Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

[ptomsu]

Not sure if this will show what I am commenting on as it is a downsized print posted to Flicker and then reposted here. The detail is far better in the original but I don't have access to those files here.

This is a 12-40 capture on an EM-1.

Jim

​

20140118-P1180045-Edit by jmmtampa, on Flickr

Jim,

while this portrait is outstanding I would say that under such studio conditions most cameras (and lenses) just rock. I am almost sure that a shot form the XE2 or XT1 with the kit 18-55 at least looks as good. And also clear that an excellent photographer like you makes most equipment just sing

Where really you start seeming the better IQ from the Fiji is in normal and bad light situations. There is clearly more substance to the Fuji files than any m43 (or 43) camera. Also I did not want to believe this but again and again I have seen the difference - so for me it is a clear situation. Others of course may see this different. But sensor size is simply ruling here and will always do so.

Aside from this m43 of course has a number of advantages, mainly in size. Unfortunately with cameras like the EM1 or GH3/GH4 which bring m43 best IQ this size advantage starts going away. And this is for me the most important aspect of choosing m43.

Peter

 

[JMaher]

Peter,
You are correct that studio conditions help bring out the best in cameras. I wasn't saying that the EM-1 was better than the new Fuji cameras just trying to show that m4/3 images can be crisp and detailed. When I compared my EM-5 to my XE1 I didn't see any real significant differences in quality so I sold the XE1 because the Olympus had built in VR and light weight lenses as well as faster autofocus. The EM-1 is a better camera than the EM-5 but the image quality is pretty much the same. I have not used an XE2 or an XTI but I understand the image quality has improved over the XE1 that I had.

I still think that if we are trying for more latitude and resolution than the current EM-1 it might be better to go full frame. I am seriously thinking about keeping my m4/3 system and going for the Sony A7R in addition. I recently sold my entire Canon system (5D3) because I think the world has changed enough that the current line of Canon and Nikon cameras are destined for extinction at some time in the near future.

(Thanks for the kind words about my photography

Jim

 

[mmbma]

dilemma dilemma
I think I will stick with the M4/3 for now. I have already bought into 2k worth of lenses over the years. Currently using a EM5. I'm debating if I should go to Em1 or switch over to fuji

 

[Godfrey]

I've seen nothing yet that convinces me that E-M1 files are inferior to X-T1 files, no matter the lighting, as long as they are properly focused, exposed, and processed. On both sides.

I find processing Fuji XTrans sensor raw data more difficult than processing E-M1 files. They always seem on the edge of green and red bleed-over. And I don't like the controls or viewfinder as much.

I'm happy and satisfied with the quality I get out of the E-M1 and my lenses, find the available darkness shooting with it extremely good, and prefer the look that the Oly and Panasonic-Leica lenses produce. The Fuji lenses always seem rather harsh on OOF elements to my eye.

I'd rather put time into making the E-M1 images sing than spend money on another system.

 

[greypilgrim]

dilemma dilemma
I think I will stick with the M4/3 for now. I have already bought into 2k worth of lenses over the years. Currently using a EM5. I'm debating if I should go to Em1 or switch over to fuji

In general, I would ask why switch (echoing Godfrey's thoughts). In general, they are both good systems, and you are already invested in m43.

My personal reasons for switching (thus violating the above comments ) were around my shooting style more than anything. I will still state that although shooting with the m43 at night worked, the Fuji works better (YMMV). On the flip side is the Oly IBIS.

I would go further and say if you are happy with the EM-5, why the rush to change? My plan if I was staying with m43 was to stay with the EM-5. The EM-1 did not have enough draw (for me) to warrant the upgrade price.

So, I would not switch unless there is a compelling reason to switch. I had one, but it wasn't for IQ or lenses or processing.

Doug

 

[mmbma]

My reasons are 1) ISO. I often shoot indoors and non studio lighting, and 2) better for my leica lenses.

But then, I thought to myself, why not wait for the A7s, while holding on to the versatile m/43. I mean, it's not like they are THAT expensive

 

[ptomsu]

dilemma dilemma
I think I will stick with the M4/3 for now. I have already bought into 2k worth of lenses over the years. Currently using a EM5. I'm debating if I should go to Em1 or switch over to fuji

In the case you are already invested as much in m43 I would go for the EM1 and keep the EM5 as small body and as a backup.

 

[JMaher]

MM

I don't know what lenses you have for the EM-5. I shoot indoors without flash on a regular basis and that's tough for any camera. With the EM-5 or EM-1 you can use a Panasonic 25 1.4 or the new Olympus 25 1.8 and have a fast lens with image stabilization. When shooting in low light I put the 25 1.4 on. That effectively gives you 4 times the low light sensitivity than even the 12-40 if I calculate this correctly - 2 stops - double each time.

Jim

 

[Elderly]

I will still state that although shooting with the m43 at night worked, the Fuji works better (YMMV). On the flip side is the Oly IBIS.


Doug

Being simplistic and for the sake of my argument, the figures are an approximation .........
......... if say the IBIS of the Olympus can give a one stop advantage over the image stabilized lenses of the Fuji, but the low light performance of the Fuji sensor gives a one stop advantage over the Olympus, then hand held and with a static subject, the low light performances of both should be fairly similar?

Of course if your subject is moving, the higher shutter speed allowed by the Fuji's 'superior' sensor gives an advantage over the Olympus's 'superior' IBIS.

 

[ptomsu]

I think the Olympus IBIS while being great is really overpraised. It is a good help to keep sharp photos, but especially for longer lenses (200-300) I find the OIS better.

Also I shot all my life without any IBIS (before I went into Olympus m43) and got excellent and sharp results. No problem ever handholding 200mm on FF at 1/30 second or especially on a Leica M6/7 90mm at 1/8 second. So it was always rather an issue of the moving object I photographed than me handholding.

Main issue today seems to be that we (myself included) get more lazy really focusing on steady camera holding because we know we have OIS and/or IBIS. So this results in being less careful and thus getting suboptimal results.

Anyway IBIS is a good thing, but it is not everything and hugely overrated IMHO.

 

[Godfrey]

My reasons are 1) ISO. I often shoot indoors and non studio lighting, and 2) better for my leica lenses.

But then, I thought to myself, why not wait for the A7s, while holding on to the versatile m/43. I mean, it's not like they are THAT expensive

I haven't seen much wrong with the E-M1 set to ISO 6400. I don't know that it's worth changing camera systems for another stop of speed, and haven't seen that the X-T1 does any better than that anyway. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what my eyes tell me.

Regards using your Leica lenses (I presume M-mount), I did that, and also used R-mount with the E-M1. Overall, they work fine in the 28mm and up range, the R-lenses in particular work well even down to the 19mm. BUT there's really very very little actual benefit over using the better mFT lenses IMO—The Oly 12 and 75, the Panasonic-Leica 25 and 45 all produce outstanding quality that obviates using adapted lenses for me, never mind the superb Olympus ZD 11-22 and ZD 50-200, fitted with the MMF-3 for the E-M1.

(Note: I bought the A7 because I wanted a FF digital capture platform for the R lenses. I felt I was missing a lot of the lens rendering that Leica had designed into them. Now having made a couple of thousand exposures with this setup, I am happy I went for it: my hunch seems to have been right.

Leica M lenses do not work as well on the A7/A7r in my experience. A few do fine particularly the longer focal lengths, but many do not; out of the ten that I have, only three or four work to my satisfaction.)

G

 

[Godfrey]

I think the Olympus IBIS while being great is really overpraised. It is a good help to keep sharp photos, but especially for longer lenses (200-300) I find the OIS better. ...

My experience differs from yours, but the only direct OIS vs IBIS I can compare directly is with the Panasonic-Leica ME45. The E-M1's IBIS out-performs the OIS quite handily. With the 50-200+EC-14, I can shoot hand-held all the way up to 580mm at as low as 1/60 second and get consistently sharp results too—something I was never able to achieve with even the E-5 and its IBIS.

180 to 200mm effective FoV is about as long a lens as I'm happy with when shooting without any image stabilization hand-held. Any longer than that and most of my exposures are ruined through too much camera movement, even at 1/1000 second or faster exposure time.

That said, image stabilization has always been for me a nice plus, enabling increased hand-held capability of medium to long telephotos in good light. It's never been a panacea that I must have for all uses ... does very little benefit with short focal lengths or in truly low light situations.

It is a very nice plus for all focal lengths when capturing video, however.

G

 

[ptomsu]

With the 50-200+EC-14, I can shoot hand-held all the way up to 580mm at as low as 1/60 second and get consistently sharp results too—something I was never able to achieve with even the E-5 and its IBIS.

I do not have any experience with the 50-200 and also not with EC14. So maybe this is the lens to go for currently as long tele zoom on the EM1. And I would agree (hope this is true because I never tried myself) that IBIS makes this combo work well.

All my experience with IBIS and long telephoto is from using the 75-300II on the EM1 and especially between 250-300 IBIS does not work as all anymore. The lens/camera combination is simply to lightweight - at least for me. SO the heavier 50-200 with EC14 might be the solution here, not only because of better optical performance but also higher weight (mass).

Need to try it. Not sure if I will buy it though, since I learned that Fuji is going to bring their 120-400 (equaling 180-600 in FF terms) super tele zoom, which will then become my go to lens for wildlife - and I am sure it will be a stellar performer like most of the other Fuji lenses.

WRT long tele zoom I do not quite understand the Olympus strategy - I would really have loved to get a decent pro grade super tele photo m43 zoom form them, but they do not deliver. Instead they are going to bring that 2.8/40-150 which is sure nice but not what one really needs for wildlife. And at 300 they will only have that fixed focal length - which is not what I need for wildlife (and guess also many other wildlife shooters would prefer a zoom around that area). But what can you do - this is just Olympus politics and marketing strategy.

 

[mmbma]

The 100-300 got a lot of bad rep around here. but I really find it to be quite capable. No issue with focusing and getting sharp results at the longer end with IBIS on, handheld.

This one was from the zoo last weekend, stood in an indoor shelter and through a thick glass. 300mm, 1/320s, F5.6, ISO800

at 100% the files get a little thin and noises are visible. as you can see from the shot below. but overall still useable

 

[Godfrey]

I suspect that Olympus is first trying to fulfill the desire of those for more compact lenses for Micro-FourThirds; the fast, long tele, pro-grade zooms from FourThirds work very nicely on the E-M1:

Olympus E-M1 + ZD 50-200mm + EC-14
ISO 200 @ f/5.6 @ 1/500 @ 194mm
​

Hand-held, of course, at effectively about 400mm EFoV. Not at the most extreme zoom position, but getting up there. Here's a 1:1 detail:

It's a bit underexposed due to the bright white background (and my not poking the EV Compensation a little more) so a lot noisier than I usually get out of the E-M1. I should have given it +1.5EV rather than +0.7 or so.

There's also the stunning SHG lens, the ZD 90-250/2.8 ED ... which works beautifully with both the EC-14 and EC-20 teleconverters (top notch optical match). That becomes 126-350 with EC-14 and 180-500 with EC-20, EFoV up to 1000mm with the latter. It's a moose of a lens, but the quality is outstanding:
http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/lenses/90-250_28/
Be prepared to spend though ... that lens is about $6000, or about 10x what the 50-200+EC-14 cost me...

I don't do all that much in way of wildlife photography. The occasional bird on the wing or critter in a field. Most of the folks I know who do that kind of stuff really need MUCH longer lenses than I use, but 560mm EFoV I get from the 50-200+ is quite enough for my occasional need. I would never have considered hand-holding 400 to 600 mm EFoV in the past without image stabilization, I just couldn't get the sharpness I want due to camera shake.

G

 

[mmbma]

To get back to the topic. I wonder if there's a way for Fuji to reach 500mm+ other than using Canon/Nikon lenses or teleconverters. with autofocus. I guess that lens is still to come

 

[GrahamWelland]

The closest to 500mm would appear to be the rumored 120-400mm that looks like it's coming along at the end of 2014 or in 2015.

http://www.fujirumors.com/xf-120-400mm-is-this-the-super-telephoto-zoom-lens-in-fujis-roadmap/

 

[JonMo]

Who needs this "image stablization" thing?
Hand held with X-T1, xf-fd adapter, fd 300 l f4, 2x converter and a dogwood tree in the back yard. ISO 800, 1/2000s shutter and f8 in the sunshine.

Don't get me wrong, I am waiting on that super long (hope fully) tele lens in the fuji road map, but this is a relatively poor combination with the 300 and 2x which can still achieve a decent result.

Just thougt since this thread is in the Fuji Forum that I had to post something to balance the m4/3rd shots.

On the original subject;
When looking for a cam to go light weight and coming from a combination of Canon for sports/wild life, Phase DF for portraits (bill paying work) and Cambo for lanscape; I tried just about every small cam available in Canada.

I was able to take the X-E2 for portrature with narry a quibble from my clients, excellent prints at A0.
The X-t1 has been wonderful with legacy long lenses to cover wild life.
X-t1 for sports with the 55-100 has worked remarkably well; indoor and out. Perfect...........no, but still able to get the shots necessary. Just takes a more of them to find a great one.
And finally; the X-e2 with an Olympus OM legacy 35mm shift MC for landscape and architecture.

It was literally the only system I found that could be good enough in all the categories ( I don't shoot video, good thing since the Fuji X cams are pretty blah). So much so that I now shoot them exclusively.

Please understand that I am smitten enough to be somewhat of a "fan boy" (can you still call your self boy at the half century mark?).

I process exclusivly in Capture One.

If this info helps great, feel free to ignore it as needed. It is your wallet!

 

[JMaher]

Lovely image but we don't always have the option of a 1/2000 of a second exposure. Try that same shot in the evening at 1/30 or even 1/8 of a second and tell me again why image stabilization isn't really necessary.

Really it is a fantastically sharp image and I don't doubt the worth of the Fuji systems. I just don't think they equal what I can get from FF and don't (in my mind) provide a significantly better image than the EM-1 when you factor in image stabilization.

Jim

 

[GrahamWelland]

:facesmack: This is very simple. If you post this question in the Fuji section then you'll get lots of positive Fuji comments from actual Fuji users and lack of enthusiasm from non-Fuji users.. If you do the same in the m4/3 section then the overwhelming responses will be that m4/3rds is better and no doubt Fuji folks trying to justify their Fuji choices.

Personally, I've come to the conclusion that they're all good systems and image quality is significantly better than what was available on larger format systems even a few years ago.

oke: