Early impressions Fuji X system vs. M43

dulynoted wrote:

knickerhawk wrote:

sebiruns wrote:

nebulla wrote:

Elliot H wrote:

sebiruns wrote:

Waxy skin tones? So far I don't see this problem. I have not shot portraits over ISO 3200 yet, so may be the problem will present itself at some other time. But as of now I must say the skin tone reproduction is actually the strong suit of the Fuji and imho the biggest advantage over the Olympus which is decent but nothing special. The Olympus Auto WB can also be more easily fooled by difficult lighting.

Tired...

thanks for your review/comparison

please do not be offended but,

not seeing sharpness in this photo

And the color balance is also way off , but thanks for the info.

Color balance? Were you there? I did not notice you. Just out of curiosity: How do you judge color balance in an available light situation without having been to the scene? You must have great eyes.

The question isn't whether or not he was there, it's whether or not your skin really looks that yellowish/orangish in normal daylight. If not (and I suspect it doesn't), then nebulla's comment is a fair one and one I would have made as well. The unusual skintone jumped out at me immediately when I first looked at this image. However, I certainly wouldn't draw any conclusions about the Fuji's WB based on one image alone, and if you shoot primarily raw, it's pretty much of a non-issue anyway.

I agree either the white balance is off in this image or you need to stock up on some citrus and read about jaundice....

jocking aside I find it interesting you have issues with the epl5 whitebalance. I find the em5 mark II auto white balance infuriatingly good. I have to adjust it to match the scene instead of nuking it into nuetrality if i like the ambient colors.

And that is exactly my issue with it. I hate when the WB neutralizes the scene. My skin is a little yellowish (no jaundice though 😉). But the light in that room is very warm and yellow so I want the WB to keep that. When I shoot somebody at sunset or sundown I want to keep the warm colors as well. If I want everything to look plain and uninfluenced by the lighting environment I will use strobes and flashes. Otherwise I think it is nice to keep the color mood. That was a qiäuick selfie anyways and no long thought process led to the outcome. That was just to show smoothness of background blur with that specific lens which I still like very much. Many other aspects of the photo can be easily criticized.

s_grins wrote:

sebiruns wrote:

I don't want to prove anything. Just sharing my early impressions. I am writing down some observations for those interested in either camera. If you want a scientific test there are plenty of them out there.

I do not think you have helped anyone interested in either camera. Moreover, you've done quite opposite - created confusion about cameras IQ. This is pure "vanity fair"

You are entitled to your opinion. And so am I to mine.

knickerhawk wrote:

sebiruns wrote:

dulynoted wrote:

knickerhawk wrote:

sebiruns wrote:

nebulla wrote:

Elliot H wrote:

sebiruns wrote:

Waxy skin tones? So far I don't see this problem. I have not shot portraits over ISO 3200 yet, so may be the problem will present itself at some other time. But as of now I must say the skin tone reproduction is actually the strong suit of the Fuji and imho the biggest advantage over the Olympus which is decent but nothing special. The Olympus Auto WB can also be more easily fooled by difficult lighting.

Tired...

thanks for your review/comparison

please do not be offended but,

not seeing sharpness in this photo

And the color balance is also way off , but thanks for the info.

Color balance? Were you there? I did not notice you. Just out of curiosity: How do you judge color balance in an available light situation without having been to the scene? You must have great eyes.

The question isn't whether or not he was there, it's whether or not your skin really looks that yellowish/orangish in normal daylight. If not (and I suspect it doesn't), then nebulla's comment is a fair one and one I would have made as well. The unusual skintone jumped out at me immediately when I first looked at this image. However, I certainly wouldn't draw any conclusions about the Fuji's WB based on one image alone, and if you shoot primarily raw, it's pretty much of a non-issue anyway.

I agree either the white balance is off in this image or you need to stock up on some citrus and read about jaundice....

jocking aside I find it interesting you have issues with the epl5 whitebalance. I find the em5 mark II auto white balance infuriatingly good. I have to adjust it to match the scene instead of nuking it into nuetrality if i like the ambient colors.

And that is exactly my issue with it. I hate when the WB neutralizes the scene. My skin is a little yellowish (no jaundice though 😉). But the light in that room is very warm and yellow so I want the WB to keep that.

In which case, as the saying goes, sometimes it's better to be lucky than good, and here you were lucky that your auto WB failed to do its job properly. Regardless, my main point is that your criticism of nebulla for not being there was inappropriate. Your subjective preference for an auto WB that doesn't really work as intended was not previously stated and the implication was that auto-WB is supposed to do the opposite of what it does.

Now your original statement that Oly WB can be easily "fooled by difficult lighting" is even more difficult to evaluate given your stated preference for WB that doesn't neutralize the scene's lighting.

I have yet to come across an AWB that can neutralize all indoor lighting situations. If you have, congratulations. Sometimes they do, sometimes it gets too cold mostly too warm (red tint). That goes for all the cameras by Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony and Fuji I have used in the past. That is another reason why I want the camera to try to stay true to the scene. If the light is warm, keep it warm. If the light is bluish, keep it that way. Instead most cameras try to neutralize it somewhat and either get the WB too cold or too warm. Now to be fair to Olympus. We have two settings for AWB. Regular for those who want more neutralization and "keep warm colors" for people like me. So I don't complain. I have been shooting Olympus happily for three years. I should have left out the "easily" which was probably not really fair.

One additional observation. Eye detect works much better on the Olympus. While it is almost always dead on on the E-P5, the X-T1 seems to miss every second shot or so.

Raist3d wrote:

sebiruns wrote:

Hi fellow M43 users,

I recently purchased a used Fuji X-T1 with the 18-55mm f2.8-4 lens and the 35mm f1.4. I plan to do a more thorough comparison and a review after a couple of weeks, but for now will make a quick comparison with my E-P5 and the Olympus/Panasonic lenses. I have not done comprehensive tests yet. So keep that in mind.

Built quality/Handling:

I would say this is a toss-up. The X-T1 is superbly build and offers weather sealing. So no complaints here. I do prefer the rubber grip to the e-p5s plastic grip on the front, but the front and back dials on the Pen are much nicer. It does not matter too much on the Fuji because I can set the aperture on the lens and for shutter speed, exposure compensation and ISO there are seperate dials. Overall both are great to use and that is probably a bit more of a compliment to the Fuji which I just started to use.

Image Quality/lenses:

That is also not so clear cut. The 35mm f1.4 produces the smoothest bokeh of all the lenses I have used so far. That includes the Sigma 30mm f1.4 ART lens, the PL25 f1.4 (which has been my favorite until now) and the also very good Oly 25mm f1.8. I am a sucker for bokeh so that is a big plus. Center Sharpness is also better with the Fuji sensor with the 35mm compared to the E-P5 with the 25mm f1.8 at least. I am also very happy to report the 18-55mm produces some very nice images and certainly does not disappoint when it comes to built quality. There is no wobbling or rattling. This thing is made in Japan and you can tell the quality control. BUT it certainly cannot hold its own against the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 which I use on my E-P5. That is just about the sharpest zoom I have ever used and it is capable of getting the very last bit of resolution out of the E-P5 sensor.

Two problems with the Fuji X-Trans sensor and how see them so far:

Waxy skin tones? So far I don't see this problem. I have not shot portraits over ISO 3200 yet, so may be the problem will present itself at some other time. But as of now I must say the skin tone reproduction is actually the strong suit of the Fuji and imho the biggest advantage over the Olympus which is decent but nothing special. The Olympus Auto WB can also be more easily fooled by difficult lighting.

But that does not mean there are no color problems with the Fuji. I have not been shooting much greenery outdoors due to the season. But when I shot a simple picture of a green candle inside my living room the Fuji messed up the color pretty bad and turned it into an almost brownish, greyish green - very unpleasant and also not true to the eye. The Olympus oversaturated it a bit but the color cast was alright. So the Olympus was easily correctable in pp while the Fuji wasn't. Why? Well, the candles color was of, but other colors were accurate, so adding a little green would not have worked in post. Strange behavior and I will have to test this some more. This may also have to do with the foliage problem some people report. Time will tell.

I would find it hard to believe you couldn't correct it in RAW. You may want to check if there's a "keep warm colors warm" option set- but I am not sure Fuji has that option. I don' think this is the same "foliage" problem- the foliage problem was waxy/watercolor effect on the foliage on grass, but this is largely solved in the latest JPEG engines (XT-10, and I think XT1) plus the current good raw Xtrans converters.

I meant the Fuji wasn't easy to correct in raw. It took several steps while a little desaturation was enough with the Olympus.

The second problem was supposed to be high ISO cheating. A non-problem to me. Yes, Fujis ISO values seem inflated. On the other hand, the X-T1 still seems to enjoy about half a stop to one stop advantage when it comes to noise in any given picture in lowlight situations. It does not mean the E-P5 is bad in this regard. It is very good imo. The Fuji is just surprisingly excellent even with the NR dialed down.

I have seen my Fuji matching (XT10) the OMD EM5 MKII. Fuji doesn't cheat on the ISO. They are using a different perfectly valid definition. The 1stop advantage of APSC over the m/43rds holds. Also being Xtrans, you don't have any AA filter so that makes it go a bit further, at least in my experience.

In my other test shots the Fuji will always choose higher ISOs all other settings equal. But the result is a little brighter too. So you may still be right.

AF: The AF speed of the Fuji was my biggest worry. I feared the camera may be too slow or hunt too much to enjoy photography in AF mode. Well, I can report at least with the newest firmware there is no risk for Olympus users to be frustrated. The AF locks on reasonably fast. While it is not as fast in good light as the E-P5, it is actually better (when shooting with the central focus points) once light gets dimmer. While the Oly 25mm is hunting and pumping in low light quite a bit, the Fuji 35mm (considered a slow lens), usually finds its target without swinging wildly back and force. I know that sounds not very believable with all the whining about Fujis AF system. But that is my initial finding.

The Fuji AF has definitively improved a whole lot. The one thing I find annoying is that sometimes it performs better than my OMD EM5 MKII and sometimes worse. It's the unpredictable range I find a bit annoying.

Do you have high performance mode turned on or off? Does this influence accuracy?

If you have questions or want to add your opinion on the matter. I welcome every response. Here is a self portrait with the 35mm f1.4 JPEG OOC. More to follow.

Tired...

I don't know what fuji film mode simulation you were using but I strongly encourage you to use the Soft (Astia) setting if that wasn't shot in that. You look a bit orange (though you are very handsome ).

I think I experimented with velvet. So that certainly added to the orange color cast. And thanks for the compliment.

-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

Raist3d wrote:

I have seen my Fuji matching (XT10) the OMD EM5 MKII. Fuji doesn't cheat on the ISO. They are using a different perfectly valid definition. The 1stop advantage of APSC over the m/43rds holds. Also being Xtrans, you don't have any AA filter so that makes it go a bit further, at least in my experience.

For crying out loud, what do you think standards are made for? They exist so that we can apply measures in all situations and across all brands. Now Fuji creates their own measure of ISO. Whether we calls that "cheating" or not, it is arrogant and destructive of standards, just an indication of a company that does not like to play by the rules.

thechoson wrote:

. . . Getting to the point, IQ wise I have nothing to fault with regarding Fuji. I like the IQ, I like the SOOC JPEGs. I love the handling and look of their cameras, and all the lenses I've tried have been terrific.

That being said, overall I still have mixed feelings about Fuji. . . .  I do have an issue with the value proposition, as the X-T1 with 18-55 kit is pricier than a Sony A7 full-frame with its kit lens.

And this brings up an issue I've noticed lately with the Fuji "community". This means a lot of users, bloggers, etc. Those associated with Fuji really seem to have some kind of full-frame inferiority complex. . . . I'd say Fuji community seems really "defensive" about their cameras. Like I said, I love Fuji IQ and love my X100s, but at the same time I don't think it's some kind of miracle camera.

In that regard, I do find something more "honest" about M43. M43 doesn't really seem to harbor any illusions or desire to compete with full-frame or larger sensor cameras. Instead I like how M43 seems to continue on the mission of providing product that fits M43. Fairly compact bodies, compact lenses, a wide assortment of lenses at varying price levels, with good IQ and video capabilities. I love it as a complementary system to a DSLR. I recently picked up a GF7 with 12-32 and 35-100 f/4-f/5.6 kit from Costco. A lot of people scoff at the GF7, but I can't believe the level of IQ and I get from these 2 lenses and such a small body. I'd say the M43 sensors basically rival the last generation 18mp Canon APS-C sensors for low-light performance (and obviously have superior DR). . . .

I must say in the Fuji "community's" defence: we are all a bit jumpy in a time of rapid technological change that the system camera of choice might not command enough market share to survive. Having said that I think your main point is well taken. Being an option that maximises its size advantage (or at least often does so) and is value conscious, m43 is less vulnerable to the arrival of full frame mirrorless than APS-C sensor camera systems.

To the OP:

I have played around with the notion of going over to Fuji for the last three years, but have stayed with Olympus instead. Thanks for taking the time to share your results, but I don't think you convinced me that there is any strong advantage to the Fuji ILCs. The 100X-T with the hybrid viewfinder still interests me, though.

traveler_101 wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

I have seen my Fuji matching (XT10) the OMD EM5 MKII. Fuji doesn't cheat on the ISO. They are using a different perfectly valid definition. The 1stop advantage of APSC over the m/43rds holds. Also being Xtrans, you don't have any AA filter so that makes it go a bit further, at least in my experience.

For crying out loud, what do you think standards are made for? They exist so that we can apply measures in all situations and across all brands. Now Fuji creates their own measure of ISO. Whether we calls that "cheating" or not, it is arrogant and destructive of standards, just an indication of a company that does not like to play by the rules.

thechoson wrote:

. . . Getting to the point, IQ wise I have nothing to fault with regarding Fuji. I like the IQ, I like the SOOC JPEGs. I love the handling and look of their cameras, and all the lenses I've tried have been terrific.

That being said, overall I still have mixed feelings about Fuji. . . . I do have an issue with the value proposition, as the X-T1 with 18-55 kit is pricier than a Sony A7 full-frame with its kit lens.

And this brings up an issue I've noticed lately with the Fuji "community". This means a lot of users, bloggers, etc. Those associated with Fuji really seem to have some kind of full-frame inferiority complex. . . . I'd say Fuji community seems really "defensive" about their cameras. Like I said, I love Fuji IQ and love my X100s, but at the same time I don't think it's some kind of miracle camera.

In that regard, I do find something more "honest" about M43. M43 doesn't really seem to harbor any illusions or desire to compete with full-frame or larger sensor cameras. Instead I like how M43 seems to continue on the mission of providing product that fits M43. Fairly compact bodies, compact lenses, a wide assortment of lenses at varying price levels, with good IQ and video capabilities. I love it as a complementary system to a DSLR. I recently picked up a GF7 with 12-32 and 35-100 f/4-f/5.6 kit from Costco. A lot of people scoff at the GF7, but I can't believe the level of IQ and I get from these 2 lenses and such a small body. I'd say the M43 sensors basically rival the last generation 18mp Canon APS-C sensors for low-light performance (and obviously have superior DR). . . .

I must say in the Fuji "community's" defence: we are all a bit jumpy in a time of rapid technological change that the system camera of choice might not command enough market share to survive. Having said that I think your main point is well taken. Being an option that maximises its size advantage (or at least often does so) and is value conscious, m43 is less vulnerable to the arrival of full frame mirrorless than APS-C sensor camera systems.

To the OP:

I have played around with the notion of going over to Fuji for the last three years, but have stayed with Olympus instead. Thanks for taking the time to share your results, but I don't think you convinced me that there is any strong advantage to the Fuji ILCs. The 100X-T with the hybrid viewfinder still interests me, though.

I did not and do not try to convince anyone to switch. I was curious and will give it a try. Even if I end up loving the X-T1. That would be no reason for anyone else to switch. I believe all ILC are capable these days. All have some advantages and disadvantages but how you weigh these against each other is a very personal matter. The jury is still out whether I love the X system more than I do m43.

traveler_101 wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

I have seen my Fuji matching (XT10) the OMD EM5 MKII. Fuji doesn't cheat on the ISO. They are using a different perfectly valid definition. The 1stop advantage of APSC over the m/43rds holds. Also being Xtrans, you don't have any AA filter so that makes it go a bit further, at least in my experience.

For crying out loud, what do you think standards are made for? They exist so that we can apply measures in all situations and across all brands. Now Fuji creates their own measure of ISO. Whether we calls that "cheating" or not, it is arrogant and destructive of standards, just an indication of a company that does not like to play by the rules.

The problem is that there are various way to define ISO within the standard and Olympus are as guilty as everyone else of using this to their advantage. I have never used or owned any Fuji mirrorless cameras but looking at like for like RAW test shots the Fuji cameras seem to have at least as much detail and noticeably better high ISO.

E-M1 3200 ISO vs FUJI XT1 3200 ISO :

Both cameras shot at F/5.6 and 1/100 , zero adjustments in ACR , the XT1 has more detail and less noise, while achieving the exact same shutter speed at the same aperture and ISO.

RAW, download soucre:   http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1833/compact-a-objectifs-interchangeables-fujifilm-x-t1-bruit-electronique-12.html

Raist3d wrote:

jim stirling wrote:

traveler_101 wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

I have seen my Fuji matching (XT10) the OMD EM5 MKII. Fuji doesn't cheat on the ISO. They are using a different perfectly valid definition. The 1stop advantage of APSC over the m/43rds holds. Also being Xtrans, you don't have any AA filter so that makes it go a bit further, at least in my experience.

For crying out loud, what do you think standards are made for? They exist so that we can apply measures in all situations and across all brands. Now Fuji creates their own measure of ISO. Whether we calls that "cheating" or not, it is arrogant and destructive of standards, just an indication of a company that does not like to play by the rules.

The Fuji's definitively have better ISO than the Olympus. And my X-T10 does match what the OMD EM5 MKII is doing exposure wise at least most of the time. This includes tests I have done shooting side by side so standards or not it's irrelevant- but he got it wrong anyway (see my reply to him).

I stand corrected. I am not a technician or an engineer. However you are not clear when you write. As for example (above), "the Fuji's definitively have better ISO than the Olympus." What? Do you mean that they have better performance at high ISO levels? Perhaps this is how I got it "wrong" in the first place. My comment was not about Fuji's standard, but your comment that that they use a "perfectly valid different definition." That reads like you are advocating the deflection of common standards.

If no IBIS then we expect to use shutter speed to provide stabilization. You could easily use 1/focal giving at least 1/60. I would probably have opted for 120th. You have plenty of ISO headroom with the Fuji sensor. And I usually shoot RAW although Fuji's jpgs are mighty good sooc.

What bothers me more about this shot is the white balance, maybe try this with natural light
--
Michael

sebiruns wrote:

Hi fellow M43 users,

I recently purchased a used Fuji X-T1 with the 18-55mm f2.8-4 lens and the 35mm f1.4. I plan to do a more thorough comparison and a review after a couple of weeks, but for now will make a quick comparison with my E-P5 and the Olympus/Panasonic lenses. I have not done comprehensive tests yet. So keep that in mind.

Built quality/Handling:

I would say this is a toss-up. The X-T1 is superbly build and offers weather sealing. So no complaints here. I do prefer the rubber grip to the e-p5s plastic grip on the front, but the front and back dials on the Pen are much nicer. It does not matter too much on the Fuji because I can set the aperture on the lens and for shutter speed, exposure compensation and ISO there are seperate dials. Overall both are great to use and that is probably a bit more of a compliment to the Fuji which I just started to use.

Image Quality/lenses:

That is also not so clear cut. The 35mm f1.4 produces the smoothest bokeh of all the lenses I have used so far. That includes the Sigma 30mm f1.4 ART lens, the PL25 f1.4 (which has been my favorite until now) and the also very good Oly 25mm f1.8. I am a sucker for bokeh so that is a big plus. Center Sharpness is also better with the Fuji sensor with the 35mm compared to the E-P5 with the 25mm f1.8 at least. I am also very happy to report the 18-55mm produces some very nice images and certainly does not disappoint when it comes to built quality. There is no wobbling or rattling. This thing is made in Japan and you can tell the quality control. BUT it certainly cannot hold its own against the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 which I use on my E-P5. That is just about the sharpest zoom I have ever used and it is capable of getting the very last bit of resolution out of the E-P5 sensor.

Two problems with the Fuji X-Trans sensor and how see them so far:

Waxy skin tones? So far I don't see this problem. I have not shot portraits over ISO 3200 yet, so may be the problem will present itself at some other time. But as of now I must say the skin tone reproduction is actually the strong suit of the Fuji and imho the biggest advantage over the Olympus which is decent but nothing special. The Olympus Auto WB can also be more easily fooled by difficult lighting.

But that does not mean there are no color problems with the Fuji. I have not been shooting much greenery outdoors due to the season. But when I shot a simple picture of a green candle inside my living room the Fuji messed up the color pretty bad and turned it into an almost brownish, greyish green - very unpleasant and also not true to the eye. The Olympus oversaturated it a bit but the color cast was alright. So the Olympus was easily correctable in pp while the Fuji wasn't. Why? Well, the candles color was of, but other colors were accurate, so adding a little green would not have worked in post. Strange behavior and I will have to test this some more. This may also have to do with the foliage problem some people report. Time will tell.

The second problem was supposed to be high ISO cheating. A non-problem to me. Yes, Fujis ISO values seem inflated. On the other hand, the X-T1 still seems to enjoy about half a stop to one stop advantage when it comes to noise in any given picture in lowlight situations. It does not mean the E-P5 is bad in this regard. It is very good imo. The Fuji is just surprisingly excellent even with the NR dialed down.

AF: The AF speed of the Fuji was my biggest worry. I feared the camera may be too slow or hunt too much to enjoy photography in AF mode. Well, I can report at least with the newest firmware there is no risk for Olympus users to be frustrated. The AF locks on reasonably fast. While it is not as fast in good light as the E-P5, it is actually better (when shooting with the central focus points) once light gets dimmer. While the Oly 25mm is hunting and pumping in low light quite a bit, the Fuji 35mm (considered a slow lens), usually finds its target without swinging wildly back and force. I know that sounds not very believable with all the whining about Fujis AF system. But that is my initial finding.

If you have questions or want to add your opinion on the matter. I welcome every response. Here is a self portrait with the 35mm f1.4 JPEG OOC. More to follow.

Tired...

I think I start learning about the camera settings a little more. Now with better sharpness and more accurate white balance: