Landscapes are my second (if not first actually) priority. Landscapes, portraits, streetlife.then you probably won't have time to pixel peep every image you take of foliage which would be hardly ever since you're looking to do portraiture. best thing would be to look at sample jpgs of the type of photography you'll be doing, and see how you feel about it. trust what you see (or don't see) with your own eyes. that's your deciding factor.
(Sent from another Galaxy via Tapatalk.)
Ean, wait a second. Are you actually saying Fuji does NOT have this whole foliage problem when JPEGs are taken? Or are you saying I won't be able to see them? This is something that might turn my camera purchase deal upside down so I gotta be sure.If you're shooting JPEG you won't see any foliage smearing. It's not an issue with the camera or the sensor - it is an issue with how certain RAW developers handle the RAW file.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm probably the wrong person to comment since I don't see it much to begin with, but I believe those who see it see a lot more of it with raw and just a bit with the jpegs. If you don't spend time processing your files you probably won't spend time pixel peeping your images and you may never see it at all, raw or jpeg. If you do, you may see more of it with raw and less or none with jpegs. But if you pixel peep you'll find tradeoffs and limitations with anything (except for the best full frame gear with the best full frame lenses) and there the tradeoff is carrying the gear around. Fuji just has a slightly different set of tradeoffs.Although an E-M1 is on its way, theoretically I could still switch it for a Fuji.
Guys, please explain it to me like I'm a 6-year-old... This whole foliage isse... Is it going to be a major issue when it comes to JPEG files? Everyone tells me it's a RAW processing thing releted to Adobe products but in all honesty I don't even have time to shoot RAW and then spend hours doing the post-processing.
Simply put, are JPEGs show even more of the foliage issue?
PS Photography is just a fun hobby and I probably won't have much time to spend in Lightroom... You might wonder why I'm after so expensibve cameras. Well, the reason why I'm going for top-shelf cameras is because I hate compromises when it comes to quality. Learnt it the hard way. I'd been saving for a long time to get something worth that much money.
If you're noise resistant more than you're smearing resistant you should go for the Fuji - there's a bit less noise but there's arguably a bit less detail too. In either case you have to look closely to see the differences. With a good fast lens, you can do a lot with the EM1 in low light. You can arguably do a little more with the Fuji, but not really all that much. I wouldn't fear either. You can second guess either for different reason. But if noise is your #1 boogyman, you may have more second guessing with the Oly than the Fuji...I'm just thinking... I can still switch my E-M1 for X-T1 (or A7 for that matter). Until I actually pick it up from the seller and pay for it he can still offer my the X-T1 if I really want it. So. Should I go for it or not? I don't wanna have any regrets whatsoever and I'm afraid the Oly will fail me in low light situations. I'm really not a very noise-resistant person and it's something that can simply piss me off quite a bit (pardon my English)
Please don't base your buying decision on my comments, but from my experience if you only shoot JPEGs and don't post process you're not likely to see it. What you will see if you shoot JPEGs however (again in my experience) is overly smoothed waxy skin at the highest ISOs. Some like it, some don't - I don't which is why I shoot RAW (and use LR which leaves me with the foliage smearing issue on occasion - as Ray said, everything is a trade off)Ean, wait a second. Are you actually saying Fuji does NOT have this whole foliage problem when JPEGs are taken? Or are you saying I won't be able to see them? This is something that might turn my camera purchase deal upside down so I gotta be sure.
You mean if you buy EVERYTHING offered for sale that's part of the system? Other than that I don't see how Fuji wins. The XT1 and EM1 are priced pretty similarly. M43 has more lenses available and several focal lengths in both budget and higher end levels. Generally speaking the higher end stuff (with the LOUD exception of the 42 f1.2) is pretty similarly priced to the Fuji stuff. It's true that m43 has options that Fuji doesn't have, in most cases YET. But it will get them. Like the 12-35 or 12-40 f2.8 and 35 f2.8. Fuji's working on similar lenses but it appears they'll be at least as expensive, possibly more. Or the 75mm f1.8 which is an amazing lens that Fuji doesn't have anything like. So if you buy those m43 lenses and save money by not buying the non-existent Fuji counterparts, then Fuji is a money saver!If you still are ending up unable to decide, why not let the cost of the entire system be the tie breaker? In this case, Fuji wins handily.