No, I'm sorry. I'm not being awkward, simply factual. You are comparing apples and bathplugs. There are a myriad variables that come into play, even down to the gamma settings of our individual monitors. It's a waste of time to "compare" without a meaningful baseline. It's like me seeing you under the California sun then a couple of weeks seeing you under fluorescent light and saying you look a bit peaky now...
Disagree completely. First of all this was a comparison of SOOC JPEGs not molested by any post processing. The setting are typical of what I choose to use for each camera; not at all what you think may be correct. I merely asked "which looks better" and didn't ask for a dissertation of how to set my cameras, or how to create images for PP molesting. Pretty simple to understand for most.
BTW - There was NO "option 3". You're wrong again!
I have to disagree, Bill. He's not asking which camera is "better" and then asking us to judge based on SOOC jpegs with random settings.
He's asking which one is "better" as an SOOC jpeg. That question may be meaningless to YOU since you would use the raw files anyways. But it is meaningful for one that values SOOC jpeg to know which is preferred by most.
Let's take the old saying you can't compare apples to oranges. That's absurd....of course you can. I almost always prefer the apples....unless it is one of those vile green ones.
I prefer the bottom one (Fuji), but you could probably change the Olympus settings to pull back the highlights a bit more and add a tad of saturation and then they would look very similar.
Full size files might show more.
Yeah, I've been tweaking the Oly settings to see if I can come close to what Fuji gives, but still not satisfied. Good light gives reasonably similar results, but low/poor light and the Oly really suffers.
What is amazing though is how an "ancient" Oly E-PL7 with a 17mm f2.8 lens can create decent images, even compared to the X-T1 with a 23 f1.4 lens! The Oly combo cost me much less than the used X-T1 alone!