MFT or Fuji

I have been shooting Micro Four Thirds, both Panasonic and Olympus, since late 2009, with a little bit of Pentax thrown in a few years back.

My main photography is:

• Birds, mainly stationary, backyard and on walks or occasional hikes.
• Landscapes, mainly local and on short hikes.
• People and pets, mainly at home, indoors at classical music concerts, or outdoors

My main usage of lenses for MFT has been the Panasonic 100-400mm, a telephoto such as the Olympus 12-40 or Panasonic Leica 12-60, and a 14-150 for more casual use, together with a 45mm prime.

I now have the Olympus E-M5 Mark III as my sole camera, but would like something with a bit more dynamic range and the emphasis on manual ISO, exposure compensation, and shutter speed dials, and aperture rings on the lenses. The alternative would be to invest in a E-M1 Mark III. (I am not comfortable with the Panasonic G9 ergonomically, as I have owned it and sold it.)

The Fuji X-T4 with the XF18-55 would be the replacement (I already picked up a used 18-55). It seems to be a very sharp and pleasing lens, though a bit short on the long end. But as I look at other Fuji zooms, the reviews seem to suggest that the XF16-80 or XF18-135 would compare unfavorably to the similar MFT lenses. (The 16-55 is both more expensive and heavier than I would care to carry for the zoom range.)

My questions are these:
1. Aside from the sensor differences, are those Fuji lenses really inferior to the similar MFT lenses?
2. Would the Fuji 70-300 with the 1.4 adapter be a pretty good replacement for the Panasonic 100-400, understanding that the FF equivalent would be 630mm as against 800mm? It would be a weight savings. I guess someday the Fuji 100-400 would be a possible upgrade.

Thanks for any constructive guidance.

You might want to wait a little while for Fuji's next gen. There was a German Youtuber who tried the Fuji 100-400 and Sony FE 200-600, and concluded that for birding/wildlife, you're better off with a full frame Sony simply for the autofocus. As of 2021, with the X-T4, it seems hard to pitch the value of the 100-400 especially when they're priced exactly the same.

A used A7iii with the 200-600 would be a better use of money and give better results, if the size and weight isn't a great concern.

Just spoke to a Fujifilm staff at an event and Fujifilm's next gen could change things as they're working on 2 sensors for the flagships (2 models of X-H2). A 26mp stacked global shutter sensor with 30fps burst (mechanical), and a 40mp high res sensor. If they can get the AF at least up to the A7iii level, the 30fps mechanical burst mode will be a dream with the Fuji 100-400.

The Fuji 100-400 actually is about as heavy as I would ever want to go, and I would prefer the 70-300mm, at least initially. The Panasonic 100-400 is 2.17 lbs., the Fuji 100-400 is 3.03 lbs., but the Sony 200-600 is 4.65 lbs. The Fuji 70-300 with adapter is just 1.76 lbs.

I am not interested in the X-H1 body style, it is not at all comfortable for my hands. The X-T4 is a better fit.

ElliotV said:

The Fuji 100-400 actually is about as heavy as I would ever want to go, and I would prefer the 70-300mm, at least initially. The Panasonic 100-400 is 2.17 lbs., the Fuji 100-400 is 3.03 lbs., but the Sony 200-600 is 4.65 lbs. The Fuji 70-300 with adapter is just 1.76 lbs.

I am not interested in the X-H1 body style, it is not at all comfortable for my hands. The X-T4 is a better fit.

Click to expand...

If I may, if you hail from US, Sony A7R3 with Sigma 100-400mm (FF lens @ 2.5lb) maybe an exceptional value. At 40MP, it provides APS-C crop @ 20MP and get the resolution increase up to 400mm FOV.

If you choose A7R4 with 61MP sensor, you can get MFT crop which makes Sigma 100-400mm lens on par with MFT with 100-400mm lens at similar weight.

--
My gear list is the opinion of DPR and not necessarily of my own.

ElliotV said:

My main photography is:

• Birds, mainly stationary, backyard and on walks or occasional hikes.
• Landscapes, mainly local and on short hikes.
• People and pets, mainly at home, indoors at classical music concerts, or outdoors

I now have the Olympus E-M5 Mark III as my sole camera, but would like something with a bit more dynamic range and the emphasis on manual ISO, exposure compensation, and shutter speed dials, and aperture rings on the lenses. The alternative would be to invest in a E-M1 Mark III. (I am not comfortable with the Panasonic G9 ergonomically, as I have owned it and sold it.)

Click to expand...

I have no experience with Fuji APSC cameras, but I can offer you some sample images I have taken with my OMD EM1.m3 with m.zuiko 40-150mm f2.8 pro lens:









This photo was taken with my EM1.m3 and Voigtländer 60mm f/0.95 lens (native MFT mount) https://www.voigtlaender.de/lenses/mft/60mm-10-95-nokton-mft/?lang=en



And finally a landscape photograph.

I'm going to suggest a Fuji consumer lens and some will question my sanity so before I do that, I thought I'd list some of my equipment. I own two Fuji's - X100f and X T1 - but I also own a Canon system, Canon 5D mk4 (full frame), three L lenses, the Sigma Sport 150 - 600mm zoom, and some serious third party glass. So know quality in lenses.

The Fuji 50 - 230mm lens is an underrated under appreciated sleeper. The advantages of this lens is light weight, decent zoom range (75 - 345mm equivalency), easily affordable, and believe it or not, quality glass.

The downside of this zoom is a cheaper build and I forget the proper buzz word, but you adjust the f stop in camera, not on the camera. The zoom is "fly by wire."

I have owned a few consumer lenses since 1974 and I've regretted it, usually too soft at the long end. This zoom is slower: 4.5 to 6.7 OIS. The stabilization is okay, not great. But with the quite decent ISO performance of the X T4, it doesn't quite matter as much that it is a slow lens.

I have this lens using it on my X T1 also having decent ISO performance. I set the camera on manual. I input the shutter speed, I input the aperture setting, and I set the ISO to auto. These settings produce decent results.

Here is a Flickr page of images from this lens (not my photos). You will see some soft images (often user error) and some very sharp images.

Thanks, these are good points, but I am not as interested in Sony at this point.

Thank you for the post. I am impressed by the EM1.3 and also by the PRO lenses, though for wildlife I have been using the Panasonic 100-400 with good success. I am pretty invested in MFT and have a lot of great photos with the fine equipment. I guess it is just longstanding interest in what Fuji can do in comparison that has me considering how to reorient myself a bit.

The XC50-230 certainly has been under consideration, though it does not really replace the XF70-300 that can also take the 1.4 adapter. However, I see there are a lot of used units available and I might just spring for one to get a better idea of the capabilities of the system. The 70-300mm has been unavailable for some time.

I have owned and used quite a few MFT cameras and lenses, as well as a couple of Fujifilm cameras and various lenses.

The ideal thing for you would be if you could keep some of your MFT gear and use it for birds and wildlife, and then get Fujifilm to cover landscapes and lower light work.

You've had some good comments about lenses. I don't think long telephoto is really Fujifilm's strength and you will struggle to beat your Pana 100-400. However I don't think MFT is great for landscape, particularly if you are dealing with harsh light. Low light is also an MFT weakness, where Fujifilm delivers clearly better results (IMHO).

Best wishes for whatever you decide.

--

All lies and jests; Still a man hears what he wants to hear; And disregards the rest

ElliotV said:

Thank you for the post. I am impressed by the EM1.3 and also by the PRO lenses, though for wildlife I have been using the Panasonic 100-400 with good success. I am pretty invested in MFT and have a lot of great photos with the fine equipment. I guess it is just longstanding interest in what Fuji can do in comparison that has me considering how to reorient myself a bit.

Click to expand...

I don't believe you will see much difference between Fuji X and MFT given your use case. I based this on comparison with my former Canon APSC & FF sensor camera experience.

Now if you were talking about Fuji GFX, that is a different story,

ElliotV said:

I have been shooting Micro Four Thirds, both Panasonic and Olympus, since late 2009, with a little bit of Pentax thrown in a few years back.

My main photography is:

• Birds, mainly stationary, backyard and on walks or occasional hikes.
• Landscapes, mainly local and on short hikes.
• People and pets, mainly at home, indoors at classical music concerts, or outdoors

My main usage of lenses for MFT has been the Panasonic 100-400mm, a telephoto such as the Olympus 12-40 or Panasonic Leica 12-60, and a 14-150 for more casual use, together with a 45mm prime.

[...]
1. Aside from the sensor differences, are those Fuji lenses really inferior to the similar MFT lenses?

Click to expand...

The XF 18-55 is a very nice lens for what it is. Not too big, not too expensive, not too slow and offering good image quality. It looses to Olympus 12-40 in range on both ends, sharpness near the edges of the frame, build quality and of course lack of weather sealing. But those are reasonable trade-offs considering what it costs (at least when buying it with a camera).

The 18-135 is a poor lens from everything I've seen and heard. And 16-80 is very meh, considering what it costs. The 16-55, on the other hand is an outstanding lens.

ElliotV said:

2. Would the Fuji 70-300 with the 1.4 adapter be a pretty good replacement for the Panasonic 100-400, understanding that the FF equivalent would be 630mm as against 800mm? It would be a weight savings. I guess someday the Fuji 100-400 would be a possible upgrade.

Click to expand...

You would save about 250 grams on the lens. Considering that X-T4 is 200 grams heavier than E-M5 III, your total weight savings are just ~50 grams.

But you loose reach, which you would have to make up by cropping, which will get rid of the advantage of having a higher resolution sensor.

Also, Fuji with a TC will be f/8 on the long end (630mm eq). At the same equivalent, Panasonic is f/5.6. So any advantage in low light from that larger APS-C sensor goes right out the window.

In essence, you switch your whole kit and gain almost nothing in exchange. Not worth the effort and money, IMO.

I would also not upgrade to E-M1 III unless you are really bothered by something about E-M5 III. Image quality wise, they are the same. E-M1 III has Live ND and Handheld High Res modes which allow you to get FF level DR and noise for landscape shots, but you can also do that on E-M5 III manually in-camera (here's my how-to on this ). Annoying, sure, but possible when really needed.

Next year, OMD is expected to release the next iteration of E-M1, with the new stacked Sony sensor. The sensor spec suggest we might actually get noticeable (although probably not too significant) improvement in dynamic range and high ISO performance. If that pans out, the image quality difference between that and APS-C will be rather insignificant (but I guess Fuji will come up with something as well).

--
My photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/astrotripper2000/

Astrotripper said:

ElliotV said:

I have been shooting Micro Four Thirds, both Panasonic and Olympus, since late 2009, with a little bit of Pentax thrown in a few years back.

My main photography is:

• Birds, mainly stationary, backyard and on walks or occasional hikes.
• Landscapes, mainly local and on short hikes.
• People and pets, mainly at home, indoors at classical music concerts, or outdoors

My main usage of lenses for MFT has been the Panasonic 100-400mm, a telephoto such as the Olympus 12-40 or Panasonic Leica 12-60, and a 14-150 for more casual use, together with a 45mm prime.

[...]
1. Aside from the sensor differences, are those Fuji lenses really inferior to the similar MFT lenses?

Click to expand...

The XF 18-55 is a very nice lens for what it is. Not too big, not too expensive, not too slow and offering good image quality. It looses to Olympus 12-40 in range on both ends, sharpness near the edges of the frame, build quality and of course lack of weather sealing. But those are reasonable trade-offs considering what it costs (at least when buying it with a camera).

The 18-135 is a poor lens from everything I've seen and heard. And 16-80 is very meh, considering what it costs. The 16-55, on the other hand is an outstanding lens.

Astrotripper said:

2. Would the Fuji 70-300 with the 1.4 adapter be a pretty good replacement for the Panasonic 100-400, understanding that the FF equivalent would be 630mm as against 800mm? It would be a weight savings. I guess someday the Fuji 100-400 would be a possible upgrade.

Click to expand...

You would save about 250 grams on the lens. Considering that X-T4 is 200 grams heavier than E-M5 III, your total weight savings are just ~50 grams.

But you loose reach, which you would have to make up by cropping, which will get rid of the advantage of having a higher resolution sensor.

Also, Fuji with a TC will be f/8 on the long end (630mm eq). At the same equivalent, Panasonic is f/5.6. So any advantage in low light from that larger APS-C sensor goes right out the window.

In essence, you switch your whole kit and gain almost nothing in exchange. Not worth the effort and money, IMO.

Click to expand...

I agree; to change from MFT, FF makes more usable difference than APS-C.

Astrotripper said:

I would also not upgrade to E-M1 III unless you are really bothered by something about E-M5 III. Image quality wise, they are the same. E-M1 III has Live ND and Handheld High Res modes which allow you to get FF level DR and noise for landscape shots, but you can also do that on E-M5 III manually in-camera (here's my how-to on this ). Annoying, sure, but possible when really needed.

Next year, OMD is expected to release the next iteration of E-M1, with the new stacked Sony sensor. The sensor spec suggest we might actually get noticeable (although probably not too significant) improvement in dynamic range and high ISO performance. If that pans out, the image quality difference between that and APS-C will be rather insignificant (but I guess Fuji will come up with something as well).

Click to expand...

For different reasons than yours I've started the process to evaluate the Fuji 70-300mm and Fuji 100-400mm to pair with X-T4.

I pickup the Fuji 70-300 tomorrow from Borrowlenses for a two week rental. I'll use it for some desert wildlife photography and shooting pickleball tournament play at the Pickleball National Championships in Indian Wells, California.

Next I'll rent the 100-400. I'll take the lens to an area where I've been before with my Canon 6D and Tamron 150-600 rental to shoot waterfowl and birds in flight. (Boy I really respect photographers who do BIF well. I do not. ) I'll shoot some local pickleball play as well.

I don't have a head for all the technical talk but I do have the eyes to determine if I like the results a lens and camera combination produces.

I rent before I buy. I understand not everyone has rental locations available to them but for me it has been a good strategy and lets me develop first hand knowledge.

Good luck with your research and final decision. You might want to consider renting at some point if that is an option.

AstroVagabond said:

For different reasons than yours I've started the process to evaluate the Fuji 70-300mm and Fuji 100-400mm to pair with X-T4.

I pickup the Fuji 70-300 tomorrow from Borrowlenses for a two week rental. I'll use it for some desert wildlife photography and shooting pickleball tournament play at the Pickleball National Championships in Indian Wells, California.

Click to expand...

Have you had a chance yet to try out the 70-300mm? It is probably too soon.

My step grandmother used to go to Desert Hot Springs back in the 1950s/1960s. I remember being a little kid in the back seat of her 1956 (or 1955) Mercury dual-tone (black and red) two-door sedan with her and my mom in front. She drove at about 35mph so that it took forever to get from LA and back!

ElliotV said:

AstroVagabond said:

For different reasons than yours I've started the process to evaluate the Fuji 70-300mm and Fuji 100-400mm to pair with X-T4.

I pickup the Fuji 70-300 tomorrow from Borrowlenses for a two week rental. I'll use it for some desert wildlife photography and shooting pickleball tournament play at the Pickleball National Championships in Indian Wells, California.

Click to expand...

Have you had a chance yet to try out the 70-300mm? It is probably too soon.

My step grandmother used to go to Desert Hot Springs back in the 1950s/1960s. I remember being a little kid in the back seat of her 1956 (or 1955) Mercury dual-tone (black and red) two-door sedan with her and my mom in front. She drove at about 35mph so that it took forever to get from LA and back!

Click to expand...

I've take just a couple of images so far the day i picked it up including the image at the link below:


We're in Santa Barbara this morning and will head towards the desert around noon so I can do some astronomical imaging tonight and tomorrow night with my telescope and dedicated monochrome camera and filters. Sunday we'll get to Borrego Springs for a few days where I'll take the 70-300 on a few hikes.

Thanks for sharing your great remembrance! I loved the cars from that era.

I like my Fuji. I use it for occasional bird pictures, and it works well (70-300 x1.4). But honestly, I'd get an MFT system if birds were my main subject.

There simply are more long zooms available, and autofocus is better adapted to BIF.

Have you considered returning to the Pentax fold?


The K-3iii with the HD DA 55-300mm PLM lens would meet your stated needs and then some!

For the time being, I am going to keep the MFT equipment and get the Fuji X-S10 body to use together with the XF18-55 lens that I already have.

Having handled a X-T4, I learned two things. First, I like the output of the sensor and look forward to spending more time with the film simulations and other capabilities of the Fuji system generally. Second, the separate ISO and SS dials are not as important to me as I imagined. I am just as comfortable using a PASM dial. The X-S10 will afford the most compelling advantages . I do not expect day-and-night differences, just subtle capabilities and differences with both the camera and lenses.

The excursion into Fuji should be fun, given the initial taste. The camera size will be comfortable for me, too, as the X-S10 is similar to the Olympus E-M5.3 but with a larger grip. Every modern camera system is more capable than I, and so it will be a challenge to get the most from the equipment.

PentUp said:

Have you considered returning to the Pentax fold?

The K-3iii with the HD DA 55-300mm PLM lens would meet your stated needs and then some!

Click to expand...

Yes, as a matter of fact I was considering the KP with the 70mm f/2.4 lens initially. But I am really more interested in trying the Fujifilm system, keeping the size and weight down, and staying mirrorless.