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

battleaxe

Regular
Jun 17, 2014
18
California
I don't know about the newer Fuji camera's, but my X-E1 is okay when it comes to MF, specially since it's a white color when it comes to focus peaking. On the other hand my GF3 lacked it, but my GM1, has it, and it's a more usable green color. If only Fuji gave us a firmware update to let me at least switch the color to yellow or something it be better.

How does video on Olympus cameras compare to Fuji cameras?
 

stratokaster

Top Veteran
Dec 27, 2010
103
Kiev, Ukraine
Pavel
On X-E2 and later cameras it's possible to select between white, red and blue for focus peaking. Also I think Fujifilm's implementation is better in general because it highlights both vertical and horizontal lines (Panasonic cameras, as far as I remember, highlight only vertical lines which can be limiting sometimes).

Newer Olympus cameras are still not on the same level as Panasonic when it comes to video, but they are much better than Fujifilm. It seems that Fujifilm bodies simply lack the computing power required to correctly process the output from an X-Trans sensor in real time and use an inferior algorithm. That's why footage produced by Fujifilm cameras is both soft and aliased at the same time, especially if you have lots of fine detail visible in the frame (moving water, green trees, grass, etc.)
 

Lightmancer

Super Moderator
Aug 13, 2011
164
Sunny Frimley
Bill Palmer
To be fair, I am about as interested in shooting video as I am in learning hand-to-hand stealth macramé...:jedi:

I fully get that it is important to some, and that they have successfully embedded it into their workflow, but I am a "sniper"-type photographer; I seldom even use continuous drive. I see the world in slices of time and that's why Fuji, with their emphasis (accidentally or on purpose) on still image capture works for me. I'd even go as far as to say that I'd be happy to see Fuji bodies with no video capability at all if it meant a reduction in complexity and price. I think that Fuji knows their market; bear in mind that the most recent firmware update to the X-T1 frees up the dedicated video button for use as a more generalised function button.
 

kevistopheles

Top Veteran
Oct 18, 2014
103
I switched...or rather I AM switching. I started with m43 many years ago (mostly Panasonic), switched to Sony, then to Fuji and back to m43 with an Olympus E-M10. I just sold the OMD after I found that I much preferred the look of the images from my Fuji X10 to those of the OMD. Now that the Olympus has sold I expect an X-Pro 1 is in the not too distant future.

I should clarify that I have no real issue with the OMD. It's a fine camera and there is much to like about it but I found that there was something about the images that didn't look right to me. It's not that they have any particular flaw, they are sharp, well exposed and have good contrast but I found that there was something I didn't quite like about them. The best example I can think of is the way the second Star Wars trilogy looked visually. They had stopped using practical effects and had gone all digital for the SFX. The environments looked gorgeous. They were bright and colorful with amazing amounts of details and yet they just didn't seem to look right. That was how I felt about the OMD images. They were lovely and yet they just didn't look photographs to me. Of course all of these cameras are digital so what did i expect? I guess I'm a throwback but I really like images that have a film like quality to them even if they are flawed and imperfect. IMHO Fuji images (especially the Fuji X10, X100 and 1st generation X-Trans ILC's) have a very film-like look. In the end it wasn't something that the Olympus didn't do but something the Fuji did.

Of course this all very subjective and what seems significant to one person is all but invisible to another. That said, since I was making a decision about making images that I wanted to make I felt like the Fuji's combination of simple straight forward operation and images that I liked suited me a lot better than the Olympus.
 

ean10775

All-Pro
Feb 13, 2013
88
Cleveland, Ohio
Eric
That's interesting, because I essentially felt the same way about Fuji images compared to images from my Canon and m43 systems when I had an X100S and was shooting RAW - the images didn't look like photographs. I've changed my tune since I've been using the in-camera RAW converter on my X100T, which indicates that it was a function of the RAW converter and not the necessarily the sensor.
 

shaolinchris

Regular
Aug 5, 2014
18
Los Angeles / Copenhagen
Chris
I shot OMD's for 3 years, FF for studio, and been shooting full-time on Fuji (x100 & xpro1) since last summer I haven't look back.
The Jpeg's looks beautiful and the simplicity of the cameras are my main attractions. Both bodies are fairly obsolete and have plenty of quirks, but definitely workable. Last week I played around with the xpro2 and boy was I considering getting the body instead of a semester of college tuiton :p

Go for whatever system you desire, life's too short not to.
 

kevistopheles

Top Veteran
Oct 18, 2014
103
That's interesting, because I essentially felt the same way about Fuji images compared to images from my Canon and m43 systems when I had an X100S and was shooting RAW - the images didn't look like photographs. I've changed my tune since I've been using the in-camera RAW converter on my X100T, which indicates that it was a function of the RAW converter and not the necessarily the sensor.
The RAW converter makes a huge difference with Fuji images. Some (like Lightroom) do not do a very good job with Fuji images at all.
 

ean10775

All-Pro
Feb 13, 2013
88
Cleveland, Ohio
Eric
The RAW converter makes a huge difference with Fuji images. Some (like Lightroom) do not do a very good job with Fuji images at all.
Agreed, which is why I exclusively use the built in RAW converter and then edit the resulting JPEGS if necessary (which is rarely). I don't use my Fuji camera for professional work though - if I did, my workflow would be too cumbersome.
 

Lightmancer

Super Moderator
Aug 13, 2011
164
Sunny Frimley
Bill Palmer
I can't answer for Eric, but I can explain my own workflow. I shoot raw + jpg fine. I have profiles set up for Velvia, Sensia, Classic Chrome, Acrosy and BWy. I use the jpg unless I a) want a different profile for the end result or b) want to tweak exposure, particularly shadow and highlight detail after thevevent. Then I use the built in converter. I use PSE for desktop processing, which usually consists of tweaking levels and contrast, setting black and white point, dodging and burning and the occasional crop or rotation (I swear I have one leg shorter than the other). I also use Topaz B&W for any real mono tweaking. Make sense?
 
I can't answer for Eric, but I can explain my own workflow. I shoot raw + jpg fine. I have profiles set up for Velvia, Sensia, Classic Chrome, Acrosy and BWy. I use the jpg unless I a) want a different profile for the end result or b) want to tweak exposure, particularly shadow and highlight detail after thevevent. Then I use the built in converter. I use PSE for desktop processing, which usually consists of tweaking levels and contrast, setting black and white point, dodging and burning and the occasional crop or rotation (I swear I have one leg shorter than the other). I also use Topaz B&W for any real mono tweaking. Make sense?
Yes I think so. You actually use the camera to make another jpg from the RAW. I am going to test this approach! Thanks for clarifying .
 

tonyturley

Hall of Famer
Nov 24, 2014
124
Scott Depot, WV, USA
Tony
I have made that switch. I really liked the E-M5 + Olympus 17mm f/1.8. In good light the jpg images were excellent. Same for the E-M1. I went on a few hiking trips where I was in heavily shaded ravines, and the images I got were OK, but I noticed definite detail loss in the shadows. At the same time, I was renting an X100S out of curiosity. I liked the jpg quality and FOV from that camera a lot, but I wasn't sure if I could live with the fixed FL. Instead, I bought an X-E1 and 14mm f/2.8.

I'm sold on Fuji. In the past week I've sold and shipped out all of my remaining MFT cameras and lenses. I'm seriously considering adding an X-T1, if I can find a gently used one at a suitable price. That silver/graphite model looks tempting.

TT
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ean10775

All-Pro
Feb 13, 2013
88
Cleveland, Ohio
Eric
By using the built on raw converter, you mean you shoot jpegs?
I shoot RAW (meaning I don't have the camera set to capture JPEGs), but I never take the RAW files out of the camera into a separate editing program. I use the in-camera RAW converter to process each RAW file into a JPEG and then use the camera's WiFi to transfer the JPEG to my iPad. If needed I do a little editing using the Snapseed app (usually just cropping/straightening if I didn't get it right in camera). I only use my X100T for personal photos so its rare that I'm processing more than a dozen or so images at a time, otherwise this would perhaps be too cumbersome of a workflow.
 

gravija_flare

Regular
May 23, 2016
18
A planet called Gaia
i have been using mft for almost 4 years since mid 2012, and really enjoyed using the system. have used the e-m5 mark I and II, gm5 and various lenses along the way and it really has served me well.

but i recently switched to the fuji x-mount system for its improvements in af speed (though still not as fast as mft) and the better dynamic range and low-light performance. hopefully, fuji will continuously work on improving af speed and release a fuji x-e3 with the same sensor and almost all the features of the x-pro2. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have had several m4/3 cameras including OMD-EM5, OMD-EM1 and recently the Panasonic GX8. All are fast and responsive. I still have my GM1, so I am not completely forgetting that system. I bought a used X-Pro1 with 18 F2 and 35 F2 to test the waters. What draws me to Fuji over M4/3 is the style of photography with the OVF and aparture ring on the lens. I find X-Pro1 to be a camera that has all I need at my fingertips, it is easy to change iso or max auto iso. It is easy and fast to change colour profiles or to switch between raw and jpgs. I found all of this to be more cumbersome with the m4/3s - there is so much customisation on those that I never remembered where the setting to change it was.

As for AF, the m4/3s are much better. Picture quality is subjective, of course. I feel that the X-pro1 is better, but almost matched (if not matched!) by the GX8. Size - M4/3s win again as they do for weather sealing (EM1 and GX8).

I will stay with Fuji for now as the OVF and B&W profiles is really enjoyable. Good luck.
 

Latest threads

Top Bottom