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!
Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3
- Thread starter mmbma
- Start date
mranger211
Member
Honestly, I prefer the look of the X-T1 to the D800e. Of course, the D800 has larger DR and more resolution, and I might just be in love with the Fuji; but I have found that when I show my photos, people tend to like the Fuji ones more.
Also, good high-ISO performance is more useful than image stabilization which is completely useless when your subjects move. If you are forced to use slow speeds IS is nice to have, of course, but a higher ISO will let you shoot at a faster speed making IS unnecessary.
All IMO,
Martin
It still amazes me that this m4/3 vs xtrans goes on considering the obvious. Even the samples posted here of m4/3 bring the point the fuji is just a little better- being apsc after all. Even at low iso a lot of em1 shots have some sky grain and try are 12 bit raw files vs fuji 4 times the tonality with 14 bit raw files.
But this is all moot. All cameras are great now and its a matter of mixin and matching. Nobody should feel like they "need to upgrade" just because the fuji or something else new came along that has better iq quality. Both have great iq even if the fuji is a notch higher- pick what you like and what works better
At this point this is all a distraction from the purposes of the pursuit of the phrography that was going to be done with the New CameraTM that was just bought.
But this is all moot. All cameras are great now and its a matter of mixin and matching. Nobody should feel like they "need to upgrade" just because the fuji or something else new came along that has better iq quality. Both have great iq even if the fuji is a notch higher- pick what you like and what works better
At this point this is all a distraction from the purposes of the pursuit of the phrography that was going to be done with the New CameraTM that was just bought.
JonMo
New member
The hand held shots I posted above were meant to be a funny poke at the m4/3 shots and the need for IS. Not really to be taken seriously.
My chances of a clean shot hand held at 600mm (780mm equivalent Fov) at 1/8th of a second are nil.
but as to the original question and my own experiences;
1. general terms, is the out of camera jpg better quality than m4/3? (in terms of micro contrast and sharpness) I know ISO is better. provided that lenses are comparible.
*I don't use jpg. Just don't care for pre-cooked files.
2. how much is it still lacking compared to a DSLR with pro lens
*I shot Canon 1ds mark III, 5D Mark II; with all excellent "L" lenses. The Fuji is just as good for my shooting needs as these. I have shot indoor lacross with great success using the 55-200mm, most tracking was more east-west than north-south. (Go Stealth!).
However; the greatest weakness of fuji for me is a lack of long tele lenses. I have shot sports and wildlife using legacy glass and am pretty good a using zone focus and focus traping.
I would love to have an IS 300mm and teleconverters with AF. If I was still shooting football, the Canons would have had to remain in my kit.
3. How much more room does the RAW files have compared to m4/3
*My only experience was some trials with the OMD line of m4/3. The raws had some amount of room for adjustments but i found the tonal transisions very course if pushed too hard. The fuji in Capture One has tons of adjustment available. I use film simulation ICC profiles to get close to the fuji Jpg colours.
4. how does it take Leica M lenses? any issues with focusing, or corner smearing?
I have not used the Leica M but love using my Olympus 35mm shift multi coated lens. Focus is easy with the focus peak function. There is a minor amount of CA in a natural enviroment, have found none in studio. My current favorite portrait lens.
And raist3d; Of course we should feel the need to upgrade, my local camera dealer needs to send his kids to Univercity some how!:thumbup:
Having come from MFD these cams are kind of pocket change by comparison.
My chances of a clean shot hand held at 600mm (780mm equivalent Fov) at 1/8th of a second are nil.
but as to the original question and my own experiences;
1. general terms, is the out of camera jpg better quality than m4/3? (in terms of micro contrast and sharpness) I know ISO is better. provided that lenses are comparible.
*I don't use jpg. Just don't care for pre-cooked files.
2. how much is it still lacking compared to a DSLR with pro lens
*I shot Canon 1ds mark III, 5D Mark II; with all excellent "L" lenses. The Fuji is just as good for my shooting needs as these. I have shot indoor lacross with great success using the 55-200mm, most tracking was more east-west than north-south. (Go Stealth!).
However; the greatest weakness of fuji for me is a lack of long tele lenses. I have shot sports and wildlife using legacy glass and am pretty good a using zone focus and focus traping.
I would love to have an IS 300mm and teleconverters with AF. If I was still shooting football, the Canons would have had to remain in my kit.
3. How much more room does the RAW files have compared to m4/3
*My only experience was some trials with the OMD line of m4/3. The raws had some amount of room for adjustments but i found the tonal transisions very course if pushed too hard. The fuji in Capture One has tons of adjustment available. I use film simulation ICC profiles to get close to the fuji Jpg colours.
4. how does it take Leica M lenses? any issues with focusing, or corner smearing?
I have not used the Leica M but love using my Olympus 35mm shift multi coated lens. Focus is easy with the focus peak function. There is a minor amount of CA in a natural enviroment, have found none in studio. My current favorite portrait lens.
And raist3d; Of course we should feel the need to upgrade, my local camera dealer needs to send his kids to Univercity some how!:thumbup:
Having come from MFD these cams are kind of pocket change by comparison.
bradhusick
Active member
Here's why I switched from Oly to Fuji. The Oly menus are confusing. The X-T1 is simple and reminds me of shooting a Nikon film SLR.
They both take great photos. I just prefer simple.
They both take great photos. I just prefer simple.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Obviously logic is something very different for different individuals!
I never found the Olympus menus confusing, they are overall on the same level as the Fuji menus.
Also it depends how often one uses a certain camera (brand) to become really familiar. Worst is to constantly switch between different brands - what unfortunately I am doing.
I never found the Olympus menus confusing, they are overall on the same level as the Fuji menus.
Also it depends how often one uses a certain camera (brand) to become really familiar. Worst is to constantly switch between different brands - what unfortunately I am doing.
Godfrey
Well-known member
I guess it's all what you're used to. I find the Olympus menus logical and straightforward to use, whereas with the Fujis I never know where to find anything.
That's why it's grand that there are choices out there!
G
I have to agree the Olympus interface has become more and more complicated. With the addition of one more UI metaphor (canon power shot stuff) I find it a bit overdesigned
They should have enhanced the super control panel usability instead of pursuing to add a canon UI on top of what they had and tey have sub me is and what not.
This was even more clear when I got good of a Pentax becuase they have tons of options too but are vastly more organized.
The E-1 UI stills show more simplicity than what the e-3/e-5 did. I find though that on the camera body the em1 on the buttons and dials was a step forward from the e-3/e-5 mess.
They need to hire a good usability/HI/UI designer and make some new proposed interface while probably beef up their super control panel further. That would be a real modern olympus UI.
They should have enhanced the super control panel usability instead of pursuing to add a canon UI on top of what they had and tey have sub me is and what not.
This was even more clear when I got good of a Pentax becuase they have tons of options too but are vastly more organized.
The E-1 UI stills show more simplicity than what the e-3/e-5 did. I find though that on the camera body the em1 on the buttons and dials was a step forward from the e-3/e-5 mess.
They need to hire a good usability/HI/UI designer and make some new proposed interface while probably beef up their super control panel further. That would be a real modern olympus UI.