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

mmbma

Active member
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
 

JMaher

New member
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
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
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!
 

doc4x5

Member
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.
 

doc4x5

Member
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.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
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.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
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.
 

angstmann

New member
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.
 

mmbma

Active member
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 said:
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
 

raist3d

Well-known member
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
 

mmbma

Active member
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)
 

JMaher

New member
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
 

JMaher

New member
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
 

Ulfric Douglas

New member
I don't want to divert the thread, Jorgen do you have any posts about your new C1 workflow for Panasonic RAWs?
...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. .
 

mmbma

Active member
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.
 

mmbma

Active member
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
 

greypilgrim

New member
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
 
Top