Fuji Has anyone made the switch from Micro 4/3 to a Fuji X?

[Lightmancer]

The 1.4x converter and the 100-400mm "superzoom" are both on the way. In fact I think the 1.4 should have been here by now -perhaps the disappointed outcry over the small number of lenses it would actually fit (3, two of which haven't been released yet...) has forced them back to the drawing board - I hope so, since whilst I don't expect 100% compatibility I'd like it to at least fit the 90 and the 55-200 - there can be no mechanical reason why not, so it must be down to optics.

 

[Lawrence A.]

I should add that I'll be sending my E-M5, which is flashing mode screens at me, off for repair soon. If I were sure of wanting to switch, it would be the perfect time to sell off the m43 lenses, and the body for repair, and jump ship. I'm just not ready. If I do sell my Olympus primes, it will be to help buy the M. Zuiko 14-40 f2.8. Aside from the fact that I love the E-M5, and have from the moment I picked it up, having shot Olympus as my main hand held cameras for the last 35 years, the idea of not having one filling that niche is unnerving.

 

[saladin]

Im similar to Lawrence. I am an Oly user ( em5 and em1) with the 12-40 pro and two primes - the 45 Oly and the 15mm Pana Leica. The 15PL is virtually welded to the Em1 at the moment. I love the primes. Initially i didnt see what the rave reviews for the Pro did, i was shooting in low light and felt the 2.8 was limiting. But im coming around to its versatility and IQ. In better light, the colors and rendering can be beautiful.

Anyway Im not switching to Fuji, i will use both. I have long wanted an original X100. But with prices falling on the Xpro i decided now was the time to see if i like the Fuji way. It should arrive tomorrow.

 

[rbelyell]

Personally,
I think we kid ourselves when we say that a narrow DOF doesn't matter - just look at the popularity of the Sony RX1 and A7 series....

well if that were true in the sense you mean it, then this entire discussion is senseless. the only decision is FF now that it is available at a price equal to m4/3 and apsc. and that may be true for some, and i'm honestly happy for them if that increases their enjoyment. but i'm not kidding myself when i see the increased DOF at fast light gathering ability of m4/3 and apsc as a real plus for the way i shoot the vast majority of the time. while anyone's personal views may righlty vary for them, i can tell you that having taken and looked at more pictures than i can fathom over several decades, i think most of todays photographers kid themselves when they believe that portraits where only the tip of the nose or a single eyelash is in focus has any appeal whatsoever. most people, myself included, simply do not understand or do not have the talent to make proper use of the super thin DOF afforded by FF plus superfast lenses.

now, certainly, there are other reasons to choose FF. overall look, using legacy glass as they were intended to be used, etc. DOF difference is not the be all and end all of the discussion.

 

[rbelyell]

Anyway Im not switching to Fuji, i will use both. I have long wanted an original X100. But with prices falling on the Xpro i decided now was the time to see if i like the Fuji way. It should arrive tomorrow.

i wish you luck with the xp1. my personal user experience may, or may not, serve as a somewhat cautionary tale. i got the x100 when it first came out and loved its IQ, analogue user experience and unique hybrid vf. i loved fuji the company for its many updates in response to user critiques. i thought the xp1 as an interchangeable lens cam was a no brainer. it wasnt for me. the xp1 uses fujis xtrans sensor vs the x100's traditional bayer sensor. the resulting images were very different, and for reasons you can easily find all over the web, i simply did not like the xp1 results. nor did i like its slow operation.

so, if you find a similar experience, do not let it dissuade you from trying an x100. i still have one and love using it. good luck.

 

[c0ldc0ne]

most people, myself included, simply do not understand or do not have the talent to make proper use of the super thin DOF afforded by FF plus superfast lenses.

That begs the question what "proper" entails and if we should subsequently pooh-pooh anything that does not conform to this definition.

 

[Barwick Green]

Yes. I bought a Lumix G1 twin lens kit the first day they were available in the UK. By the time I parted with Lumix gear I had tried most of the bodies, ending up with a GH3, GX7 and ten lenses. The change wasn't driven by image quality but by two factors.

1. The GH3 viewfinder is awful. It is small, the corners are bleary and the coating comes off as soon as it gets damp. The first one was replaced under warranty, then the coating started to come off the second. The GH4 isn't much better and I know of one user who has found the coating coming off the GH4 viewfinder too.
2. I got fed up with assignable rotary controls that might do anything. The GH3 has 3 of them but there are four vital settings; shutter, aperture, ISO & exposure compensation. I could never remember which was which, or which way to turn it and there was always one setting that wasn't on a dial.

As soon as I picked up the X-T1 I knew it was right. Dedicated engraved controls for all the important functions, so I can set everything really quickly and a simple glance at the camera lets me see how it is set. And the viewfinder is lovely.

My only regret is the size and weight of the Fuji lenses. I know the sensor is bigger so the lenses will be bigger, but the difference is staggering. The Fuji 40 - 150 is THREE TIMES the weight of the directly equivalent Lumix 35 - 100. Both cover the same angle of view, the difference in focal length is exactly cancelled by the difference in crop factor. Both are f2.8 all the way, made of metal, weather sealed and image stabilised... The extra weight means I don't take the Fuji 40 - 150 with me when I go hiking, as where I always took the Lumix 35 - 100. But I don't regret changing, despite the extra weight, learning curve and considerable cost, the X-T1 has put the fun back into taking pictures.

 

[c0ldc0ne]

The E-M1's viewfinder is supposedly quite nice (never used one, so I can only go on what reviewers seem to agree on) and the control wheels can be configured any way you like on the high end Olympus bodies.

As for the lens weight/size: the 40-150 is an Olympus lens which is probably a better comparison to the Fuji 50-140 due to it being weather sealed, having a more similar focal range (disregarding the crop differences, which is ultimately not a lens property) and being sold in a comparable price bracket. The 40-150 is not that much smaller or lighter than the 50-140. But you're right that m4/3 does give you the less bulky option if that's what you prefer. And many m4/3 lenses (particularly the primes) are truly tiny.

 

[Barwick Green]

Yes, I agree the E-M1 viewfinder is nice, but I just couldn't get on with the assignable dials. I don't agree entirely with your point about the lens comparison. Crop factor IS a lens factor just as much as focal length - a bigger sensor requires a lens which can create a bigger image circle, but the X-T1 image ins't 3 times the size, or even 3 times the area. As I said, the 35 - 100 is also weather sealed and metal bodied, so I still feel it is a valid comparison. I do understand the Fuji equivalent will be heavier, but at 3 times the weight it simply isn't the sort of thing you can chuck in a coat pocket, as you can with the Lumix 35 - 100.

 

[saladin]

The Em1 vf is great. I have one. From online reports, it sounds like it and the Xt1 lead the field for Evf's.

 

[c0ldc0ne]

Yes, I agree the E-M1 viewfinder is nice, but I just couldn't get on with the assignable dials. I don't agree entirely with your point about the lens comparison. Crop factor IS a lens factor just as much as focal length - a bigger sensor requires a lens which can create a bigger image circle, but the X-T1 image ins't 3 times the size, or even 3 times the area. As I said, the 35 - 100 is also weather sealed and metal bodied, so I still feel it is a valid comparison. I do understand the Fuji equivalent will be heavier, but at 3 times the weight it simply isn't the sort of thing you can chuck in a coat pocket, as you can with the Lumix 35 - 100.

I didn't know that the 35-100 was also weather sealed. I checked the specs on the B&H site and it wasn't listed there like it was for the 40-150. So you do have point.

As for the dials, I just configure them once when I get a new camera (both function and direction) and never bother with them again. I can then change settings without looking at the dials with the O-MD and the X alike.

But whatever works for you is ultimately what you should choose. Companies have different design philosophies and with IQ being excellent with pretty much every high end camera these days, picking a camera has largely become a matter of deciding which haptics you feel comfortable with.

 

[RT Panther]

well if that were true in the sense you mean it, then this entire discussion is senseless. the only decision is FF now that it is available at a price equal to m4/3 and apsc. and that may be true for some, and i'm honestly happy for them if that increases their enjoyment. but i'm not kidding myself when i see the increased DOF at fast light gathering ability of m4/3 and apsc as a real plus for the way i shoot the vast majority of the time. while anyone's personal views may righlty vary for them, i can tell you that having taken and looked at more pictures than i can fathom over several decades, i think most of todays photographers kid themselves when they believe that portraits where only the tip of the nose or a single eyelash is in focus has any appeal whatsoever. most people, myself included, simply do not understand or do not have the talent to make proper use of the super thin DOF afforded by FF plus superfast lenses.

now, certainly, there are other reasons to choose FF. overall look, using legacy glass as they were intended to be used, etc. DOF difference is not the be all and end all of the discussion.

Make fun of the lenses or not, but the fact of the matter is that the Sony A7 series is gaining momentum....

 

[aslondon]

Having used both, I think the images with Fuji glass are simply amazing and head and shoulders above the m4/3. I currently have an X-e2 and X-t1 and am still amazed at the quality they produce. They seem to make images far better than I have a right to. Fuji is the first system in decades that I feel a symbiotic relationship with.

Al

 

[rbelyell]

Make fun of the lenses or not, but the fact of the matter is that the Sony A7 series is gaining momentum....

first, i never 'made fun' of anything. i commented on the modern preoccupation with shooting very fast lenses wide open obtaining a razor thin DOF that imo typically yields crappy pictures.

second, so what? what is your point? why should anyone care if sony a7 series is 'gaining momentum'? what does that have to do with OT? my reply is good for sony! there are many excellent reasons to buy into that system. razor thin DOF is a silly one, imo. before ignoring all the non open apertures offered on any given lens, one should learn what they do and how to use them. thats called photography.

 

[RT Panther]

first, i never 'made fun' of anything. i commented on the modern preoccupation with shooting very fast lenses wide open obtaining a razor thin DOF that imo typically yields crappy pictures.

second, so what? what is your point? why should anyone care if sony a7 series is 'gaining momentum'? what does that have to do with OT? my reply is good for sony! there are many excellent reasons to buy into that system. razor thin DOF is a silly one, imo. before ignoring all the non open apertures offered on any given lens, one should learn what they do and how to use them. thats called photography.

The comment was an open ended comment not directed at anyone in particular.
The point is inevitably, narrow DOF comes up in topics - and that is why in part, the Sony A7 series is gaining momentum.

I don't own an A7 series nor have I ever - so I'm not a fanboy pushing them. I'm just a realist - and the reality is that the once laughed at Sony's are not gaining more users.

 

[Lightmancer]

Gentlemen... A little decorum, please. Debate by all means but keep it civil, ok?

 

[Randall Gabriel]

I really am tempted by Fujifilm cameras but don't have the money right now lol. I would really like to get a Fujifilm X-T1, X-T10 or heck, even a X-A2. Fuji has an awesome lineup of lenses and that convinces me to make the switch from my Panasonic G5 m43 camera.

 

[Amin]

I'm not switching from MFT, but I am jumping back into Fuji. Have an X-T1 and 56/1.2 on the way. Excited!

 

[battleaxe]

I can't speak for Olympus jpeg, but having two Panasonic cameras(GF3 and GM1), I wish I could use Fuji color profiles. Heck, I wish my X-E1 has classic chrome support.

 

[stratokaster]

I did not exactly switch from Micro 4/3 to Fujifilm because I sold my last Micro 4/3 camera 2 years ago. But I have had lots of experience with different Micro 4/3 gear. I owned Panasonic G2, GH2, GF2 and G6 and Olympus E-PL2 and E-PL5. I have also shot extensively with Olympus E-P2, E-P3, E-M5 and E-M10. I have used such lenses as Panasonic 14/2.5, 20/1.7 and PL45, Olympus 45/1.8, 17/1.8 and 60/2.8.

For me those are two very different systems. First of all, while Fujifilm has made great progress when it comes to AF and general speed, Micro 4/3 cameras are still faster and more versatile. My X-E2, even with the latest firmware, hesitates a little before focusing, while any current Micro 4/3 camera just snaps into focus instantly. I have tried X-T1 and X-T10 and it's the same with those bodies. Also if you're into video, Micro 4/3 is hands down better than Fujifilm.

Fujifilm, however, is meaningfully better at high ISOs. Fujifilm JPEGs are better than anything from Panasonic or even Olympus, especially when it comes to detail retention at higher sensitivities. I also like Fuji's control scheme more, but it's a personal preference.

Also if you're into adapted lenses, Fujifilm cameras have bigger sensors and great manual focusing aids and thus are arguably better vehicles for manual glass (although Olympus' IBIS is not to be underestimated).