Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 49 of 49

Thread: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    I've been a long term M4/3 user. Although acceptable, I've always found the image quality from any m4/3 camera to be subpar. Used the GH2, EM5, and now EM1. I've tried almost all the lenses and more often than not I get the "digital grey" flat images right out of camera. Sure, after a little processing I have been able to make them come alive but they cannot compare to what I used to get from my 5D2.

    I am about to give up on mirrorless cameras and go back to a DSLR. Until the Fuji XT1 came along. I have tried it at the store but did not get a chance to play around the files. For you Fuji users who also have a full frame and m4/3, I'd like to get your advice on below:

    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.

    2. how much is it still lacking compared to a DSLR with pro lens

    3. How much more room does the RAW files have compared to m4/3

    4. how does it take Leica M lenses? any issues with focusing, or corner smearing?

    Thanks a lot

    mm

  2. #2
    Senior Member JMaher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sarasota
    Posts
    942
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    Interesting questions and I can only comment on some. I think every system inherently produces a certain look out of the camera. I haven't shot jpeg in a long time but even raws are distinctively different in every system. The last Fuji I owned was an X-E1 and those files compared with the EM5 seemed pretty much equal in quality to me. MY 5D2 and 5D3 produced files that may have looked better out of camera but for most web or even large print sizes were not really any better in practice. Inherently a full frame sensor has significant advantages (just look at all the positive posts about the A7 cameras) but the differences between an m4/3 senor and a crop sensor seem insignificant in proportion to moving to FF.

    The XT1 seems like a fantastic camera on its own but I would not expect significantly better raw files than you currently get. Both the XT1 and the EM1 have significant advantages over the current Canon FF cameras but you already know that having made that switch already.
    Jim

  3. #3
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,875
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    I am shooting m43 since its beginnings and Fuji X since the X Pro 1. Currently ending up with EM1 and XT1. I shoot RAW and JPEG parallel and use mostly Aperture and LR as my processing SW, sometimes also C1Pro, but this does not work smooth enough on my MacBook Pro so mostly I do not even turn it on.

    WRT IQ the X system IMHO and with all my experience I gained over the past years of use is light years ahead of m43. The RAW files have much more room to recover / develop and the Fuji film simulations modes are far superior to the so much praised OOC JPEGs from Olympus - which are good, but then Fuji is excellent. And since LR5 supports film simulation modes also for Fuji RAW files this even got better. You first have to show me a system which does better as Fuji X. I know there are other opinions, but this is what I always feel again and again using the 2 systems in parallel. AND also I so far did not find one APSC camera (Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc.) coming close to Fuji X IQ.

    Having said this the only APSC cameras I used coming close or being equal were the Leica X Vario. SO I suspect that the new Leica T might be in a similar league - we will see, but on the downside the Leica is multiple of the price of the Fuji system. This means you would not getter better IQ than from Fuji, but pay at least 2x the price! If it comes to feeling and camera build etc, this becomes a whole different story and I am already lusting after the Leica T - but the high price might keep me away.

    WRT Fuji APSC and FF (I shoot Nikon D800E and several high end Nikkor and Zeiss lenses) this is definitely better IQ wise, but I would not say light years ahead, or let me put it this way - the additional IQ you can get is not worth in most cases the much more weight and bulk of the Nikon FF system. And I see no real difference here for other FF systems, also not for the Sony FE system (speak A7r and A7). At least not for me. I am still keeping the Nikon is to have it if I need it, also for really fast AF and AF tracking, as ALL mirror less systems are still far away from what Nikon can do in that area. And I think Canon with some high end models is still better than Nikon WRT AF performance.

    Thus my choice would again and still be Fuji XT1 - over all the other - m43 and APSC!
    Life is an ever changing journey
    http://photography.tomsu.eu/
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/peter_...tography/sets/
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Lake Oswego, OR
    Posts
    38
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    I'm with ptomsu on this one. I had and sold an OMD. It focused fast and the in camera IS was wonderful but ultimately IQ led me to the Fuji X system. I cannot bring myself to get rid of my D800E; I used its fast focusing and abundance of mp (crop possibilities) on a recent trip to the Galapagos, but the X T-1 and a bunch of primes are my camera of choice for just about everything these days. I do not earn a living from photography so have to please only myself, and believe me the Fuji is pleasing. I have looked at the OOC jpegs a few times but for me if it's worth looking at seriously, eg printing, RAW is the only way to go.

    To answer the op's questions,
    1. I use RAW exclusively
    2. What's lacking is super fast focusing and IQ for huge enlargements (larger than 13"x20")
    3. Cannot comment as I have not actually done the comparisons
    4. It takes just about any lenses. I've used Nikon including G lenses but not Leica M. The question of the corners with wide lenses remains unanswerable for me as I've not tried them.

    I realize I cannot answer all the questions definitively but if you're looking for great IQ, a fabulous, huge EVF, best in class quick handling, and can live without IBIS, there's not much better than the X T-1.

    Good luck.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    422
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    Doc & Pete, apologies that this is OT, but which RAW converter do you prefer for the x-t1?
    --Mike

    My Flickr

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Lake Oswego, OR
    Posts
    38
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    I use LR 5.4. Prior to its availability, I used Adobe's dng 8.4 converter and then imported. I have played with Iridient but ultimately went back to Adobe. Sometimes the files look a bit smeared, especially the greens, on the SCREEN, but when PRINTED they seem to be sharp as a tack. YMMV.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  7. #7
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,875
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    Quote Originally Posted by MCTuomey View Post
    Doc & Pete, apologies that this is OT, but which RAW converter do you prefer for the x-t1?
    I actually prefer LR5.4 which includes the Fuji film profiles for RAW. This gets you optimal results with just 1 click - no kidding! Ad least for me this is the deal breaker.

    Having said this, Aperture is still my main program, just for import and managing the files. And also for most other cameras I use Aperture. But for the Fuji LR5 has finally won the race for me.
    Life is an ever changing journey
    http://photography.tomsu.eu/
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/peter_...tography/sets/
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    Does the XT1 has the same sensor in the X100 and X100S?

  9. #9
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    Peter is rather spot on here. When it comes to jpegs, Fuji is hard to beat. Even my ancient Fuji S3 delivers better jpegs than my newest Nikon, the D700. I keep the Nikons for action photography too (OVF, tracking), but the D700 kind of sits between two chairs, since most of my sports photography is done with telephoto lenses, for which the D300 and D2Xs are much better, delivering more reach. Shallow DOF? I'll buy the PanaLeica 42/1.2 and already own the Zuiko 75/1.8. That pretty much does it for me.

    I find the difference between RAW processors often to be larger than the difference between sensors and sensor sizes. Even though it screws up my current workflow, C1 has done wonders with my m4/3 (Panasonic) files, so I guess I should adapt my workflow to include that fact. Compared to 35mm cameras and lenses, it's a dirt cheap way to improve image quality, but you asked about jpegs, didn't you? Go for the X-T1. It's very hard to beat in that area and the lenses are second to none.

  10. #10
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    6
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    Quote Originally Posted by mmbma View Post
    Does the XT1 has the same sensor in the X100 and X100S?
    It has a X-Trans CMOS sensor that is similar to the X100s, not sure if it's identical though. From what I read the X-T1 and X-E2 sensors are the same. It is not the same sensor as the X100 as that is not an X-Trans sensor.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    [QUOTE=J

    I find the difference between RAW processors often to be larger than the difference between sensors and sensor sizes. Even though it screws up my current workflow, C1 has done wonders with my m4/3 (Panasonic) files, so I guess I should adapt my workflow to include that fact. Compared to 35mm cameras and lenses, it's a dirt cheap way to improve image quality, but you asked about jpegs, didn't you? Go for the X-T1. It's very hard to beat in that area and the lenses are second to none.[/QUOTE]

    you are so right on the raw processor! I'm lazy and I use LR5 for ease of export and batch process. just loaded the same ORF raw file into C1 and the difference is night and day. thanks very much

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,120
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    The Fuji definitively has better IQ than m4/3rds and because of lack of AA filter combined with their superb primes, it gives a certain "presence" that I think is consistently better along the fact the sensor is now 14-bit raw capture (all m4/3rds current cameras are 12-bits raw), have more DR, more sensitivity to color, etc.

    However, if you have tried a good lens on something like an EM1 and you still find the IQ "decidedly sub par" to the Canon, I would wonder what settings are you using that you get that impression out of camera or what ISO requirements/environment you are shooting in.

    So your mileage is going to vary here with your expectations. I wouldn't call the image quality on the latest m4/3rds sub-par in general with a good lens (not the kit lenses they bundle them with).

    That said for the Fuji- you need to use a raw converter that maximizes the detail you can get out of the Xtrans sensor or otherwise, you won't be much further ahead.

    - Ricardo

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    Thanks for everyone's helpful input. Now I think I can frame my question a little better:

    1. To everyone's point, the raw processor really makes a difference. the Olympus files are much better in C1 than in Lightroom. Having said that, I wonder if the Fuji raw files will be even better

    2. What I find lacking in my olympus set up is the detail and crispness at 100% magnification. The details are fudged together and a bit mushy especially when it comes to features/hair/texture. Is this a Moire issue? (I'm using Oly 12-40 pro and 100-300mm Pano)

    3. despite its limitations, I find the m4/3 so practical when it comes to telephoto and low light focusing. What's the longest telephoto option for Fuji? (auto focus)

  14. #14
    Senior Member JMaher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sarasota
    Posts
    942
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    I am sure the current Fuji is better than the X-E1 that I used to have so I'll stay out of that comparison but in a studio portrait setting the EM-1 and the 12-40 is capable of fantastic detail especially noticeable in hair and eyes. In LR at the first magnification level it is at least as good as my 5d2 was. I am on vacation or I would post some samples at that magnification. I may see if I have something on Flicker that would show this.

    Now I may have to invest in C1 and see if I see an improvement.

    Jim

  15. #15
    Senior Member JMaher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sarasota
    Posts
    942
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    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

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Northumbria
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    I don't want to divert the thread, Jorgen do you have any posts about your new C1 workflow for Panasonic RAWs?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    ...I find the difference between RAW processors often to be larger than the difference between sensors and sensor sizes. Even though it screws up my current workflow, C1 has done wonders with my m4/3 (Panasonic) files, so I guess I should adapt my workflow to include that fact. .

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    Jim Thanks. That photo put the debate to rest. Now I get it. it's about skill!
    But you should try C1. I was being cheap and denying myself of the noticeable improvement. The raw files show up more contrasty and vivid upon first glance.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    Quote Originally Posted by Ulfric Douglas View Post
    I don't want to divert the thread, Jorgen do you have any posts about your new C1 workflow for Panasonic RAWs?
    I think i figured out a pretty efficient way for me. let me know if you have a better one.

    I import the original files into C1, process them, and output them into a specific folder. Then I set the Light Room's auto import function to search i that folder. LR loads these TIF files automatically. I make the final changes, and directly upload them to Flickr using the plugin.

    Downside is you'll have duplicates of the shots you want to upload. but in today's storage that's really not a big deal. the upside is you retain full control of the process, take advantage of LR's easy final touches and upload function, and the whole process is pretty fast

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    477
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    Quote Originally Posted by mmbma View Post
    Thanks for everyone's helpful input. Now I think I can frame my question a little better:

    1. To everyone's point, the raw processor really makes a difference. the Olympus files are much better in C1 than in Lightroom. Having said that, I wonder if the Fuji raw files will be even better

    2. What I find lacking in my olympus set up is the detail and crispness at 100% magnification. The details are fudged together and a bit mushy especially when it comes to features/hair/texture. Is this a Moire issue? (I'm using Oly 12-40 pro and 100-300mm Pano)

    3. despite its limitations, I find the m4/3 so practical when it comes to telephoto and low light focusing. What's the longest telephoto option for Fuji? (auto focus)
    1) I have used Lightroom quite successfully with the oly files (EM-5). The default processing tends to push exposure instead of favoring details in the highlights. Exposing to the right and then processing appropriately within LR gives me fine results. WIll they match a D800? Nope. Will they print fine up to 17x22, yup. Posting on internet, they are all fine.

    The Fuji RAWs have been more of a challenge, and there is significant discussions as to the best way to process them. I have found the latest Lightroom to meet my needs. YMMV .

    2) I can only assume this is the processing. Mushiness would be due to excess noise reduction at higher ISOs. I have not had this issue with m43. The 12-40 is supposed to be a quality lens. I shoot the primes on m43 myself, so I cannot comment. I did try out the Panny 100-300, and I was not impressed; it is possible it was also leading to your disappointment.

    The oly primes have made me very happy. That said, I will say I have been blown away by the quality of the Fujinon lenses. I have the 14, 35, and 55-200. I do not like shooting zooms in general, and the 55-20 has become quite a favored lens in my Fuji kit if that tells you anything.

    3) Currently, the 55-200 is the longest. However, check out the latest rumored roadmap on Fuji Rumors | Fuji digital camera newsFuji Rumors posted today.

    m43 wins the game in the longer end imo due to lightweight long lenses. You can easily get to 600mm without breaking your back. The oly ibis is outstanding, and I have used it with manual lenses quite successfully. On the weak side, the longer zooms tend to be weaker quality.


    So, I have personally been transitioning to Fuji from m43, but I really like both. My preference for the Fuji's is that the X-T1's shooting style matches my own better than m43. This is saying something as I felt I had really found a home with my EM-5, and the X-T1 won. What I miss on the Fuji's is IBIS and the somewhat lighter weight. What I like is being able to pick the Fuji up and start shooting without fidgeting with settings all the time. Again, YMMV.

    On the IQ side, the Fuji low light performance is scary good, and I would argue that the primes are easily as good if not a bit (just a bit) better than the oly primes. The 55-200 beats any zoom on the m43 side IMO.

    Doug
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  20. #20
    Senior Member JMaher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sarasota
    Posts
    942
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    I'll look into C1 when I get back.

    Jim

  21. #21
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,875
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    Quote Originally Posted by JMaher View Post
    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

  22. #22
    Senior Member JMaher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sarasota
    Posts
    942
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    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

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    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

  24. #24
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    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. :-)

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    477
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    Quote Originally Posted by mmbma View Post
    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

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    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

  27. #27
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,875
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    Quote Originally Posted by mmbma View Post
    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.

  28. #28
    Senior Member JMaher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sarasota
    Posts
    942
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    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

  29. #29
    Senior Member Elderly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    262
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    Quote Originally Posted by greypilgrim View Post
    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.
    Ian.

  30. #30
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,875
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    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.

  31. #31
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    Quote Originally Posted by mmbma View Post
    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

  32. #32
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    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

  33. #33
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,875
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    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.

  34. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    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


  35. #35
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    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/prod...ses/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

  36. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    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

  37. #37
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    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-120-400...fujis-roadmap/
    Last edited by GrahamWelland; 29th April 2014 at 17:59.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

  38. #38
    Member JonMo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Delta BC Canada
    Posts
    100
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    8

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    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!
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  39. #39
    Senior Member JMaher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sarasota
    Posts
    942
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    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

  40. #40
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    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.

    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"
    Likes 6 Member(s) liked this post

  41. #41
    Senior Member JMaher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sarasota
    Posts
    942
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    "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."
    Graham

    How true!
    Jim

  42. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    Graham: that's precisely why I raised this question in the FUJI section. stirring up contraversies.

  43. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    64
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    Quote Originally Posted by JMaher View Post
    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.
    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
    Martin Ranger - Seattle, WA
    www.martinrangerimages.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  44. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,120
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    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.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  45. #45
    Member JonMo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Delta BC Canada
    Posts
    100
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    8

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    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!

    Having come from MFD these cams are kind of pocket change by comparison.

  46. #46
    Senior Member bradhusick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA USA
    Posts
    2,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    53

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    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.
    Brad Husick

  47. #47
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,875
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    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.

  48. #48
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    Quote Originally Posted by bradhusick View Post
    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.
    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
    Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  49. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,120
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fuji Xt1 image quality vs m4/3

    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.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •