The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
OMD E-M5 MKII impressions
- Thread starter raist3d
- Start date
k-hawinkler
Well-known member
Yup, as I didn't read the manual it also took me awhile before I managed to take off the tripod mount ring from the 40-150/2.8 Pro lens without breaking anything!
LocalHero1953
New member
Yes, I did - didn't make a difference. But it was difficult to find out: the body+lens kit did not come with a lens manual.
Well after using a bit on/off the Olympus O-MD EM-5 MKII, some further thoughts...
- I like the camera a lot, but I just don't love it. For a while it really bothered me because I couldn't put my finger on it. Even now there's still an aspect of that. But I decided not to think this much anymore and just use for a week or two and if I still feel this way, it's time to sell.
A couple of things I noticed:
1 - For some reason the camera feels "cramped" usability wise. Also too many features presented at once. I find it distracting.
2 - To my surprise though the Dynamic Range seems close to the Fuji (X-E1), I still find the Fuji has this "extra" thing. Kind of like things look more metallic/chromic. It's hard to explain.
I found Capture One 8.2.2 is the closest to getting the OMD to shine in a similar direction and in a couple of shots it' shard to tell. But I did this shot at night of a restaurant with some neon lighting and it was a bit more obvious the Fuji just does this richer color. It's like it can see more color and saturate more yet without feeling over done.
3- Last week I had to reset the camera because IBIS just stopped working for me when taking shots. I could see the IBIS working in preview, but not at the time of shooting. Shots were getting blurred. Turning on/off didn't do it. I had to reset. I had to put back each setting but some settings like Image text (C) on the Exif remained intact which was good.
After that good reset IBIS started to work as it used to.
4 - I am very interested at this point in what seems to be the Fuji XT10. Has electronic shutter which was my turn off from the X-E1. Will be a faster camera than the X-E1 though I doubt it will catch the Olympus in all areas.
5 - The Olympus was supposed to be my one camera for all work, but I felt I missed the tiny Pentax Q/ Nikon 1 experience. Then Nikon comes in, announces the J5 with a sensor I thought would be decent this time, and effectively it is. I bought one, though this doesn't mean necessarily I sell the OMD- but for now my idea of a single system is not happening and the outcome of two systems- one for street and one for paid work is what goes.
6- Which brings me back to Fuji. If I am going to have a bigger system than the Nikon 1 for paid work I may as well take the one that seems to me do better overall and still small. That seems for me to be the Fuji.
7 - The reason I am going to give Olympus another chance is because I have been able to get some shots in real low light at a reasonable ISO thanks to the IBIS, and I do that kind of photography.
I dont' hate the OMD EM5 MKII. I like it quite a bit. But I just don't seem to bring myself to cross into loving the tool. Something still feels odd to me. Maybe it's a matter to shoot with it some more but I am not seeing something I miss with Fuji. I get the impression also that the Fuji lenses are better. Would be interesting if Olympus follows through with the super fast primes idea, if they can make them old 4/3rds SHG style in quality.
Finally 8- I am not a fan of the fully articulated LCD. Would have preferred the Fuji XT1/ Olympus OMD EM5 MK1 LCD/ Nikon 1 J5 - it's far more discrete and faster to use on the streets. I understand Olympus wanted to support video graphers but I am not a video guy.
Anyway.
- Ricardo
- I like the camera a lot, but I just don't love it. For a while it really bothered me because I couldn't put my finger on it. Even now there's still an aspect of that. But I decided not to think this much anymore and just use for a week or two and if I still feel this way, it's time to sell.
A couple of things I noticed:
1 - For some reason the camera feels "cramped" usability wise. Also too many features presented at once. I find it distracting.
2 - To my surprise though the Dynamic Range seems close to the Fuji (X-E1), I still find the Fuji has this "extra" thing. Kind of like things look more metallic/chromic. It's hard to explain.
I found Capture One 8.2.2 is the closest to getting the OMD to shine in a similar direction and in a couple of shots it' shard to tell. But I did this shot at night of a restaurant with some neon lighting and it was a bit more obvious the Fuji just does this richer color. It's like it can see more color and saturate more yet without feeling over done.
3- Last week I had to reset the camera because IBIS just stopped working for me when taking shots. I could see the IBIS working in preview, but not at the time of shooting. Shots were getting blurred. Turning on/off didn't do it. I had to reset. I had to put back each setting but some settings like Image text (C) on the Exif remained intact which was good.
After that good reset IBIS started to work as it used to.
4 - I am very interested at this point in what seems to be the Fuji XT10. Has electronic shutter which was my turn off from the X-E1. Will be a faster camera than the X-E1 though I doubt it will catch the Olympus in all areas.
5 - The Olympus was supposed to be my one camera for all work, but I felt I missed the tiny Pentax Q/ Nikon 1 experience. Then Nikon comes in, announces the J5 with a sensor I thought would be decent this time, and effectively it is. I bought one, though this doesn't mean necessarily I sell the OMD- but for now my idea of a single system is not happening and the outcome of two systems- one for street and one for paid work is what goes.
6- Which brings me back to Fuji. If I am going to have a bigger system than the Nikon 1 for paid work I may as well take the one that seems to me do better overall and still small. That seems for me to be the Fuji.
7 - The reason I am going to give Olympus another chance is because I have been able to get some shots in real low light at a reasonable ISO thanks to the IBIS, and I do that kind of photography.
I dont' hate the OMD EM5 MKII. I like it quite a bit. But I just don't seem to bring myself to cross into loving the tool. Something still feels odd to me. Maybe it's a matter to shoot with it some more but I am not seeing something I miss with Fuji. I get the impression also that the Fuji lenses are better. Would be interesting if Olympus follows through with the super fast primes idea, if they can make them old 4/3rds SHG style in quality.
Finally 8- I am not a fan of the fully articulated LCD. Would have preferred the Fuji XT1/ Olympus OMD EM5 MK1 LCD/ Nikon 1 J5 - it's far more discrete and faster to use on the streets. I understand Olympus wanted to support video graphers but I am not a video guy.
Anyway.
- Ricardo
Allright, I think I am done with my testing. I also think I figured out what combination of things is what I am sort of noticing.
First I will just say, the Panasonic-Leica 4/3rds F1.4 (original) is a pretty amazing lens. More amazing than I thought. Unexpected: I actually *like* using it on the OMD EM5 MKII, me, the "must have small camera" guy. There's something just "bad @$$" about this combination. Feels like a very solid lens and you can get a lot of what you want while looking pretty retro and mechanical.
Anyhow. After putting the OMD vs the X-E1 one more time in a bar scenario with nice light, I think I am going to sell the Oly, get the XT10 (or wait until end of year/next year for XE-3 or XT10 mark II).
What I have noticed is this:
- For some reason the Olympus, in many shots or areas of shots, doesn't look quite as sharp. Is as if it still had an AA filter. And it's weird because some shots do look like you can see pixels, yet doesn't seem that way. Which leads me to wonder
- If the lens or sensor (or both) do not show enough micro contrast. That "silver glimmer" I am seeing with Fuji to make lines stand out a bit more and
- I definitively noticed the Fuji is doing better tone to tone transitions. This is kind of what I would expect from comparing say 12 bit raws vs 14-bit raws, except the Fuji I am using is also a 12bit raw camera (X-E1). I would imagine newer Fuji would look even better here. Maybe it's having a bit less noise and/or a consequence of Xtrans decode.
- Color looks a notch richer with Fuji
- The Fuji seems to be capturing a bit wider color gamut better.
- High ISO/Overall DR is actually pretty close but it's affected by this tonal transition/richer color I am seeing the Fuji do. It's like Fuji can keep that color pizzaz/silver glimmer into the higher iso.
- I do notice the 4/3rds Panny Leica F1.4 25mm shines better than the Olympus F1.8 25mm.
- Fuji XF35 definitively seems > Oly F1.8 25mm.
Life's too short and I want to focus on photography, not on this. Funny to say that because I am sure if I only had the Olympus I would do great work anyway.
To the Olympus credit, there were a couple of shots were keeping the ISO lower by 2 stops was very nice thanks to the IBIS, and the IBIS does work with the 4/3rd Panny/Leica pretty good. In some ways this alone made me want to keep it, not that I think you can get all street shots this way but there are some more "still moments" and other scenes that can benefit. In the most extreme case I was able to shoot a scene with a few people basically staring at their phone or sky at night all the way down to ISO 200 I think it was (like 3 stops).
- Ricardo
First I will just say, the Panasonic-Leica 4/3rds F1.4 (original) is a pretty amazing lens. More amazing than I thought. Unexpected: I actually *like* using it on the OMD EM5 MKII, me, the "must have small camera" guy. There's something just "bad @$$" about this combination. Feels like a very solid lens and you can get a lot of what you want while looking pretty retro and mechanical.
Anyhow. After putting the OMD vs the X-E1 one more time in a bar scenario with nice light, I think I am going to sell the Oly, get the XT10 (or wait until end of year/next year for XE-3 or XT10 mark II).
What I have noticed is this:
- For some reason the Olympus, in many shots or areas of shots, doesn't look quite as sharp. Is as if it still had an AA filter. And it's weird because some shots do look like you can see pixels, yet doesn't seem that way. Which leads me to wonder
- If the lens or sensor (or both) do not show enough micro contrast. That "silver glimmer" I am seeing with Fuji to make lines stand out a bit more and
- I definitively noticed the Fuji is doing better tone to tone transitions. This is kind of what I would expect from comparing say 12 bit raws vs 14-bit raws, except the Fuji I am using is also a 12bit raw camera (X-E1). I would imagine newer Fuji would look even better here. Maybe it's having a bit less noise and/or a consequence of Xtrans decode.
- Color looks a notch richer with Fuji
- The Fuji seems to be capturing a bit wider color gamut better.
- High ISO/Overall DR is actually pretty close but it's affected by this tonal transition/richer color I am seeing the Fuji do. It's like Fuji can keep that color pizzaz/silver glimmer into the higher iso.
- I do notice the 4/3rds Panny Leica F1.4 25mm shines better than the Olympus F1.8 25mm.
- Fuji XF35 definitively seems > Oly F1.8 25mm.
Life's too short and I want to focus on photography, not on this. Funny to say that because I am sure if I only had the Olympus I would do great work anyway.
To the Olympus credit, there were a couple of shots were keeping the ISO lower by 2 stops was very nice thanks to the IBIS, and the IBIS does work with the 4/3rd Panny/Leica pretty good. In some ways this alone made me want to keep it, not that I think you can get all street shots this way but there are some more "still moments" and other scenes that can benefit. In the most extreme case I was able to shoot a scene with a few people basically staring at their phone or sky at night all the way down to ISO 200 I think it was (like 3 stops).
- Ricardo
Last edited:
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Hey Ricardo,
I think I would keep the Olympus, it is for sure a great camera. And the lenses are just superb.
I had a similar situation some weeks ago, even considering to sell my EM1 with my 2 Pro lenses, in order to make room for in my case going back completely into the Nikon system. Shooting currently the Df and would have liked to add the D810 and some glass I want. But then I shot the EM1 with the 2.8/40-140 again and the results are just so superb that I decided to keep Olympus.
So even I will add more Nikon gear in the future, I will keep what I have from Oly and actually hoping for the EM1 Mk2 with rumored 20MP and hopefully same or better IQ as the current 16MP sensor - well there always needs to be hope. But I think the FF Nikon and the m43 system are just great supplements for my type of work. Maybe you can find such a justification for your case too -makes life easier
)Best
Peter
dhsimmonds
New member
I used the 14-150 Mk1 lens extensively and traded it in for the Mk2. The images are slightly better in some light situations but the new lens coatings probably manage this. The real advantage is the weather and dust sealing to match the E-M1 body. It is the perfect lens for travelling light in my view.
I have been looking at the lenses carefully. Part of the lack of pizzaz I have mentioned I think it's the regular primes Olympus has. The F1.8 25mm is sharp but I do see a difference in micro contrast between it and the old 4/3rds Panny Leica. I would love to give the pro zoom a spin because it may have that extra thing I mention.
Thanks for the comments. To me it boils down to three things it seems:I had a similar situation some weeks ago, even considering to sell my EM1 with my 2 Pro lenses, in order to make room for in my case going back completely into the Nikon system. Shooting currently the Df and would have liked to add the D810 and some glass I want. But then I shot the EM1 with the 2.8/40-140 again and the results are just so superb that I decided to keep Olympus.
So even I will add more Nikon gear in the future, I will keep what I have from Oly and actually hoping for the EM1 Mk2 with rumored 20MP and hopefully same or better IQ as the current 16MP sensor - well there always needs to be hope. But I think the FF Nikon and the m43 system are just great supplements for my type of work. Maybe you can find such a justification for your case too -makes life easier
1- The extra pizzaz I am seeing in the Fuji images. Just better color, micro contrast, biting sharp, easier highlight curve and all easier to deal from RAW also when using a raw converter that does x trans well.
2- The Olympus general extra unnecessary usability (UI) complexity.
3- The full articulated screen vs vertical only articulated. I find vertical only much better/faster to deal for street life.
The things that pull me to keep the Olympus over the Fuji
1- I like small cameras and systems. The Fuji X-T10 sure is small but the lens system, as a whole, isn't when compared to the Olympus m4/3rds. Though there are some overlaps like the XF35 vs Panny Leica m/43rds F1.4.
But I look at Fuji's new XF90 F2.0 and that's much bigger than the Olympus 75mm F1.8. Same with the high end zooms though I wouldn't mind using the Fuji standard 18-55mm zoom as it is quite good.
2- The IBIS in some situations really works really good.
3- Overall speed, response and how well the OMD can focus in low light.
4- (small) - I can use my 4/3rds lenses in manual focus reasonably well and they rock.
I still think that the images with the Fuji are better. But I remind myself I was doing great images with a Q and wonder if I am putting too much weight into it. But they sure to me have a certain look I am not seeing as often in m4/3rds.
Knorp
Well-known member
Hi there Ricardo,
That extra pizzaz - is it coming from the sensor only ?
I took some interest in the new X-T10, just contemplating a purchase ...
Of course I do like my E-M1 and lenses, but I feel the images just don't compare to my K5-IIs or A7r images.
TIA
Kind regards.
Brian Mosley
New member
Hi Ricardo,
I do wonder, when you're considering how one system compares to another in terms of 'pizazz' and micro contrast... how much of that difference could disappear with a particular image processing chain.
I guess I'm suggesting, more time spent improving your post processing / settings could move your focus to choosing the camera that feels best in use, without feeling that you've lost anything in terms of image quality.
Cheers
Brian
I do wonder, when you're considering how one system compares to another in terms of 'pizazz' and micro contrast... how much of that difference could disappear with a particular image processing chain.
I guess I'm suggesting, more time spent improving your post processing / settings could move your focus to choosing the camera that feels best in use, without feeling that you've lost anything in terms of image quality.
Cheers
Brian
scott kirkpatrick
Well-known member
Re: OMD E-M5 MKII: my cat Leo and friend
They look friendly, but it did not end well for the snake
M5vii, 40-150/2.8
scott
They look friendly, but it did not end well for the snake
M5vii, 40-150/2.8
scott
At this point it seems to me it comes from a triad- 1 the Xtrans lenses are amazing. 2 The sensor having the ability to not wear an AA filter minimizing color moire. It's also of course a bigger sensor, so some characteristics are a bit better. It can have its artifacts but also its benefits- like more green (B&W/detail), all colors on every row and column. 3 - Fuji's processing. They have done film since forever and they know their stuff.
But saying all this, all cameras today are great, so if you do prefer one look over the other, or something that makes it easy for you to get it from RAW pick that and ignore the rest. What I can say speaking for myself, is that Fuji does very well the curve into highlights. It introduces a way for things to mix in well for a not os digital look and color pops the right way
Fuji images just pop and have a certain color I am not seeing easy to get in the OMD.
The shot below is with my X-E1 and it was shot in challenging light.
- Ricardo
It can certainly be influenced by that. I found Capture One Pro 8.2.2 gives me results closer to what I would like to see with the OMD than LightRoom.
Well, I am not new to post processing and if a camera makes it "harder" for me to get the look I want, it's a big minus. If you ask me about which camera feels best in use the Fuji would win on the usability contest- Olympus just have made their cameras more complex than they should be. I am still looking at the IBIS and the overall system size as the Olympus things that make me want to reconsider.
But here's a couple of more data points: I notice a difference between the m/43rds prime lenses (at least the F1.8 25mm) and the 4/3rds lenses (50mm-200mm standard telephoto, Panny Leica 25mm F1.4, F2.0 50mm macro). This tells me that the lenses at least at the "standard" level more often than not are not what we used to see with original 4/3rds. From the beginning Olympus/Panny mentioned challenges with m4/3rds lenses - that's why he standard got expanded with software corrections and tele centricity is gone. Tele centricity gave the 4/3rd sensors more polarized light from the get go.
Dpreview may think that doesn't matter but I sure see some differences. Optical correction will always be better - no pixel stretching.
I also noticed that chromatic aberrations which are a rarity with Olympus 4/3rd lenses, are actually kinda common place (relatively speaking) in m4/3rds.
So part of this the lenses are in the equation. There are two patents I think of Olympus considering doing "super fast primes" (F1.0) lenses for the system and I can only hope they get to the "pro" category denomination, and have those "extra diamond crystals" Olympus knows from the 4/3ds SHG lens line. ;-)
More interesting - the Nikon 1 J4/J5 get me a look that in a way is more crisp than the average I am getting with the Olympus. This made me question if the OMD EM5 MKII really has no AA filter. IT's as if it still had a very weak one. Maybe it doesn't have one but the RAW files are a bit processed to avoid color moire? No idea.
Finally, the Fuji files I am comparing are from an X-E1. This camera does 12-bit RAW and does not feature an improvement in circuitry around the lens that would reduce in later models some color noise. If the X-E1 looks this good, an X-T10 will look a notch even better with 14-bit RAW and the circuitry improvement. Which I must say sounds very appealing.
Now, putting it all together in perspective again- all cameras today are good and the files of the OMD are hardly bad. They are pretty good. It's just that the output I am seeing from the Fuji and how easy it is to get there seems a notch higher. Many may not see this. Or don't care, that's cool. Unfortunately (for me) I see it, and I want it. Yes, this is a first world problem
Eventually I'll get fed up with this fence and make a choice. ;-) For now I cancelled my X-T10 pre-order and going to give the Olympus a bit of a longer trial, and see if I am ok with it. Certainly getting out and shoot with *any* camera is far more important for a good photograph than splitting the hairs on this.
- Ricardo
Brian- forgot to explain this aspect. Your suggestion is a good one and I have also been trying that approach with the OMD. Just don't think it takes away from what I said above per se, but it's certainly one thing to try and push.
I got some degree of success in that direction changing how I approach the OMD raw development and in an attempt to get a better out of camera JPEG B&W that I like more I got a few things better. The self-portrait above has some of that along with using the Panny/Leica 4/3rds 25mm F1.4.
I like the B&W in these two shots but they were also shot with the 75mm F1.8 which is a step above from the other primes.
- Ricardo
I got some degree of success in that direction changing how I approach the OMD raw development and in an attempt to get a better out of camera JPEG B&W that I like more I got a few things better. The self-portrait above has some of that along with using the Panny/Leica 4/3rds 25mm F1.4.
I like the B&W in these two shots but they were also shot with the 75mm F1.8 which is a step above from the other primes.
- Ricardo
Last edited:
So got a small job for to shoot some portraits for an actress. I picked the OMD because as I said, I really want to like it. I put the F2.0 50mm 4/3rds and the 75mm F1.8 m/43rds lens in the bag. All shots were made with the 75mm.
I threw in my old "first lens evar" 4/3rds 14-54 just in case I needed to go wide. But I took a few shots as test somewhere else when we were done. Once again, the 4/3rd lenses seem to have extra blue crystals. The 75mm F1.8 is a darn awesome lens though.
The other primes (the super fast primes hopefully) need to be made to the 75mm standard. No CA's please.
- Ricardo
I threw in my old "first lens evar" 4/3rds 14-54 just in case I needed to go wide. But I took a few shots as test somewhere else when we were done. Once again, the 4/3rd lenses seem to have extra blue crystals. The 75mm F1.8 is a darn awesome lens though.
The other primes (the super fast primes hopefully) need to be made to the 75mm standard. No CA's please.
- Ricardo
I did a quick search on m43rd tele centricity and found this comment on original 4/3rds spec:
"First generation Zuiko Digital were telecentric which meant Olympus vowed the lightrays were everywhere on the sensor at most 7 deg away from the right angle. That added to cost and bulk, so later designs eg m43 were apparently not so strict. I could not find any figures though. With the new back-illuminated sensor telecentricity will not be so decisive anyway.
"
Well, there are zero m4/3rd back-illuminated sensors so far. The whole at most 7 degrees makes a lot of sense (found another comment saying it was < 8 degrees which is basically saying the same) for the original 4/3rds standard.
And as I mentioned again, I noticed a "something" even in a simple shot I took with my 14-54. I need to make sure i compare well with the F1.8 25mm m4/3rd lens I have to make sure I am not falling in an exaggerated effect due to a placebo effect, but seems that way.
Makes a lot of sense. I wonder what Fuji is doing on their lens side of this, but whatever they are doing is working.
- Ricardo
"First generation Zuiko Digital were telecentric which meant Olympus vowed the lightrays were everywhere on the sensor at most 7 deg away from the right angle. That added to cost and bulk, so later designs eg m43 were apparently not so strict. I could not find any figures though. With the new back-illuminated sensor telecentricity will not be so decisive anyway.
"
Well, there are zero m4/3rd back-illuminated sensors so far. The whole at most 7 degrees makes a lot of sense (found another comment saying it was < 8 degrees which is basically saying the same) for the original 4/3rds standard.
And as I mentioned again, I noticed a "something" even in a simple shot I took with my 14-54. I need to make sure i compare well with the F1.8 25mm m4/3rd lens I have to make sure I am not falling in an exaggerated effect due to a placebo effect, but seems that way.
Makes a lot of sense. I wonder what Fuji is doing on their lens side of this, but whatever they are doing is working.
- Ricardo
Brian Mosley
New member
Hi Ricardo,
It's interesting to see where your comments of one format / system giving more 'pop' 'pizazz' or in other ways 'better' image quality than another, but they're all so good these days that I feel we can probably give more weight to how the camera feels, weighs, works for us out in the field.
When you say that one camera just can't give you the same output as another, wouldn't that statement apply equally in both directions? They're just both different, and if you like the characteristics of one over the other - fantastic, you have your choice!
If we consider the image processing chain as the lens / image sensor / image processor in the camera / post processing using any number of tools then 'pop' 'pizazz' colour signature, colour transitions tend to fall where they may.
Image Quality is probably quite straightforward to compare, though very technical - for both sensors and lenses. Beyond that, in our real world use we have to work with the image processing chain to get 'the look' we prefer.
Shoot jpeg and focus on the subject
Kind regards
Brian
It's interesting to see where your comments of one format / system giving more 'pop' 'pizazz' or in other ways 'better' image quality than another, but they're all so good these days that I feel we can probably give more weight to how the camera feels, weighs, works for us out in the field.
When you say that one camera just can't give you the same output as another, wouldn't that statement apply equally in both directions? They're just both different, and if you like the characteristics of one over the other - fantastic, you have your choice!
If we consider the image processing chain as the lens / image sensor / image processor in the camera / post processing using any number of tools then 'pop' 'pizazz' colour signature, colour transitions tend to fall where they may.
Image Quality is probably quite straightforward to compare, though very technical - for both sensors and lenses. Beyond that, in our real world use we have to work with the image processing chain to get 'the look' we prefer.
Shoot jpeg and focus on the subject
Kind regards
Brian
Certainly understandable. My comments above also touch on this. Keep in mind on how a camera feels the Fuji to me comes quite forward for its usability. The interface is much more clear and photographer oriented than the Olympus, much more organized, and the articulated LCD which the OMD EM5 1 had, is better to me for street work than the fully articulated one.
Well yes and in a way no
I mean, I agree in some ways with what you just said, and I did point this out- that I didn't mean to say that the OMD out put is bad and if you personally like one look over the other go for it and ignore the rest. I mentioned that.But speaking for myself, I do notice something Fuji is doing that I am not quite seeing in the Olympus or as easy to get with the Olympus. Do keep in mind that the Fuji does have 14 bit RAW and it's a bigger sensor- that does put a distinct foot forward when it comes to image quality from the sensor if you are after that. In my case I don't care much for "ultimate image quality" as much as "result that looks best" which may or may not be tied the same way.
I mentioned for example, I was noticing the "crisp" I was looking for from the J4/J5 Nikon 1. That alone does say something because the Nikon 1 is also bound by the sensor size, the the Olympus vs the Fuji.
Yes, but it's also no less true that certainly Fuji seems to have done an outstanding job with their lenses and Xtrans has its set of characteristics. You also can't get away from 14-bit raw vs 12-bit raw when it comes to tonal gradation.
But that said, what you said above certainly influences.
And as I said, I noticed a distinct metal chromic pizzaz I see with the Fuji but not seeing with the Olympus. Fuji in my eyes has at this point the best JPEG engine in the market (Olympus is the close second to my eyes), and the lenses they have are simply outstanding. I gravitate towards the camera whose RAWS give the look I want without having to pull out my hair.
Keep in mind what I noticed- old 4/3rd lenses seems to do what I was in some ways wanting to see. This has now led me to do a more closer examination of the m/43d lenses and see if there's lenses around that go more of what I see.
I am going to totally agree with you getting out and shooting is better by far than sitting in a place doing comparisons. But I am not new to photography and I do get out and shoot. Of course this is something that just saps some energy until I go with a final choice.Shoot jpeg and focus on the subject
Kind regards
Brian
I want to give the OMD a fair handshake. The Fuji is a no brainer choice for any focal at 50mm or below for me now that the X-T10 is coming out since it's also so small. It's when you go up that the size starts going bigger and bigger.
- Ricardo
Well well well... Let's say I have borrowed the Panny-Leica 15mm F1.7 wide prime and it's pretty clear I am dealing with a superior being. Hoo-hay, this lens is a sharpie and has nice contrast. And comes with a metal hood.
What I expected to see & wanted to see, looks like I am seeing. Sorry to keep everyone in the dark but I will try and post a couple of shots later. But let's say if this is how the Panny-Leica primes do on this system- the ones with their super nano coated blue crystals from the Europa moon, this is more like it and definitively buying these brand of lenses.
Shame on Olympus for letting Panasonic beat them at their own game. I can only imagine the Olympus Pro line does this too. They need to get a Pro line of primes. Maybe these will be those super-fast primes, but since I have been not so impressed with the F1.8 25mm, I am not going to touch with a ten foot pole the 17mm F1.8 which some have found more "meh," and the rest until a high quality prime (other than the 75mm) comes out.
I need to check some shots from the 25mm F1.4. I may sway this way and keep on Olympus then, but with Panasonic primes.
The following is written aimed at Knorp:
@Knorp- m4/3rds everything else equal will not match your K5-IIs/K-3 and definitively not the Fuji's. Failure to acknowledge this around the net is what I call the m4/3rds inferiority complex- the system is good enough for a wide range of work and pro work, those other cameras everything else equal will out do it in sensor, and that should be more than fine. But looks like people still want to say it's all the same- it's not.
You can say you have to pick carefully the lenses to make the K5 mount shine, but with the Fuji virtually all their entire line up is excellent and A-class. So that doesn't quite apply to Fuji. But that's ok.
My main concern when I brought this up at the beginning was not that m4/3rd doesn't match Fuji- I know it won't quite match it. But that I felt that something was just missing when I looked at my 25mm F1.8 prime shots. Something I expected m4/3rds to do. And the 4/3rd lenses mounted on the OMD sort of pointed in that direction. Looks like this little Panny Leica is proving the point quite more so and it's a system native.
I was able to physically see the Fuji F1.2 XF57mm lens and the XF23mm lenses. These are F1.2/F1.4 lenses that are superb. They are not huge, but compared to the analogous m/43rds they sure seemed big. I guess you would say the nocticron is the true XF57 equivalent, but I think you could make some accommodations to compare an F1.7/F1.8 as an option, particularly with the IBIS that the F1.2 doesn't have for some situations.
In the end I need to remind myself all camera systems are a compromise in some way. I value small so that weights in favor of m4/3rds. And I wouldn't hesitate to shoot a weeding with the OMD in terms of sensor IQ since I shot several with an e-420/e-620 which had a clear worse sensor (but apparently better lenses ).
What I give up on the Fuji I gain in size and faster overall response. It's tough as the newer Fuji's are responding faster than their previous models, but the size is one thing that isn't going away. Also future m/43rd sensors will be better. I think we are in a "within 2 years" of a change that will improve things maybe not in a mega jump way but a nice way.
Anyhow, just speaking for myself. Ill try to get some Panny super hyper nano crystal lens shots
- Ricardo
What I expected to see & wanted to see, looks like I am seeing. Sorry to keep everyone in the dark but I will try and post a couple of shots later. But let's say if this is how the Panny-Leica primes do on this system- the ones with their super nano coated blue crystals from the Europa moon, this is more like it and definitively buying these brand of lenses.
Shame on Olympus for letting Panasonic beat them at their own game. I can only imagine the Olympus Pro line does this too. They need to get a Pro line of primes. Maybe these will be those super-fast primes, but since I have been not so impressed with the F1.8 25mm, I am not going to touch with a ten foot pole the 17mm F1.8 which some have found more "meh," and the rest until a high quality prime (other than the 75mm) comes out.
I need to check some shots from the 25mm F1.4. I may sway this way and keep on Olympus then, but with Panasonic primes.
The following is written aimed at Knorp:
@Knorp- m4/3rds everything else equal will not match your K5-IIs/K-3 and definitively not the Fuji's. Failure to acknowledge this around the net is what I call the m4/3rds inferiority complex- the system is good enough for a wide range of work and pro work, those other cameras everything else equal will out do it in sensor, and that should be more than fine. But looks like people still want to say it's all the same- it's not.
You can say you have to pick carefully the lenses to make the K5 mount shine, but with the Fuji virtually all their entire line up is excellent and A-class. So that doesn't quite apply to Fuji. But that's ok.
My main concern when I brought this up at the beginning was not that m4/3rd doesn't match Fuji- I know it won't quite match it. But that I felt that something was just missing when I looked at my 25mm F1.8 prime shots. Something I expected m4/3rds to do. And the 4/3rd lenses mounted on the OMD sort of pointed in that direction. Looks like this little Panny Leica is proving the point quite more so and it's a system native.
I was able to physically see the Fuji F1.2 XF57mm lens and the XF23mm lenses. These are F1.2/F1.4 lenses that are superb. They are not huge, but compared to the analogous m/43rds they sure seemed big. I guess you would say the nocticron is the true XF57 equivalent, but I think you could make some accommodations to compare an F1.7/F1.8 as an option, particularly with the IBIS that the F1.2 doesn't have for some situations.
In the end I need to remind myself all camera systems are a compromise in some way. I value small so that weights in favor of m4/3rds. And I wouldn't hesitate to shoot a weeding with the OMD in terms of sensor IQ since I shot several with an e-420/e-620 which had a clear worse sensor (but apparently better lenses
). What I give up on the Fuji I gain in size and faster overall response. It's tough as the newer Fuji's are responding faster than their previous models, but the size is one thing that isn't going away. Also future m/43rd sensors will be better. I think we are in a "within 2 years" of a change that will improve things maybe not in a mega jump way but a nice way.
Anyhow, just speaking for myself. Ill try to get some Panny super hyper nano crystal lens shots
- Ricardo