X-E4 + 27 2.8 as GM5 20 1.7 replacement?

christ0f wrote:

Hi!

I have been using the GM5 with 20 1.7 for years and was quite happy with results of rendered image, that prime has a nice contrast, field of view. The AF didn't bothered me for my type of photography.

Will the X-E4 with the new 27 2.8 WR be at least that good or even better? Do you have any experiences with that equipment? I often shoot the 20 1.7 @ 1.7 or 2, there was a nice shallow depth of field, making some equations to relate to FF, meaning 1.7 x 2 = 3.4 vs 2.8 x 1.5 = 4.2 gives an edge to the u43 lens.

Some real world samples appreciated

Thanks!

The DoF difference f/3.4 and 4.2 is going to be negligible (~1/3 of a stop). The real difference will be physical size. The Fuji is a full 3 cm wider, 1.2 cm taller and weighs 150g more. Also, while the measured depth is the same, it's misleading because the GM5 is measured from lens mount to eye relief point. The Fuji will be noticeably thicker in-hand. That of course can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your personal preferences.

As for output, the Fuji will be better and give you more latitude for cropping. It will also have substantially better continuous autofocus.

unhappymeal wrote:

christ0f wrote:

Hi!

I have been using the GM5 with 20 1.7 for years and was quite happy with results of rendered image, that prime has a nice contrast, field of view. The AF didn't bothered me for my type of photography.

Will the X-E4 with the new 27 2.8 WR be at least that good or even better? Do you have any experiences with that equipment? I often shoot the 20 1.7 @ 1.7 or 2, there was a nice shallow depth of field, making some equations to relate to FF, meaning 1.7 x 2 = 3.4 vs 2.8 x 1.5 = 4.2 gives an edge to the u43 lens.

Some real world samples appreciated

Thanks!

The DoF difference f/3.4 and 4.2 is going to be negligible (~1/3 of a stop). The real difference will be physical size. The Fuji is a full 3 cm wider, 1.2 cm taller and weighs 150g more. Also, while the measured depth is the same, it's misleading because the GM5 is measured from lens mount to eye relief point. The Fuji will be noticeably thicker in-hand. That of course can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your personal preferences.

As for output, the Fuji will be better and give you more latitude for cropping. It will also have substantially better continuous autofocus.

Yes, what I hoped to get from X-E4 comparing to GM5 is:

• Better image quality (obvious)
• Better viewfinder - I know the one on X-E4 is not good, but the one on GM5 is terrible
• Companion of simillar small lenses like 27 2.8 and 14 2.8

My concerns:

• Battery life
• Capture clip mount on my backpack strap - the tripod mount is not central and blocking the battery compartment - that's a shame!
• Limited controls - but having the lenses with aperture ring I guess that's still ok

christ0f wrote:

unhappymeal wrote:

christ0f wrote:

Hi!

I have been using the GM5 with 20 1.7 for years and was quite happy with results of rendered image, that prime has a nice contrast, field of view. The AF didn't bothered me for my type of photography.

Will the X-E4 with the new 27 2.8 WR be at least that good or even better? Do you have any experiences with that equipment? I often shoot the 20 1.7 @ 1.7 or 2, there was a nice shallow depth of field, making some equations to relate to FF, meaning 1.7 x 2 = 3.4 vs 2.8 x 1.5 = 4.2 gives an edge to the u43 lens.

Some real world samples appreciated

Thanks!

The DoF difference f/3.4 and 4.2 is going to be negligible (~1/3 of a stop). The real difference will be physical size. The Fuji is a full 3 cm wider, 1.2 cm taller and weighs 150g more. Also, while the measured depth is the same, it's misleading because the GM5 is measured from lens mount to eye relief point. The Fuji will be noticeably thicker in-hand. That of course can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your personal preferences.

As for output, the Fuji will be better and give you more latitude for cropping. It will also have substantially better continuous autofocus.

Yes, what I hoped to get from X-E4 comparing to GM5 is:

• Better image quality (obvious)
• Better viewfinder - I know the one on X-E4 is not good, but the one on GM5 is terrible
• Companion of simillar small lenses like 27 2.8 and 14 2.8

My concerns:

• Battery life
• Capture clip mount on my backpack strap - the tripod mount is not central and blocking the battery compartment - that's a shame!
• Limited controls - but having the lenses with aperture ring I guess that's still ok

I don't own the X-E4, but I had an X-T30, which is mechanically very similar:

• There's no way around the fact that the GM5 is using an older and lower resolution sensor than the X-E4. The X-E4 is going to have less noise and dynamic range, especially as the ISO climbs.
• At 0.46x magnification the GM5 viewfinder is useful for composition, but you will not be able to judge critical focus with it unless you magnify your image. The X-E4's viewfinder has close to 50% the magnification, twice the resolution and is physically larger. There's no denying that the viewfinder experience will be noticeably better on the X-E4.
• I cannot comment on the XF 27 f/2.8, but I really like the XF 14 f/2.8.

As for your concerns, I cannot comment on the tripod mount, but battery life is standard mirrorless fare. You really don't get longer battery life until you step up to flagship models. I suggest carrying an extra battery or two or a USB power bank. Controls will be a personal thing, but you do still have the touchscreen gestures available to you on the X-E4.

If Fuji played nice with DxO, I would probably have an X-S10 or X-T4 and X-E4 today.

Tom Schum wrote:

christ0f wrote:

Hi!

I have been using the GM5 with 20 1.7 for years and was quite happy with results of rendered image, that prime has a nice contrast, field of view. The AF didn't bothered me for my type of photography.

Will the X-E4 with the new 27 2.8 WR be at least that good or even better? Do you have any experiences with that equipment? I often shoot the 20 1.7 @ 1.7 or 2, there was a nice shallow depth of field, making some equations to relate to FF, meaning 1.7 x 2 = 3.4 vs 2.8 x 1.5 = 4.2 gives an edge to the u43 lens.

Some real world samples appreciated

Thanks!

Sensor pixel sizes (GM5 vs X-E4) are the same: 3.77 microns. Sensor areas are 367 sq mm for the X-E4 and 225 sq mm for the GM5.

27mm is 40mm equiv as is the 20mm F1.7 you are using on the GM5. I like my 27mm F2.8 but I see your 20mm F1.7 is rated excellent:

https://www.dpreview.com/products/panasonic/lenses/panasonic_20_1p7_ii

Have you thought about getting a new m43 body and still using this same lens? Maybe something like a G9 ($1000 at B&H) might make a world of difference:

https://www.dpreview.com/products/panasonic/slrs/panasonic_dcg9

The sensor on the X-E4 is current design, and the GM5 is 8 years old. You will probably get better image quality from the X-E4 but I think the 27mm F2.8 will not satisfy you in terms of bokeh. Just a guess though.

If you don't mind manual focusing and manual aperture with your X-E4, something like the Pergear 25mm F1.8 might be a good choice for you, and not expensive ($100 or less, but I don't know where to get them). The F1.8 aperture will get you better bokeh wide open.

Another lens for m43 that can give great bokeh is the completely manual Mitakon 25mm F0.95:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1190008-REG/mitakon_zhongyi_mtk25mf095bk_speedmaster_25mm_f_0_95_lens.html

Affordable at $350. I have their 35mm F0.95 for the Fuji x mount (again completely manual). It's nice.

You have a lot of choices. I've been a Fuji owner since 2014 and sometimes wished I had started with m43 because I might still be using m43. But Fuji ain't bad!

Going from a GM5 to a G9 is going to be one hell of a shock to the system in more ways than one...

I sold my gm5 and 20 1.7 as when i wanted smaller i used a GR. I also got an xt20 back then but changed to an xe3 now.

The sensor on xe3 is much better than gm5, its better allround really as should the xe4 be, ergonomics aside.

So a good replacement imo

20 1.7 was a nice lens for sure. The 27 isnt bad but its only f2.8 and needs to stop down a bit for sharper edges. Nice rendering though.

Tbh fuji lenses are over hyped and think m43 lenses were very good.