Advice Wanted Fujifilm Primes v Olympus Primes [Not Pro lenses]

[Aushiker]

Just musing at the moment but this recent decision by Craig Roberts to switch from Olympus to Fujifilm has got me thinking (or wasting time). Not sure which as yet.

Anyway ignoring the body, for now, I am interested in thoughts on the Fujinon XF series primes versus the non-pro Olympus M.Zuiko Premium lenses. I am keen to move away from zooms and only use primes. I do a lot of motorcycle touring, bikepacking and bushwalking so having lenses that are relatively light and weather resistant is appealing.

Background

Current cameras: Olympus OM-D EM1 Mark II + Olympus OM-D EM5 Mark II [If I switch to Fujifilm these cameras and associated lenses would be sold and replaced with a Fujifilm XT-4 or XT-5. If I stay with Olympus I will need 12mm and 75mm prime lenses to round off the collection. I will likely sell the EM5 Mark II.

 

[rayvonn]

Too many differing opinions on a photo forum can often make the decision even harder, so the best way to find a conclusion is to go to a store and try the gear out. There's no substitute for having the gear in the hand and using it and even 5 minutes spent with the gear can be enough time to enable you to make a decision.

 

[pdk42]

I’ve recently done a fairly major switch from all Olympus/OM to Panasonic FF, but I’m keeping a foot in the Olympus camp with a Pen F and a few primes (17, 25, 45). The S1R (47Mp FF) certainly does a notably better job in difficult landscape scenarios, but in decent light and at output sizes I typically use, it would be hard to tell them apart. What do you hope a switch to Fuji would give you? The little Oly primes are really great in terms of size/cost/performance. They’re mostly not weather sealed of course, but how important is that for you?

Finally, are you really ready for X trans? Personally, I wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole!

 

[gryphon1911]

I was in the OP’s shoes at one point. There are similar questions I needed answering.

Image quality is going to be roughly the same.

The f/2 primes are going to be competitive in price and size new, with Fuji being slightly more in used prices.

The main difference is going to be in the long telephoto area with lenses like the O75 versus the Fuji 90mm. The Oly being an f/1.8 not withstanding that lens is slightly smaller.

If you want stabilized you’ll need to go XT4 or 5 or XS10 in Fuji which can be pricey. Where as Oly you are looking at any camera.

XTrans is a consideration in as far as it may require you to adopt a different workflow or at a minimum you learn some new software like Capture one or topaz sharpen ai to get optimal sharpening out of raw files.

You can go either way and be happy , but as been asked before - what is Fuji going to give you that you do not already have and is it worth the switch?

I switched mainly, at the time because I really wanted a PEN-F with better AFC performance and I got that in the XPRO2.

My stipulation was that I wanted to make sure that I had something that would be the equal to the O75. I feel the Fuji 90mm is that in IQ but. It in size.

 

[Aushiker]

You can go either way and be happy , but as been asked before - what is Fuji going to give you that you do not already have and is it worth the switch?

That is the big question ...

I do wonder if OMD Systems has a future. Is there likely to be more development in the premium prime lens area? Even the cameras ... Fujifilm does seem to development focused. I also like (I am playing with shooting more jpeg as I cannot keep up with the RAW workflow) the Fuji options in terms of the film simulations.

I think I will maybe watch the Xt-4 (used) /XT-5 prices and see what happens and in the meantime continue shooting with my Olympus gear. I do need to get a 75mm but. Secondhand seems rather rare here.

 

[MoonMind]

I'm in the "been there, done that" camp because I made a foray into Fuji land and really liked what I found; for the record, at one time, I owned a X-E3 with the 23mm f/2, the 27mm f/2.8, the 35mm f/1.4, the 90mm f/2 plus the initial reason I got the X-E3 as a kind of "zoomable Leica-like" camera, the 18-55mm f/2.8-4. I liked the experience as well as the images, but in the end, the system didn't offer enough over my bodies (the E-M5 III and GX9) in terms of quality, let alone portability. Once I had moved to Nikon Z FX and found the Z 50 a really pleasant little complementary camera for EDC use, the X-E3 felt kind of redundant.

Anyhow, the Panasonic 15mm f/1.7 turned out to be easily the equal of the 23mm f/2 optically while being hardly any bigger than the 27mm f/2.8; it's also the fastest focusing of the three, and besides, I also own the 20mm f/1.7. The Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 II was a nice replacement for the 35mm f/1.4 (they have a lot in common), and both the Olympus 12-45mm f/4 and the lowly Nikon 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3 proved to be a match for or better than the 18-55mm (I've since "graduated" to the - adapted - Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 on the Z 50; *that* lens is really fun, and very competent, too). Finally, the Z 85mm f/1.8 S and Z MC 105mm f/2.8 both optically match or surpass the 90mm f/2 which I nevertheless still consider one of the most desirable lenses in Fuji's catalogue. But: The Olympus 75mm f/1.8 would be all the reason I'd need to stick with - even though I don't own that lens (the Z lenses again ...). The E-M5 III blows the X-E3 out of the water in terms of performance and features; the GX9, while not quite as strong a proposition, still puts one over the X-E3 by offering I.B.I.S. ...

My impression is that there's not enough between the two systems to make one of them truely superior. But the X-T5 is one heck of a camera for its size. So's the OM-1. I prefer smaller bodies, though - and would choose my E-M5 III over just about everything else in that category; that said, I enjoy shooting with the Z fc even more, but not because it's a superior camera. The APS-C body that really changed my mind was once again the Z 50 - because it's really a mini-me Z 6 minus the I.B.I.S.; this means it handles fantastically well even with bigger glass, something neither the X-E3 nor the E-M5 III were able to achieve for me, not even when using their respective additional grips. The Z 50 is considerably smaller than a G9 or OM-1 and also the X-T5, though there's surprisingly little between the latter two. All the other cameras mentioned are much more feature-complete and stronger performers than the Z 50 - but none balances size, handling and appealing results as well as the Z 50 and, by extension, the Z fc, though I have to admit that the latter's place is firmly established by its "gestalt" rather than its haptics for me. Apart from an M body, there's nothing I like pulling out of my bag more ... Anyhow, the E-M5 III remains my "marginal weather" EDC camera of choice, at least whenever I want a great zoom to go with it (the 12-45mm f/4 again).

So, YMMV. I guess the best thing would be to temporarily own both systems and use them side-by-side. Replacing one by the other could be too much of a gamble and in the end may cost you more than you think (as it was in my case - though I was able to mitigate my losses via part exchange in most cases).

M.

 

[gryphon1911]

That is the big question ...

I do wonder if OMD Systems has a future. Is there likely to be more development in the premium prime lens area? Even the cameras ... Fujifilm does seem to development focused. I also like (I am playing with shooting more jpeg as I cannot keep up with the RAW workflow) the Fuji options in terms of the film simulations.

I think I will maybe watch the Xt-4 (used) /XT-5 prices and see what happens and in the meantime continue shooting with my Olympus gear. I do need to get a 75mm but. Secondhand seems rather rare here.

This is my gut...and my gut feeling only...backed by what I've seen in the past and me extrapolating the info from those past experiences and observations.

The OM-1 was the next iteration of what Olympus would have put out had they not sold the camera division. Looking at what the new owners are doing - they are essentially re-branding lenses and a slightly tweaked EM-5 Mark III as the OM-5.

Does m43 via Olympus have a future....I do not see it. Even Panasonic is not keen on pushing too much forward. They both are at the mercy of the ones who make the sensor chips as they seem reluctant or unable to design one on their own to be fabricated for them.

Prior history has shown that the new owners are one to keep the status quo and not really innovate. There is a probably a few years left in OM Digital before they are irrelevant, possibly a few more before Panasonic abandons it and then we will be left to companies like Yongnuo putting out m43 gear or it going open source.

Fuji is the better bet in my opinion if you want new and innovative.

For me, the value proposition of m43 is in the used gear. I love what Olympus has built and honestly, they have a pretty full fledged and featured set of gear. They fell victim to marketing hype and BS. Yes, there are deficiencies at the extreme use cases but that only applies to the pro's or those that have a specific scenario to which they would be pushing the boundaries of any camera system. I still cannot find an IBIS or dual IBIS/VR company that does it better than Olympus in the EM1 Mark III and compatible lenses like the O 12-100/4. I've not used an OM-1 so cannot speak if the IBIS in there is demonstrably better.

For small ,feature packed cameras that don't go too small - again m43.

Fuji is a close second on some of those - but lacks IBIS across the line, so you get a bigger body where IBIS is concerned. It would be a different story if they had say an X-E3 with IBIS that would rival the likes of an EM5 Mark II or PEN-F.

So bottom line, m43 is going to drop innovation and be a status quo. IF you like what it is now, then you can stay and reap the value of buying on the used market. If you want future innovation, then looking elsewhere is the ticket, be it Fuji, Nikon, Sony, Canon.

 

[pdk42]

If you want future innovation, then looking elsewhere is the ticket, be it Fuji, Nikon, Sony, Canon.

Don’t forget Panasonic FF / L-mount!

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

I’m on round 2 of trying Fuji. I’ve told myself that I’m going to give it a year before I’d consider something else. The first time I kinda gave up too soon on it, and it wasn’t until I started really messing with my RAFs that I came to really appreciate the flexibility in the output. I only have the XF 35mm F2, but I really like it. Reminds me a lot of the output from the PL25 1.4. I have the X-T3, so no IBIS at all, and I don’t find it lacking all that much, even considering the lack of OIS in the primes. Usually more shutter and higher ISO works just fine. I have zooms, and lenses like the 16-55 remind me of the 12-45.

 

[gryphon1911]

Don’t forget Panasonic FF / L-mount!

I'll have to let you comment as I have no experience...so did not feel comfortable in expressing an opinion.

 

[MoonMind]

Don’t forget Panasonic FF / L-mount!

As indicated, compact FF being available (Nikon Z in my case) played a huge role in my moving on from Fujifilm ... and the L mount alliance really does a stellar job when it comes to providing glass.

But, to be honest, so does Fujifilm, and, thankfully, at least to an impressive degree, Nikon (Z). btw. I just noticed that Nikon actually gave us the first true FF pancake lens for mirrorless cameras - neat! That said, Sony has had super-compact lenses for years, alongside many other E mount and L mount options. So it's not that big of a deal - but still ...

Now, where's that Z f? ... !

M.

P.S. Sorry, I'll try to stay on topic next time

 

[pdk42]

As indicated, compact FF being available (Nikon Z in my case) played a huge role in my moving on from Fujifilm ... and the L mount alliance really does a stellar job when it comes to providing glass.

But, to be honest, so does Fujifilm, and, thankfully, at least to an impressive degree, Nikon (Z). btw. I just noticed that Nikon actually gave us the first true FF pancake lens for mirrorless cameras - neat! That said, Sony has had super-compact lenses for years, alongside many other E mount and L mount options. So it's not that big of a deal - but still ...

Now, where's that Z f? ... !

M.

P.S. Sorry, I'll try to stay on topic next time

Yeah, Nikon Z is really nice too. I dabbled with a Z7 a couple of years ago and sometimes wonder if I should have stuck with it. But, OTOH, I really like the user experience of the Panasonic "S" L-mount cameras. They provide similar features and handling to m43 cameras, but have the extra IQ that the larger sensor provides. There is also now an excellent range of lenses available, so I think there is little to complain about it as a system. I think it compares well with Canon R, Nikon Z, and Sony A. And now that they've finally decided that PDAF is a necessary technology to offer class-leading AF, I think the future is rosy. The S5ii looks like a great camera and there will certainly be new S1 models coming this year with PDAF.

 

[pdk42]

Just realised that the four main FF mirrorless systems are L, A, Z, and R. LAZR !

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Just realised that the four main FF mirrorless systems are L, A, Z, and R. LAZR !

Or is it RAZL?

 

[Aaron English]

I shoot both Fuji and Olympus. I love both systems. In the Fuji world as soon as you move beyond the f/2 primes, the lens start to get big and heavy. That said, the Fuji 16-55mm f/2.8 is an amazing lens. A better lens in my experience than the Oly 12-40mm, except its size. I find that fuji has better overall image quality than Olympus (EM1 Miii). I have tried Capture One and Lightroom and I find that Lightroom does a fine job except in certain vegetation scenarios (broad leaf trees). One thing I love about Fuji is being able to change the settings on the camera with out having to turn it on. I just look down and adjust the ISO, or f-stop or aperture, great for street shooting.

I will say the the best travel set up I have found is the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 and 40-150mm f/4.0 on your weather sealed Olympus body of choice.

 

[MoonMind]

Just realised that the four main FF mirrorless systems are L, A, Z, and R. LAZR !

Or is it RAZL?

I don't want to spoil the fun, but the A's off - should be E. And if you like it or not, M should be in there in my view (that's Leica M, not Canon EOS M), if only for the number of available lenses. MELZR (order of precedence) doesn't sound so much fun, but would be the most accurate ... If you need autofocus to be part of it, you get ELZR - a bastardised name, at least ...

M.

 

[Aushiker]

My impression is that there's not enough between the two systems to make one of them truely superior. But the X-T5 is one heck of a camera for its size. So's the OM-1. I prefer smaller bodies, though - and would choose my E-M5 III over just about everything else in that category; that said, I enjoy shooting with the Z fc even more, but not because it's a superior camera.

I was not aware of the Nikon Z fc. I had a quick look and I really like the aesthetics I must admit. However, I was playing in Camera Size Comparison and 'put a 38(?) mm lens on it and the lens appears relatively large compared to the Olympus/Fujifilm lenses. Is that right?

 

[Aushiker]

I’m on round 2 of trying Fuji. I’ve told myself that I’m going to give it a year before I’d consider something else. The first time I kinda gave up too soon on it, and it wasn’t until I started really messing with my RAFs that I came to really appreciate the flexibility in the output. I only have the XF 35mm F2, but I really like it. Reminds me a lot of the output from the PL25 1.4. I have the X-T3, so no IBIS at all, and I don’t find it lacking all that much, even considering the lack of OIS in the primes. Usually more shutter and higher ISO works just fine. I have zooms, and lenses like the 16-55 remind me of the 12-45.

RAF's?

 

[rayvonn]

I was not aware of the Nikon Z fc. I had a quick look and I really like the aesthetics I must admit. However, I was playing in Camera Size Comparison and 'put a 38(?) mm lens on it and the lens appears relatively large compared to the Olympus/Fujifilm lenses. Is that right?

Adapted lenses apart from M mount lenses will generally be a bit longer/ bigger due to the size of the adapter required for the camera to align with the sensor but due to the haptics/ size of Z cameras this is not an issue.

RAF's?

Fuji raw files.

 

[Tili]

Back on topic. The newer Fuji primes are too big and don't interest me.
There are some gems like the XF 35mm f1.4 or 18mm f2 which are stellar in character and performance. (As long as you use a XT-3 equivalent or newer)
The build quality is, imo, also much nicer than the f1.8/f1.7 m43 primes.

That said, m43 primes have great value and the size and weight advantage most of the time.
I do find that there are some absolute gems in the m43 lineup, but not always OEM.

• Like my personal favorite, the Sigma 56mm f1.4: It's better than the 75mm f1.8 (super sharp, more bokeh and easier working distance) and it completely removed the need for a 42.5mm or 45mm f1.8 prime as well.
  The shots I get from this are just stunning.
• Then there is the Mitakon Zhongyi Speedmaster 25mm f/0.95 - a nifty fifty that is so bright and tiny and doesn't weight that much. Very fun lens when you add a focusing tab.
• Lumix 20mm f1.7 - legendary walk around lens, just be warned that the AF speed is terrible.
• Laowa 10mm f2 - still new to me but I can see the potential of this tiny little beast already (5 bladed iris, actually has some bokeh, super sharp).

All of the above lenses are tiny, light, bright and quite amazing. In my opinion, it showcases why m43 is great.
It's not impossible but the Fuji alternatives for these are most likely going to be more expensive and a tad heavier.