Early impressions Fuji X system vs. M43

s_grins wrote:

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!

With miniscule differences in sharpness between todays cameras (when the photographer is not to blame) sharpness differences are neglectable. I have taken some of my favorite photos with an old 8 megapixel Canon 400D. The difference between good photos and not so good photos is not 80% sharpness. What a silly idea.

sebiruns wrote:

s_grins wrote:

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!

With miniscule differences in sharpness between todays cameras (when the photographer is not to blame) sharpness differences are neglectable. I have taken some of my favorite photos with an old 8 megapixel Canon 400D. The difference between good photos and not so good photos is not 80% sharpness. What a silly idea.

It is a silly idea to discuss simple issues with a silly man. You can take silly dull photos with ANY camera with ANY Pxs count - with any lens (including highly rated). Everything you need to take silly dull photo is to be a silly photographer.

Learn to take crispy sharp photos - you can fix this later, during PP

Everyone chooses his/her own fetish I guess.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Sebiruns,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

And how would you know? 😎

traveler_101 wrote:

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 . . .

I replied this to the wrong person. So once again:

The switch was 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 of a very high quality though not as compact as many m43 lenses. Compared to Sonys FF lenses they are not big at all. The walk-around 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 I endorse this switch for everybody. People have different priorities and different gear will best fit their needs.

And I do not like Sonys A7 series at all. I did a couple of test shots with it and besides IQ it did not offer anything I really liked. I don't do video in case this is any good with the A7. Build quality (of the original A7) felt cheap to me. I did not like the viewfinder colors and the kit lens 28-70 felt cheap as well - especially compared to Fujis 18-55. So for the high asking price I think you get a very good FF sensor and a pretty cheaply made camera and lens system around this sensor. With the Fuji X-T1/X-T10 you get a very good APS-C-sensor (though not as good as Sonys FF), great direct controls, excellent build quality of both camera body and lenses as well as a better compromise (imho) when it comes to IQ and size of cameras and lenses.

I hear a lot of the build quality problems are done away with in the second generation and when you pick the more expensive lenses. But than the size problem arises anew. The lens I would like the most if I had one of the Sonys (Zeiss 35mm f1.4) is huge and heavy.

if you would stick to one system and learn how to handle it right, like WB

This system hopping I find incomprehensible

Raist3d wrote:

Fuji looks expensive on first pass, but the lenses are better than the cheaper m/43rds counter parts. The XF35 (and that's just one example) wide open is pretty sharp and faster. I can't say the same thing for the Olympus 25mm F1.8.

Either the lenses are more expensive or they are not. M43 has more options. The 25/1.8 is a very good lens - performance is excellent; nice balance of contrast and sharpness. It is not as good as the Panasonic 20/1.7 though . . .

I mean, look at the Olympus pro lenses and the 75mm F1.8. They are good right? And they are also about same as Fuji price. The nocticron is even more expensive than any Fuji lens I can think of, except for one lens.

So I think the accurate statement is that m4/3rds has more cheaper options than Fuji,

Yes

. .but you do get what you pay for. Fuji is giving you better glass at those prices.

Assuming you can afford to pay the price.

sebiruns wrote:

traveler_101 wrote:

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 . . .

I replied this to the wrong person. So once again:

The switch was 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 of a very high quality though not as compact as many m43 lenses. Compared to Sonys FF lenses they are not big at all. The walk-around 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 I endorse this switch for everybody. People have different priorities and different gear will best fit their needs.

And I do not like Sonys A7 series at all. I did a couple of test shots with it and besides IQ it did not offer anything I really liked. I don't do video in case this is any good with the A7. Build quality (of the original A7) felt cheap to me. I did not like the viewfinder colors and the kit lens 28-70 felt cheap as well - especially compared to Fujis 18-55. So for the high asking price I think you get a very good FF sensor and a pretty cheaply made camera and lens system around this sensor. With the Fuji X-T1/X-T10 you get a very good APS-C-sensor (though not as good as Sonys FF), great direct controls, excellent build quality of both camera body and lenses as well as a better compromise (imho) when it comes to IQ and size of cameras and lenses.

I hear a lot of the build quality problems are done away with in the second generation and when you pick the more expensive lenses. But than the size problem arises anew. The lens I would like the most if I had one of the Sonys (Zeiss 35mm f1.4) is huge and heavy.

Thank you taking the time to reply in detail to my post. I like your analysis and I can see the appeal of Fuji and especially the XT-1. It would be great to dial in ISO, for example. I find the design of some Fuji cameras the X100 series and the X-T1 very appealing. And the size advantage for m43 has become somewhat marginal especially with the larger cameras like the E-M1 and GX8 cthat have recently been released and the new Olympus high quality zooms. I prefer the small primes and compact bodies of the earlier m43 series and would caution Olympus/Panasonic about size creep in their system. At this point though the overall price advantage and technical innovations in the m43 system seem to be keeping m43 more than competitive in the market.

Elliot H wrote:

thanks for the comparison, much appreciated

Olympus looks ok, but Fuji looks much better here

For all the raving about Oly colors, agreed that the Fuji seems to well represent the greens.

sebiruns wrote:

Fuji makes great cameras, I have the X-T1 and X-e2 and both I enjoyed a lot. Lenses are vey well made and excellent optics.

Fuji Cameras look great as well, however with all people raving about the external "traditional" controls (dials) of the Fuji, I found the cameras to be a pain to use, especially when changing the aperture speed on the X-T1, you have to turn the upper dial and then turn the back one for the rest of the stops, ISO same thing, it just made me so frustrated. I still think that color and image quality is better than my em-5 markii but the hollow construction feeling and the world warII retro design made me at time a bit frustrated.

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...

dennis tennis wrote:

Miron09 wrote:

if you would stick to one system and learn how to handle it right, like WB

This system hopping I find incomprehensible

it is his money and time.

Also, I can't speak for him, but I'm a compulsive experimenter. (Or tinkerer, to be less polite. Or gadget-addicted.) When budget permits, I like to get actual, personal experience with as many products that interest me within a category as possible. I want to see for myself what a product's strengths and weaknesses are, and I like seeing one company's solution to design issues that could be applied to other products. For example on tablets, I've owned and used iPads, Android, Windows, even the HP TouchPad and Blackberry PlayBook.

So if I see a really good deal on a piece of camera gear that looks interesting, and it's within my budget, I like to try it. I started working with M4/3 because I wasn't terribly happy with my Canon Rebel XT, I found a really good deal on an E-P1 and had a lot of positive prior experience with Olympus, so I gave it a try. I tried Pentax K-Mount gear when they were fire-saleing the K-01, and it looked like a good cheap way to play with a lot of classic glass; it was my primary system for a while, and I recently added a K-S1 when Samy's was blowing them out for $180. I've always had a thing for miniaturization, so the E-PM2 fire sales drew me back into M4/3, and I currently do most of my shooting with an E-M10 or the GM5.

I'd love to try the Fuji X-system - I've had an X10 premium compact and really liked it for what it was - but the initial expense has put me off. Even the X-A1 clearance sales were in the $450-500 range for a camera without a viewfinder, and to get something I'd be happy with I'd probably have to move up to the X-T10 for $900. Add in a prime or two and you're well in the $1500+ neighborhood. I can justify $300 to try out something new, another $100-200 if I've had a good month and have extra cash in the 'play' fund; the X-A1 was tempting. But to spend that much just to try it out, and know I'd have to spend 2-3 times that much to get a kit I'd really be happy shooting with... no. Especially since if I like it, further growth in that system would mean dropping another $1000-2000.

eliehbk wrote:

Fuji Cameras look great as well, however with all people raving about the external "traditional" controls (dials) of the Fuji, I found the cameras to be a pain to use, especially when changing the aperture speed on the X-T1, you have to turn the upper dial and then turn the back one for the rest of the stops, ISO same thing, it just made me so frustrated. I still think that color and image quality is better than my em-5 markii but the hollow construction feeling and the world warII retro design made me at time a bit frustrated.

Thanks for sharing your experience. I'm one that likes the idea of the dials but then the complications of shooting digital system . . . as you suggest perhaps we are better off with a menu. Sometimes, it bothers me that Fuji is trying to design as if a digital camera was a film camera. I feel like telling Fuji customers, 'if you want a film camera buy one and shoot film'. I still do and all the operating controls are mechanical dials which makes perfect sense.