless from Nikon DX DSLRs.

1. No phase detection auto focus. This was a deal killer for me. I need a camera capable of AF on a moving subject. Anything less is point and shoot pocket camera tech in my mind.

Click to expand...

I had many M43 cameras and the autofocus was always fast and accurate

Belgarchi said:

1. Image quality was a step down from my seven year old Nikon D7000, especially in high ISO and dynamic range. I also found that I could not get colors to my liking with m43.

Click to expand...

I don't like the jpeg colors of Panasonic, but Olympus colors are excellent.

In low light, image stabilization is a huge advantage on Nikon, Canon, Fuji and old Sony cameras. No need to use high ISO on static subjects.

Belgarchi said:

1. I don't like the 4:3 image ratio. I started out with the 35mm film format with a 3:2 aspect ratio and much prefer it for my landscape photography.

Click to expand...

I can agree with that, but I am discovering more and more the charms of the 4:3 format. You just must change your way of thinking. And I do use more often the 16:9 format now. ~80% of photos in 4:3 and ~20% in 16:9 is a superb combination.

Belgarchi said:

1. Most of the more affordable m43 lenses are under-designed optically and rely too heavily on in- camera digital correction, IMO.

Click to expand...

Not a problem, what counts is the results.

Belgarchi said:

1. The high quality m43 lenses tend to be very expensive and too large and heavy for such a small sensor.

Click to expand...

My Panasonic 15/1.7 and... Sigma 60/2.8 are both excellent and light.

Belgarchi said:

1. The sensor tech of m43 cameras lags behind that of APS-C. Apparently Sony does not put there best sensor tech (like BSI or stacked) in m43 sensors and they need it.
2. I prefer the Olympus bodies to Panasonic, but I don't think Olympus can afford to keep losing money forever, so I expect Olympus to abandon the camera market within the next four years.

Click to expand...

Pure speculation.

Belgarchi said:

I believe m43 appeals more to those coming from cell phones and the tiny sensor point and shoot cameras of yesteryear than they do for those coming from an APS-C DSLR.

Click to expand...

Not for me. I am using for a long time Pentax SLRs, bought a M43 camera and a few lenses for the light weight, and now I am using more and more the m43 system and less and less the Pentax. Except for very high ISO (> 1600 ISO; maybe 2% of my photos) and pixel peeping, I.Q. is very similar.

Belgarchi said:

The m43 format is mostly compromises in the negative direction while only offering smaller size and and weight for enticement to DSLR users. I also strongly believe that without phase detection auto focus the m43 format has no long term future.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I borrowed an Olympus OM-D EM-10 II and tested the AF on my grand kids playing. Out of 50 shots only 21 were in proper focus. With the Fujifilm X-T2 my keeper rate is 90% plus. Good for you that m43 works for your photography needs, but it just didn't get the job done for me so I just couldn't go there. Too bad because I really liked the look and feel of the OM-D EM-10 II body. I actually hope my prediction of Olympus cameras demise doesn't happen, but that is what my head tells me will happen as they have all the marks of a failing business model.

I know m43 users mantra is no IBIS than no sale, but in my case it is no PDAF then no go. IBIS is of no real advantage to my kind of photography, but PDAF is.

Your arguments are a good example of why having more choices of camera systems is a good thing. Different photographers have different needs and wants and mine are obviously very different than yours. Enjoy your m43 gear, but realize it is not the best choice for everyone.

The E-M1 Mk II does have PDAF though the Fuji sensors are still better

jonikon said:

Belgarchi said:

jonikon said:

There were seven reasons I did not go with m43 when I switched to mirrorless from Nikon DX DSLRs.

1. No phase detection auto focus. This was a deal killer for me. I need a camera capable of AF on a moving subject. Anything less is point and shoot pocket camera tech in my mind.

Click to expand...

I had many M43 cameras and the autofocus was always fast and accurate

jonikon said:

1. Image quality was a step down from my seven year old Nikon D7000, especially in high ISO and dynamic range. I also found that I could not get colors to my liking with m43.

Click to expand...

I don't like the jpeg colors of Panasonic, but Olympus colors are excellent.

In low light, image stabilization is a huge advantage on Nikon, Canon, Fuji and old Sony cameras. No need to use high ISO on static subjects.

jonikon said:

1. I don't like the 4:3 image ratio. I started out with the 35mm film format with a 3:2 aspect ratio and much prefer it for my landscape photography.

Click to expand...

I can agree with that, but I am discovering more and more the charms of the 4:3 format. You just must change your way of thinking. And I do use more often the 16:9 format now. ~80% of photos in 4:3 and ~20% in 16:9 is a superb combination.

jonikon said:

1. Most of the more affordable m43 lenses are under-designed optically and rely too heavily on in- camera digital correction, IMO.

Click to expand...

Not a problem, what counts is the results.

jonikon said:

1. The high quality m43 lenses tend to be very expensive and too large and heavy for such a small sensor.

Click to expand...

My Panasonic 15/1.7 and... Sigma 60/2.8 are both excellent and light.

jonikon said:

1. The sensor tech of m43 cameras lags behind that of APS-C. Apparently Sony does not put there best sensor tech (like BSI or stacked) in m43 sensors and they need it.
2. I prefer the Olympus bodies to Panasonic, but I don't think Olympus can afford to keep losing money forever, so I expect Olympus to abandon the camera market within the next four years.

Click to expand...

Pure speculation.

jonikon said:

I believe m43 appeals more to those coming from cell phones and the tiny sensor point and shoot cameras of yesteryear than they do for those coming from an APS-C DSLR.

Click to expand...

Not for me. I am using for a long time Pentax SLRs, bought a M43 camera and a few lenses for the light weight, and now I am using more and more the m43 system and less and less the Pentax. Except for very high ISO (> 1600 ISO; maybe 2% of my photos) and pixel peeping, I.Q. is very similar.

jonikon said:

The m43 format is mostly compromises in the negative direction while only offering smaller size and and weight for enticement to DSLR users. I also strongly believe that without phase detection auto focus the m43 format has no long term future.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I borrowed an Olympus OM-D EM-10 II and tested the AF on my grand kids playing. Out of 50 shots only 21 were in proper focus. With the Fujifilm X-T2 my keeper rate is 90% plus. Good for you that m43 works for your photography needs, but it just didn't get the job done for me so I just couldn't go there. Too bad because I really liked the look and feel of the OM-D EM-10 II body. I actually hope my prediction of Olympus cameras demise doesn't happen, but that is what my head tells me will happen as they have all the marks of a failing business model.

I know m43 users mantra is no IBIS than no sale, but in my case it is no PDAF then no go. IBIS is of no real advantage to my kind of photography, but PDAF is.

Click to expand...

I see VariableScope has also just pointed out what I was about to say, but I'll say it anyway - the Olympus E-M1 Mark II (which competes at the X-T2/X-T3 level) DOES have phase detection AF, as did its predecessor the E-M1, though granted they are the only level in the Olympus range that does, so far, so yes, the E-M10 Mark II you tested doesn't have it. I also find their output straight out of camera very appealing, rather similar to the Fuji look in many ways (I use both). Panasonic has been moving to a more Olympus-like colour rendering in its latest models actually, and despite not having PDAF, its AF is amazingly rapid in many circumstances, particularly low light.

jonikon said:

Your arguments are a good example of why having more choices of camera systems is a good thing. Different photographers have different needs and wants and mine are obviously very different than yours. Enjoy your m43 gear, but realize it is not the best choice for everyone.

Click to expand...

Though for some, it is. Yes, choice is a good thing indeed. m43 is very handy for telephoto shooting due to the 2x crop factor, I find. The E-M1 Mark II is actually smaller and lighter than the equivalent Panasonic model, the G9, though each has its strong points over the other according to the user's preferences, as with the X-T2, if that is also lined up against them (and it's another of my favourite cameras).

Florian32 said:

Hi guys,

I want to get a new system and thinking about Fuji vs m43 (see shopping list below). I do photography as a hobby and not professional. I like to shoot architecture, wildlife, street, and landscape. And I prefer zooms over primes as this gives me more options when traveling.

Which option would you recommend, in which lens system should I invest? Is the bigger sensor of Fuji worth to invest more money (Fuji is the more expensive system according to my shopping list)? The m43 lenses would also be a bit smaller and easier to carry.

What is the high ISO performance of G9 vs X-T3/H1 like? Any differences in Autofocus speed/accuracy? What are the differences in the handling, considering Fuji has so many nice manual dials and the Pana not that much?

Shopping alternatives:

1. Panasonic G9
   7-14mm F4
   Panasonic 14-140mm I
   Panasonic 100-300mm II or Panasonic 100-400mm
   --> 3700-4300 Euros
2. Fuji X-T3/XH1
   XF 10-24mm
   XF 18-55mm + XF 55-200mm or XF 18-135
   XF 100-400mm
   --> 5100 Euros

Click to expand...

If you're looking at those two then I would prefer the bigger sensor (Fuji) and would also prefer Fuji over Panasonic. That said the Pana and for instance top of the range Oly may give you what you want if you shoot in generally good light and don't need big ISO too often. I have a friend at my camera club who shoots with the Oly OM-D E-M1 Mark II (top of the range) and the shots are fantastic - sport as well. I do shoot Fuji but my main system is Nikon. If you haven't already done this go out and hold the cameras to get a feel for the grip and comfort. There is no point buying a good camera that has an uncomfortable grip.

jonikon said:

I borrowed an Olympus OM-D EM-10 II and tested the AF on my grand kids playing. Out of 50 shots only 21 were in proper focus. With the Fujifilm X-T2 my keeper rate is 90% plus. Good for you that m43 works for your photography needs, but it just didn't get the job done for me so I just couldn't go there. Too bad because I really liked the look and feel of the OM-D EM-10 II body. I actually hope my prediction of Olympus cameras demise doesn't happen, but that is what my head tells me will happen as they have all the marks of a failing business model.

I know m43 users mantra is no IBIS than no sale, but in my case it is no PDAF then no go. IBIS is of no real advantage to my kind of photography, but PDAF is.

Your arguments are a good example of why having more choices of camera systems is a good thing. Different photographers have different needs and wants and mine are obviously very different than yours. Enjoy your m43 gear, but realize it is not the best choice for everyone.

Click to expand...

You are comparing a $500 camera to a $1,500 camera. The Olympus E-M1-II has a better AF than the E-M10-II.

As for the type of photography, yes, it seems that we have different priorities. A large portion of my photos are still subjects, therefore for me AF is unimportant and IBIS is, especially in low light (but also to get a large depth of field).

Note that I am using also a Pentax KP that I love, when so many dislike it - slow AF.

I love my GX85 with the 14-140 superzoom and the 15mm f1.7 for indoor / low light work. I'm very happy with it. Still, I tried out Fuji and like it a lot, particularly for stills. But it's not nearly as good as the GX85 is for video. Frankly, I like both systems.