Early impressions Fuji X system vs. M43

Strick Shooter wrote:

s_grins wrote:

Comparison has to be scientific in order to compare (has to be done in studio under controlled environment).

These photos are the perfect proof that early impressions are sour grapes. Also, I guess, IQ of both cameras is very close, and human factor makes a difference.

I'm wondering what is the need to post these so-called "comparisons". What do you want to prove? Or what do you want to show?

I disagree. Even if someone posts a "scientific comparison" people still comaplain about the method. In this case and in most cases for me I much rather see real world examples of images taken in a manner the camera will be used. Comparing a test shot in a studio where every last detailed is controlled is done by every review article, I want real world shots. I want a comparison of bokeh, real world colors and textures. I want to see the same scene shot with the cameras to get an idea of how the react and their the type of images that can be made.

I agree that there is no scientific method that we can all agree provides a definitive answer. But why not gather as much information as possible from different sources including the controlled testing?

From the few images that I have seen here and about it appears that Fuji produces a more nuanced tonality than the m43 sensors. I don't think they differ in sharpness, there may be a edge to Fuji in resolution but you won't notice it in most uses. If I were shooting digital exclusively I might migrate over to Fuji, but the costs of their system are substantially more than the Olympus/Panasonic system with its myriad of lenses at different price points.

Fri13 wrote:

I am on the mobile so can't get bigger image size but is your nose tip out of focus?
As even on very small size it looks it is out of focus but as DOF changes based image size and viewing distance it is impossible to say accurately as we don't even know what is your preferred ratio.

But for me as it looks out of focus, meaning you would need larger aperture ratio to get it in focus as well.

Or longer arms

seriously though. It is slightly out of focus. But that says more about me as a mediocre photographer than it says about the camera. I don't mind and actually like the effect when parts of the face are out of focus. But if I wanted the nose to be really sharp I should have stopped down by one stop or so.

knickerhawk wrote:

sebiruns 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.

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:

I thought you "hated" white balance that neutralizes the scene?

To me that is not neutralized. It is still warmer than in other lighting situations.

Robert Garcia NYC wrote:

simply trust your eyes. m43 has more crisp images to me.

You could well be right, but of course sharpness is not everything in an image.

knickerhawk wrote:

sebiruns wrote:

knickerhawk wrote:

sebiruns 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.

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:

I thought you "hated" white balance that neutralizes the scene?

To me that is not neutralized. It is still warmer than in other lighting situations.

Stick a white card next to your face and reshoot with the new settings and see for yourself. It's now far more accurate/neutral than it was previously. That's a good thing, by the way. (It's ok to admit when you're wrong. You were already implying as much with your posting that you're "learning about the camera.")

It obviously is and I like it better, too. But neutralized to me means flattening colors so white is pure white no matter the lighting of the scene. The first shot had too much yellow in it. But it was in AWB and with different indoor light sources which has thrown off every AWB I have used so far. And I personally like it more too err on the warm side than the other way around. Neutral to me would mean getting rid of the actual color mood in favor of some neutral white but I am not a native english speaker so maybe my definition of neutral is inaccurate.

This has been an interesting discussion for me, thanks all. Over here I've been writing about long exposure noise. Oly cameras seem to be about the worst at this sadly so I've been taking a look at Fuji because they are one of the best.

https://www.mu-43.com/threads/long-exposure-noise-parameter-that-improve-the-e-m5.81488/

http://www.brendandaveyphotography.com/?page_id=726

This may not be important to many of you but the problems w/ Oly cam as a surprise to me so wanted to flag this for others.

traveler_101 wrote:

Robert Garcia NYC wrote:

simply trust your eyes. m43 has more crisp images to me.

You could well be right, but of course sharpness is not everything in an image.

Of course sharpness is not everything, but first 80% for sure.

s_grins wrote:

traveler_101 wrote:

Robert Garcia NYC wrote:

simply trust your eyes. m43 has more crisp images to me.

You could well be right, but of course sharpness is not everything in an image.

Of course sharpness is not everything, but first 80% for sure.

You are not being serious here, right?

OzRay wrote:

The more I hear about Fuji cameras on the m4/3 forum, the happier I am that I own m4/3. Can't wait to read about the new Canon mirrorless camera on this forum, it should make for interesting reading.

You are right. I probably should have only posted this in the Fuji X forum. I never thought it would live on for so long. For what its worth. My original finding still stands. Each system has its strength and weaknesses. Fuji has very good but expansive primes up to 135 mm in FF equiv. M43 has a more complete set of lenses, IBIS is something Fuji needs in the long term imo. In the short term Fuji needs more affordable prime lenses. M43 needs more high end primes (build quality and brightness). There are a couple but that line-up could certainly be improved. Maybe a 17mm f1.4 or a faster 12mm. But there is always room for improvement in every system.

sebiruns wrote:

OzRay wrote:

The more I hear about Fuji cameras on the m4/3 forum, the happier I am that I own m4/3. Can't wait to read about the new Canon mirrorless camera on this forum, it should make for interesting reading.

You are right. I probably should have only posted this in the Fuji X forum. I never thought it would live on for so long. For what its worth. My original finding still stands. Each system has its strength and weaknesses. Fuji has very good but expansive primes up to 135 mm in FF equiv. M43 has a more complete set of lenses, IBIS is something Fuji needs in the long term imo. In the short term Fuji needs more affordable prime lenses. M43 needs more high end primes (build quality and brightness). There are a couple but that line-up could certainly be improved. Maybe a 17mm f1.4 or a faster 12mm. But there is always room for improvement in every system.

I think this is a fair assessment, but I just don't see how this adds up to a conclusive argument for switching to Fuji. Frankly, what bothers me about Fuji is partly the size of their camera-lens combos, but even more the cost of their lenses. What bothers me is not the question of how "expansive" the choices in Fuji are, but how EXPENSIVE they are. If you need an alternative to Olympus/Panasonic wouldn't it be better and probably cheaper to acquire a SONY full frame and use SLR era legacy glass? Just a thought . . .

Fri13 wrote:

sebiruns wrote:

Fri13 wrote:

I am on the mobile so can't get bigger image size but is your nose tip out of focus?
As even on very small size it looks it is out of focus but as DOF changes based image size and viewing distance it is impossible to say accurately as we don't even know what is your preferred ratio.

But for me as it looks out of focus, meaning you would need larger aperture ratio to get it in focus as well.

Or longer arms

seriously though. It is slightly out of focus. But that says more about me as a mediocre photographer than it says about the camera. I don't mind and actually like the effect when parts of the face are out of focus. But if I wanted the nose to be really sharp I should have stopped down by one stop or so.

It just looks bad when tip of the nose is out of focus and then both eyes are in focus etc.

Try to get everything from tip of the nose to corner of eyes in focus and it will look nicer.

The shallow depth of field is often done way too over because "Eyes are the window to the soul" is wanted to be interpreted so that only one eye sharp or so.

Like when you teached new photographers to take portraits with large format camera (8x10), many tried at least once to get photo where just 2-3 eye lashes were sharp with the iris. And while it was technically challenging as model needed to stay very still in whole process, the photos just were totally unflattering ones.

How could I argue with that. In general, you are certainly correct.

Fri13 wrote:

sebiruns wrote:

Fri13 wrote:

I am on the mobile so can't get bigger image size but is your nose tip out of focus?
As even on very small size it looks it is out of focus but as DOF changes based image size and viewing distance it is impossible to say accurately as we don't even know what is your preferred ratio.

But for me as it looks out of focus, meaning you would need larger aperture ratio to get it in focus as well.

Or longer arms

seriously though. It is slightly out of focus. But that says more about me as a mediocre photographer than it says about the camera. I don't mind and actually like the effect when parts of the face are out of focus. But if I wanted the nose to be really sharp I should have stopped down by one stop or so.

It just looks bad when tip of the nose is out of focus and then both eyes are in focus etc.

Try to get everything from tip of the nose to corner of eyes in focus and it will look nicer.

The shallow depth of field is often done way too over because "Eyes are the window to the soul" is wanted to be interpreted so that only one eye sharp or so.

Like when you teached new photographers to take portraits with large format camera (8x10), many tried at least once to get photo where just 2-3 eye lashes were sharp with the iris. And while it was technically challenging as model needed to stay very still in whole process, the photos just were totally unflattering ones.

This is mostly about ergonomics and handling. I like the dialrich X-T1 because it lets me change a lot of settings by just spinning a dial instead of pushing a button or going through a menu first. I also like the lenses which are not as compact as m43 lenses but mostlymore compact than Sonys and especially than legacy lenses (aside from Leicas but those are not cheap either when they are in very good condition. The walkaround combinations I have with X-T1 + 18-55 or X-T1 +35f1.4 are not much bigger than E-P5+vf4+12-40 or E-P5+25mm. So in the end it is about the cost. I had a chance to enter the system pretty cheap with used gear and gave it a shot. I must say I really like it. But that does by no means say this switch is a great idea for everybody.

sebiruns wrote:

s_grins wrote:

traveler_101 wrote:

Robert Garcia NYC wrote:

simply trust your eyes. m43 has more crisp images to me.

You could well be right, but of course sharpness is not everything in an image.

Of course sharpness is not everything, but first 80% for sure.

You are not being serious here, right?

Wrong!