Fuji In need of advice... E-M5/E-M1 vs X-T1 vs A7.

Kay

Veteran
Dec 27, 2013
As others have mentioned before there are a number of other effects at play. I can't remember having seen anything even remotely close to your sample in images from my XP-1. Since you mentioned you don't want to waste too much time with PP I don't think you could go 'wrong' with either of the cameras you've listed. I mainly shot a number of NEXes (5, 5n, 7) for the last 3 or so years, had the EM-5 for a while and really liked it a darn lot but finally ended up with the X-P1 and in terms of IQ including SOOC jpgs there's little left to be desired but then I shoot >95% RAW. Once I'm at it, one of the deciding factors for me to stick with Fuji is that fantastic 18-55mm zoom, mainly since I'm constantly on the move (onboard luggage restrictions) and not at last because it's hands down the 'best' zoom lens I've ever owned that holds it's own against any of the fixed lenses in that FL range. I mainly use it like a set of fixed lenses anyway (28-35!-42-83mm equiv. - think of a quatro-Elmar) and after 4 or so months I'm still blown away by the results.

Regarding those X-Trans demosaicing issues with Adobe products and other developers, they sure exist e.g. with some sorts of foliage
but only if you look closely. For me they're only relevant with a relatively small number of images and only if I do large color prints but I mainly process my stuff in B&W anyway and haven't found that to be a real issue. Just keep in mind that in order to squeeze the most out of any sensor/lens combo you'd have to shoot RAW and learn how to process those beasts.(I spent years in the darkroom and still learn something new every day.)
Finally and you might have heard it often enough already there is no perfect camera or system ...you'll always end up with a compromise, no matter what you choose or how much you pay. Know what you really need but expect that to change at any time, lol.
I might get a X-T1 myself one day but then mainly for the environmental sealing and those delicious 14-bit RAWs. YMMV.

BTW, I still have a NEX-7 somewhere in a box together with my Zeiss and Sigma glass. At base ISO and shot RAW the 7 delivers fantastic IQ, still beats the OMs at higher ISO but since it has a huge speck of dust somewhere in the middle of the EVF and I'd probably get less than 400€ for the body I rather keep that stuff as a backup system.

Good luck with your decision !



Thanks to you all!

One more thing about Fuji. Have you ever had problems with this:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

Kay

Veteran
Dec 27, 2013
Some extra 2cts ... you've asked for it, lol...
Regarding that whole bokeh and/or OOF rendering blurb and the ongoing full-frame mania I personally don't feel restricted at all by the speed limits of the 18-55mm, APS-C or even the lens/compact sensor combo on my X10, as long as there's sufficient light. On the contrary, slower f stops/smaller sensors force you to pay attention to background/context instead of letting everything around your main subject drown in that tempting f1.2 cream nirwana. I tend to see those super-soft backgrounds as a kind of special effect, nothing more and I personally grow tired of effects rather qickly, same with UWA lenses (or in my case even colors, lol) to an extent that I still prefer the X10 over the X-P1 in the streets and don't miss any of that SFX stuff at all and might even sell the 35mm lens that came with my XP-1 these days. Before I set sails almost 3 months ago I left it in a box and so far didn't miss it a single second. And again yes, the 18-55mm is that good .. at least my copy :)
 

CaptZoom

Veteran
Mar 22, 2013
There isn't a bed camera in the three cameras you (OP) mentioned. They have different strengths (A7-full frame; EM1-speed and world class environmental seals; XT1-amazing lenses priced well below their competition), and weakness (though no major weakness apart from the dismal lens selection for the Sony).

If you plan on subjecting the camera to adverse weather conditions, the EM1 is the way to go. Apart from that, the differentiator between them is the interface gestalt. More on this later....gotta run. Emergency.
 

mesmerized

Regular
Mar 26, 2014
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.
 

romi.gilles

Top Veteran
May 17, 2013
back in Crooklyn
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.)
 

mesmerized

Regular
Mar 26, 2014
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.)
Landscapes are my second (if not first actually) priority. Landscapes, portraits, streetlife.

So... If I want OOC JPEGs the foliage issue is something I just have to accept. Is that right?
 

romi.gilles

Top Veteran
May 17, 2013
back in Crooklyn
gotcha. and that's the thing - i don't notice it in my pics. i don't pixel peep at that level. also, only time i'll ever use jpgs is for b&w street photos (using fuji's film simulation). for everything else, i can't get past not processing a raw conversion.

(Sent from another Galaxy via Tapatalk.)
 

ean10775

All-Pro
Feb 13, 2013
Cleveland, Ohio
Eric
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
 

mesmerized

Regular
Mar 26, 2014
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
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.
 

Kay

Veteran
Dec 27, 2013
I still haven't found time to do a shootout between the XP1 and the NEX-7 but maybe I start something tomorrow that might include some shrubs. On the other hand it's only a matter of seconds to google up tons of X-Trans jpgs of all sorts of green stuff.
 

mesmerized

Regular
Mar 26, 2014
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)
 

Ray Sachs

Legend
Sep 21, 2010
Not too far from Philly
you should be able to figure it out...
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.
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.

Seriously, I'm as guilty of overthinking as any and more than most, so I know it when I see it. I think you're over thinking it. The image quality differences are not huge for any sort of actual human viewing. Fuji trades off a bit of detail for cleaner files - Olympus is perhaps a little noisier and more detailed. But you've got to really be looking closely to see it. Some complain that you can see noise in the skies even at base ISO in Olympus files. And you can, but you have to REALLY be looking for it - you have to WANT to see it to see it. In normal viewing, it's roughly as relevant as Fuji's water-color effect - it's not really.

As many have noted already, the more important thing is if you enjoy shooting one more than the other for any of a myriad of reasons. They're both so damned good. If you can afford both, get 'em and you'll never have to second guess yourself. I have both (use 'em for different purposes though - very little overlap) and don't second guess myself. At least between these two - I second guess myself on other gear all the time! Otherwise, pick one and get to know it real well and you may eventually find enough flaws with it to move on. But you might not. And the odds are about the same with either. So you're at the point where you need to just go with your gut...

-Ray
 

Ray Sachs

Legend
Sep 21, 2010
Not too far from Philly
you should be able to figure it out...
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)
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...

-Ray
 

ean10775

All-Pro
Feb 13, 2013
Cleveland, Ohio
Eric
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.
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)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

CaptZoom

Veteran
Mar 22, 2013
Among other things to consider is the huge advantage Olympus/EM1 has with it's excellent (and probably industry leading) image stabilization tech, which claws back some of the high ISO advantages other systems have over the EM1.

You should get the camera which feels best in yours hand, the one that is comfortable, the one that makes you want to use it. The images quality difference are nominal especially if you're not doing your own RAW processing.

If you still are ending up unable to decide, why not let the cost of the entire system be the tie breaker?
 

Ray Sachs

Legend
Sep 21, 2010
Not too far from Philly
you should be able to figure it out...
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.
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!

But otherwise, I don't see it. At the wide end, you have the 9-18 and 7-14 at about $600 and $900 respectively. We're just about to see a Fuji 10-24 for $1000. For primes at the wide end, Fuji has the 21mm equivalent 14 and Olympus has the 24 equivalent 12, both around $700-800. Then at 28, you can get the budget Pany 14 for a bit less than the also now budget Fuji 18 and you'll soon have the option to get the Pany 15 for probably a good deal more. At 35mm you've got the two levels of Olympus 17, but neither is more than $400 generally and the $750 (on SALE) Fuji 23, usually $900. The Fuji is a much better lens, but it's also much more expensive. At 40, the Fuji 27 is normally priced pretty similarly to the Pany 20. At 50mm, you've got the Pany 25 similar in price to the Fuji 35, maybe a bit higher, but then the Olympus 25 on the lower end. At the 85-90mm portrait length you have the budget Olympus 45mm and the VERY pricy Fuji 56 - again, a better lens but not a cheaper one.

So explain to me how Fuji wins handily in terms of cost? I'm assuming lower is better... :D

-Ray
 

Latest threads

Top Bottom