Advice and opinions for compare APSC and m4\3 systems

[Theory of a dead man]

I am confused. I am in dilemma.

I like Olympus OM-D E-M10m2's design and features. I like it very much. And m4\3's cameras have huge lens range. and lenses are small and light. But i am worried about photo quality. I have Fujifilm X20 and i hate its photo quality. I want my next camera make a difference. m4\3 cameras have little sensor than APSC cameras.

Other option is Fujifilm X-T1. Have a bigger sensor and good photo quality. I am sure its photo quality. And i like the body but lens range is narrow and lenses are big for zoom lenses. I want a portable system.

My mind says X-T1 and my heart says E-M10m2. What do you advice to me? I stucked and i cant decide.

 

[canuck dave]

I am confused. I am in dilemma.

I like Olympus OM-D E-M10m2's design and features. I like it very much. And m4\3's cameras have huge lens range. and lenses are small and light. But i am worried about photo quality. I have Fujifilm X20 and i hate its photo quality. I want my next camera make a difference. m4\3 cameras have little sensor than APSC cameras.

Other option is Fujifilm X-T1. Have a bigger sensor and good photo quality. I am sure its photo quality. And i like the body but lens range is narrow and lenses are big for zoom lenses. I want a portable system.

My mind says X-T1 and my heart says E-M10m2. What do you advice to me? I stucked and i cant decide.

The camera that you have, the FujiFilm X20 is actually quite a good camera. In fact as far as image quality goes, the DRReview here rates it highly:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x20/15

This review also rates image quality high:

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/fujifilm_x20_review/image_quality/

One can get superb images from APS-C cameras, full frame and with M4/3 cameras such as yours. A camera does not deliver great images out of the box; perhaps you have a learning curve to work with?

Good luck.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/25701411@N07/

 

[Theory of a dead man]

I am confused. I am in dilemma.

I like Olympus OM-D E-M10m2's design and features. I like it very much. And m4\3's cameras have huge lens range. and lenses are small and light. But i am worried about photo quality. I have Fujifilm X20 and i hate its photo quality. I want my next camera make a difference. m4\3 cameras have little sensor than APSC cameras.

Other option is Fujifilm X-T1. Have a bigger sensor and good photo quality. I am sure its photo quality. And i like the body but lens range is narrow and lenses are big for zoom lenses. I want a portable system.

My mind says X-T1 and my heart says E-M10m2. What do you advice to me? I stucked and i cant decide.

The camera that you have, the FujiFilm X20 is actually quite a good camera. In fact as far as image quality goes, the DRReview here rates it highly:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x20/15

This review also rates image quality high:

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/fujifilm_x20_review/image_quality/

One can get superb images from APS-C cameras, full frame and with M4/3 cameras such as yours. A camera does not deliver great images out of the box; perhaps you have a learning curve to work with?

Good luck.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/25701411@N07/

Thanks canuck dave for the reply.

Yes i read all of the reviews. I bought it because of this reviews but real life not like the reviews. When I said photo quality, I mean the details in photo.And little sensor cameras cant give details except macro mode. Yes X20 is a good compact camera but it is good camera for its class only. When i read the reviews, i think it is a competitor of upper class. If you compare it with 4/3 or apsc, you will understand what i mean. I want details and sharpness. X20 is very limited camera for many technical specification.

Also I dont trust reviews anymore. I really want to talk with end user and surfing on photo sharing sites.

 

[Charles2]

If you emphasize telephotos and want small equipment, m4/3. If you want more room for bokeh and generally higher image quality, APS-C - for which a Fuji X-T or just announced X-Pro 2 are outstanding.

 

[Brian Isaman]

If you emphasize telephotos and want small equipment, m4/3. If you want more room for bokeh and generally higher image quality, APS-C - for which a Fuji X-T or just announced X-Pro 2 are outstanding.

--
The comment above probably has an example in my photostream at http://www.flickr.com/photos/41790885@N08/

Not sure this is 100% true. Much of what the OP asks for in "IQ" is lens based. I'm not saying Fuji isn't capable there, they have a good rep with lenses. But they also have a rep for being overpriced and they lack 3rd party support bigtime. If the OP is looking for portable and good IQ, M43 is a perfect place. I personally own a GX8 and I got the Panasonic 42.5mm f1.7 with damaged box for $300 and it's amazing. Detail is not an issue with this lens.





Bokeh is also a function tied to the lenses. If one uses the faster lenses, including stuff like the Mitakon 25mm f.95, DOF control isn't really an issue.

 

[Krusty79]

The IQ of my GM5 with the kit lens is very close to the IQ of my 60D with the kit lens, or even the 10-18 ultrawide. Surprisingly close.

 

[Charles2]

The IQ of my GM5 with the kit lens is very close to the IQ of my 60D with the kit lens, or even the 10-18 ultrawide. Surprisingly close.

The output of different cameras overlap. Many scenes will indeed photograph as well with one camera or another. The exceptions favor APS-C over m4/3 from what I see browsing photos and having experience with both sensor sizes.

This might be a reason why m4/3 is a specialty of two companies, Olympus and Panasonic, while most other camera manufacturers have APS-C cameras in their lineup.

 

[SpinOne]

I like Olympus OM-D E-M10m2's design and features. I like it very much. And m4\3's cameras have huge lens range. and lenses are small and light. But i am worried about photo quality.

Unless you are making prints larger than 16" x 20", there is little reason to be concerned about that.

I have Fujifilm X20 and i hate its photo quality. I want my next camera make a difference. m4\3 cameras have little sensor than APSC cameras.

The image quality on most M4/3 cameras is comparable to APS-C.

APS-C will give you slightly narrower depth of field options, and perhaps a little more low-light performance. They will also be slightly larger, heavier, bulkier.

The Fuji XT-10 is comparable to the EM10 Mk II. You'll be fine with either one. There is very little you can do with one, that you cannot do with the other.

 

[ultimitsu]

but real life not like the reviews. When I said photo quality, I mean the details in photo.And little sensor cameras cant give details except macro mode. Yes X20 is a good compact camera but it is good camera for its class only. When i read the reviews, i think it is a competitor of upper class. If you compare it with 4/3 or apsc, you will understand what i mean. I want details and sharpness. X20 is very limited camera for many technical specification.

In that case do not bother with M43, you will only second guess it just as you did with X20. Human nature.

Just get APS-C or better yet (from a finality point of view) get the FF Sony A7II.

 

[Brian Isaman]

but real life not like the reviews. When I said photo quality, I mean the details in photo.And little sensor cameras cant give details except macro mode. Yes X20 is a good compact camera but it is good camera for its class only. When i read the reviews, i think it is a competitor of upper class. If you compare it with 4/3 or apsc, you will understand what i mean. I want details and sharpness. X20 is very limited camera for many technical specification.

In that case do not bother with M43, you will only second guess it just as you did with X20. Human nature.

Just get APS-C or better yet (from a finality point of view) get the FF Sony A7II.

Why would he not second guess the A7II as well? If we are going for finality, may as well make it count.

 

[Theory of a dead man]

Thanks for all reply. I love this forum. I forget to write, i am interested only mirrorless. Please compare only mirrorless APSC cameras. Sorry :S

When i read reviews of x-t1 i can see many photos clear sharp. But not for the 4\3. Some photos i like :

https://flic.kr/p/okEyp9

https://flic.kr/p/o7S25F

https://flic.kr/p/op8tGj

Can i take this results from a 4\3 camera? If you can please upload me some raw files direct from the camera. I will be thankful.

A7 or a7R are purchasable for me. But lenses is very big size. And lens option is really bad on sony side. I am not interested with FF.

Fuji side telephoto is the bigger problem for me. I dont like very big lenses on street. 4\3 cameras have very little and quality lenses.

Unless you are making prints larger than 16" x 20", there is little reason to be concerned about that.

I am not happy when i search 4\3's photos from flickr on my 21.5" monitor. I dont prints larger than 16" x 20". Maybe rarely special photos.

The image quality on most M4/3 cameras is comparable to APS-C.APS-C will give you slightly narrower depth of field options, and perhaps a little more low-light performance. They will also be slightly larger, heavier, bulkier.

I worried low light and bokeh performance. I mean mirrorless APSC cameras. Not different with 4\3 bodies. Except telephoto lenses all equipments as same as 4\3.

The Fuji XT-10 is comparable to the EM10 Mk II. You'll be fine with either one. There is very little you can do with one, that you cannot do with the other.

X-T10 and X-T1 really close bodies. I try both. Only 59grams difference. For the hold experience i prefer x-t1. Thanks for your reply.

 

[rxbot]

Perhaps you should tell us what focal lengths (equiv) you need that might help to choose. I decided to go APS-C because I think best IQ and value for dollar and performance are there. Since Nikon or Pentax do not make APS-C mirrorless yet I went DSLR. If Fuji A! or A2 had an EVF I may have gone that route but do not not want X system. Now my DSLR is Bayer but has no AA filter which was the reason for X system. With 24 MP sensors there are a few cameras with no AA filter. Even the 16MP Pentax K5IIs had no AA filter. What lenses you want may determine which system you should go to.

 

[OpticsEngineer]

"I like Olympus OM-D E-M10m2's design and features..... But i am worried about photo quality."

Then if you get one, be sure to skip over the kit lens and go straight to the better glass.

Especially the newest collapsible kit lens seems to be hard to get a good copy of, judging by the various camera reviews at www.cameralabs.com. I have one ... okay, not great. But the PRO lenses are fantastic.... expensive though. If money is an issue, you can do better buying regular DSLRs and better lenses, but at the expense of larger weight and size and no EVF and poor LiveView AF.

 

[Theory of a dead man]

Perhaps you should tell us what focal lengths (equiv) you need that might help to choose. I decided to go APS-C because I think best IQ and value for dollar and performance are there. Since Nikon or Pentax do not make APS-C mirrorless yet I went DSLR. If Fuji A! or A2 had an EVF I may have gone that route but do not not want X system. Now my DSLR is Bayer but has no AA filter which was the reason for X system. With 24 MP sensors there are a few cameras with no AA filter. Even the 16MP Pentax K5IIs had no AA filter. What lenses you want may determine which system you should go to.

Thanks for reply.

If i choose 4\3 system, the lenses will be panasonic 12-32mm, panasonic 45-150mm and olympus 45mm 1.8

This set is super mobility set.

If I choose Fuji, the lenses will be xf18-55mm and xf 55-200mm. I dont decide for prime lens.

I dont be happy with huge telephoto. There isnt any option of this.

 

[SkiHound]

Some probably biased thoughts from a current m43 shooter. What is it about the IQ from your current camera do you find unacceptable? In decent light I find the output from a lot of small sensor cameras to be very, very good. Clearly there are differences in terms of things like depth of field, and when shooting conditions become more challenging the advantages of larger sensors become more apparent. But your current camera generally gets pretty good marks for IQ. I also think that current sensor technology has kind of plateaued. Over the last several years I think improvements to sensor output has been pretty incremental, and I expect that to continue until we see some really new technology like the organic sensor. I'd also say that all other things being equal, the larger the sensor the better the potential IQ. A larger sensor simply gathers more light at the same exposure value, and light is the signal in photography. The Fuji system may not have as many lenses but at this point there are several lenses in that system I find very appealing. I mostly bought into m43 because of size and weight. I had been shopping cameras like the Canon 60D and 7D and the Nikon D7000. But when I really thought about why and how I would use a camera, size really mattered. I’m not a professional photographer. I’m not making poster sized prints. I use it hiking, traveling, throw it in a backpack on a bike, skiing, strolling around on the streets, etc. When the E-M5 hit the market it checked most boxes. I thought sensor output was as good as or perhaps a tad better than the APS-C Canons, and not far behind the D7000. It ticked most of my boxes. Overall, I’ve been very happy. I can slip an E-M10 with 17 or 45 or even one of the small zooms in my ski jacket pocket. With a small prime it’s pretty inconspicuous on the street. Just fits my needs. When I bought in the Fuji system was very new and immature, so I didn’t really give it more than a passing consideration. I like the looks of the Fuji system a lot, and from a pure sensor IQ perspective most reviewers would give the win to Fuji. The lenses do tend to be larger and heavier, but that’s a function of the larger sensor. I do think the in body image stabilization in the Olympus bodies is a real plus. I’m old. Maybe I have bad eyes. I grew up with film and am maybe not as sensitive to noise as some folks. And I also think images should be evaluated as images and not as pixels. That said, I see stunning images produced with both Fuji and m43 cameras (and I see, and make, a lot of boring images from all camera brands). My advice is to go to online sources and review a bunch of photos made with each system. Perhaps download some raw files and process to your liking to compare. And base your decision on those kinds of comparisons rather than the biased opinions of folks like me. That said, I’m really curious as to what you perceive as the major IQ issues with your current camera?

 

[007peter]

I love the Fuji IQ, but the I hate the premium price tags. Average lens is like $500~$700 a pop, even old slow focusing Fuji 35mm f/1.4 still cost $600. Making it worst is that lens isn't smaller than Canon or Nikon DSLR. If I'm going APS-C, I might as well stay with Canon & Nikon DSLR with their superior lens lineup + similar lens size to Fuji + much MUCH cheaper lens price. Keep in mind that Canon SL1 or Nikon D5500 isn't that much bigger than your average mirrorless.

The main reason for going M43 is the smaller lens size, wide lens selecdtions, and many body size choices from Big & Bulky Gh4 to smaller & tiny GM5. M43 lens price is also much cheaper. So I would price out a system with the lens you want on both platform. For me, Fuji was simply too expensive and the return on investment actually favor toward a Canon or Nikon DSLR.

 

[Theory of a dead man]

Some probably biased thoughts from a current m43 shooter. What is it about the IQ from your current camera do you find unacceptable?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. In good light camera give good photos. But in low light photos have watercolour effect. There isnt any detail. I dont mean very dark light. And indoor performance really bad. it has focus problems in low light. Sometimes i want to give bokeh effect on some photos but bokeh performance is realy realy bad. I bought it for everywhere everytime using. I dont know what you mean with IQ. But i am talking with results. Some photos of me.

https://flic.kr/p/Bc1svK

https://flic.kr/p/zpijPZ

https://flic.kr/p/zcaHa5

These are taken in good light condition. But after a trip when i load photos to computer, i see after noon photos really different.

But after reading your last post, i changed my thoughts. Yes mobility is more important than some of details for me. Lenses are small and cheap.

What do you think about this lenses? panasonic 12-32mm, panasonic 45-150mm and olympus 45mm 1.8

 

[Theory of a dead man]

The main reason for going M43 is the smaller lens size, wide lens selecdtions, and many body size choices from Big & Bulky Gh4 to smaller & tiny GM5. M43 lens price is also much cheaper. So I would price out a system with the lens you want on both platform. For me, Fuji was simply too expensive and the return on investment actually favor toward a Canon or Nikon DSLR.

I see you have eos m and gf6. Could you compare this cameras for me? One has apsc sensor, one has microfourthirds.

 

[SkiHound]

Not really in a position to look at your photo links right now. As for narrow depth of to isolate subjects (technically, the term bokeh refers to the quality of the out of focus area rather than the amount or depth of field), the larger APS-C sensor in the Fuji will be advantageous in creating a thinner depth of field (e.g., more subject isolation and more background blurring). The difference, relative to m43, is about 3/4 of a stop. So a 45mm lens on m43 at f/2.0 and a 60mm lens at f/3.0 on the Fuji would give approximately the same field of view (about 90mm equivalent on FF) and about the same depth of field. I have (had) the Panasonic 12-32. It's very small, very light, and I found it surprisingly sharp. I put a JJC lens cap on mine and tried to use it skiing and have basically ruined it. My fault, though the lens does seem to have a rep as being a bit fragile. Debating whether I want to get another copy. I like the idea, but I'm afraid that for my intended uses I'd just end up breaking another one. The Panasonic 45-150 has a solid reputation, I've never used it. The 45 f/1.8 is a great little lens, IMO. Very small and light for what it is. The Panasonic 42.5 f/1.7 would be another lens to consider in that category. Frankly, if you go the E-M10-ii route I'd probably just start with something like the basic 14-42 kit lens and then maybe add something like the 25 f/1.8 for a higher quality lens that will work more effectively in low light. Then evaluate what you're missing. The Oly 40-150 f/4-5.6 can be had for around $99 currently. Surprisingly good for the money, though the Panny 45-150 might be an overall better lens. Was curious if you current camera has an X-trans sensor? I wonder if that might have something to do with what you're describing in terms of image quality issues?

 

[Richard Butler]

All formats are a trade-off. A smaller sensor is more likely to mean a small body and smaller lenses. Broadly speaking, the trade-off is control over depth-of-field and low light performance.

However, consider the relative sensor sizes you're considering.

X20 sensor: ~58 square millimetres

Four Thirds sensor: ~224 sqmm

APS-C sensor: ~360 sqmm

The Four Thirds sensor is around four times larger than the X20's sensor, which means approximately 2EV more total light for the same F-number and shutter speed. The APS-C sensor is 1.6x bigger again, gaining you roughly 3/4EV more light/control over depth of field.

So a Micro Four Thirds camera will be a huge step up from your X20, regardless of whether you want to chase that extra 3/4EV.

For me, the difference between APS-C and Four Thirds sensor size is probably less important than whether the system I'm looking at has the lenses I want at a price I'm willing to pay, and whether the camera bodies have the capabilities I need.

Richard - dpreview.com