Fuji X Trans vs OMD

1) It doesn't matter. Shoot with what you like, be happy with it. People worry way too much about validating their purchases and defending "their" system, especially at mu-43.com. I understand why; it's something of a Napoleon complex for crop sensor users in general.


2) If you still really want to know, the two areas I usually notice an edge for the X-Trans (X100S or X-E1 in my case) over m4/3 on the GH3/OM-D etc is high ISO and post-processing latitude for cropping and highlight/shadow recovery. Shallow DoF is also a key difference; the 35mm f/1.4 requires the CV 25mm f/0.95 manual focus lens to match on m4/3.

Otherwise, it's just the physical experience of the cameras. They're different designs with different strengths and weaknesses. There are things that drive me nuts with the Fujis and things I miss when shooting m4/3. The lenses in the Fuji system are fantastic so far, but there's only a handful of them. I really don't see the two systems as competing other than in the fact that they're both mirrorless cameras with good IQ but lighter and smaller than a DSLR.


As far as examples, I don't have many direct comparisons since that's not how I work. I just shoot whatever I feel like and work with what I've got.

Here's some extreme highlight recovery with the X100S. It's not a great shot and was destined for the trash anyway, but just for kicks I processed it anyway.

8651922991_519a0b4294_c.jpg

Biltmore by jloden, on Flickr

This is the end result after pulling it down -2.55 stops in LightRoom and setting Highlights to -42 at the same time. Only other adjustment was a default of Clarity +25 that gets applied on import.

8651922409_a5dccace13_c.jpg

Biltmore by jloden, on Flickr



Some band shots from our church (different weeks, similar lighting conditions). These are both at ISO 6400 and heavily cropped on the GH3 and the X-E1, respectively. Neither are great shots, but illustrate what I'm talking about. Both are pretty badly abused in post-processing but with the same presets and without grain or noise reduction added. There's a more noticeable grain pattern to the m4/3 shots, which is consistent with my experience with both systems. The gap is larger with some other cameras such as the GX1 where I had the X100S shooting side by side in low light. Arguably I can also agree with Gary that the noise pattern is more like digital noise for m4/3 and a little more organic looking with the X-trans.

8755791208_0d0bcfd397_c.jpg

Liquid band rockin' the Hyatt! by jloden, on Flickr


9068226696_74f5ebe9cc_c.jpg

DSCF5784 by jloden, on Flickr
 
I like to believe that it is me (the photographer) and not the camera who is aiming at a certain "look", certain skin tones, a certain white balance and a clearly defined focus and out-of-focus areas. It may sound old-fashioned, but I really like to think it's me who's taking a picture, not my camera. That said, I usually try to be "nice" to my cameras, meaning that I try to play to their specific strengths and not their weaknesses.

Using all X series cameras (I'll also get a Sigma DP1M soon), I can't ignore that there are major differences between, for example, an X-S1 and an X-E1, certainly much bigger ones than between an X-E1 and an OM-D. I like to embrace these differences, as they grant me an opportunity to use different cameras on different occasions and for different applications. However, I try not to let the camera dictate the look of my images, because I'd rather be the master of this domain, at least within reason (as in playing to each camera's strengths).

The following shots were taken with an X-E1 and X-S1, quite different cameras with very different sensors (APS-C vs. 2/3", X-Trans vs. EXR) and lenses (fast "enthusiast" Zeiss prime vs. slow "consumer" super zoom), but really, who cares? I don't, as long as I get the look, the colors, the WB and the exposure I want. IMHO, exposure (I tend to shoot my skin tones to zone 6) and WB are very important for portraits, but you also have to make sure that your lighting is right. It's true that you can rescue many ill-fated shots in post processing, but I think you are much better off creating nicely colored and exposed SOOC samples in the first place. It seems to make my job much easier. Here are a few recent SOOC JPEGs (Astia) to illustrate my point:

8995386212_c81d9c8a95_z.jpg


8995367670_5e54e15125_z.jpg


9086365790_c719ec726f_z.jpg


9084151707_4614f8aa5c_z.jpg


And here are the same images with different post-processing to create different looks that are a clear departure from the standard OOC results:

9007598855_568a4c03d8_z.jpg

DSCF7812 – f/2 by ricopress, on Flickr

9005621810_2069c37388_z.jpg

DSCF7781 - f/2 by ricopress, on Flickr

9052278479_379896f009_z.jpg

DSCF7287 by ricopress, on Flickr

9054517258_55e9d26689_z.jpg

DSCF7413 by ricopress, on Flickr

Obviously, there are differences between all these images and versions, but they have much less to do with what camera, lens or sensor I used than how I exposed my subjects and processed the RAW (or JPEG) files.

My advice: Try to care less about those little hardware differences (especially those at the 100% pixel level), because how you shoot a subject may be more important than with what camera you shoot it.
 
Sorry mate.. These pics are horrible and even 4 year old EPL1 with Oly 45 mm , PL 25 mm and Oly 75 mm can give u better skin tones n better pics than these ones . Lets accept this gracefully that current MFT is at par with many APS-C sensor cameras . There is no shame or harm in this . We all are different and our choices are different . At the end of the story what cameras do ? They just take pictures.. If someone is able to prove Fuji X trans is slightly better at ISO 6400 then tell me
How many times we shoot at 6400? All cameras will produce different pictures, different looks n different skin tones.. It's all upto us to decide what does please us .. I am sorry but I am not being rude but the examples u have shown don't show any huge advantage

Not trying to be rude? Wow....
 
Bhup, there's no need to go in swinging anytime someone says they prefer the images form another type of camera compared to Micro 4/3. A lot of our own impressions of image quality are purely subjective, particularly given that what we perceive to be the correct representation of colour will likely be different to someone else's. For example, I made some tweaks to the LR raw preset I had for the E-M5 to try to make it's colour output closer to that of my Samsung NX200 and Canon G1X. I found that the Olympus has a tendency to turn light blues to cyan and mid blues to navy, both of which are pet peeves of mine. I love how the E-M5 works, and how it's images look in terms of headline items such as DR, noise, tonality, sharpness, etc, but I still find it's colour output to be problematic on occasions. Sometimes it gets it exactly how I want it, and other times it can be quite frustrating.

One thing that I have seen written here and elsewhere in comparing output from the X-Trans cameras and something like the E-M5 is the film vs digital look, and from what I see I have to agree but from the opposite side of the fence. What I see as "digital" output is more technically perfect and true-to-life and preferable to my eyes, but of course that is purely my own subjective opinion. Whether I could make the output from a Fuji camera work for me is something that I don't know yet.
 
Sorry mate.. These pics are horrible and even 4 year old EPL1 with Oly 45 mm , PL 25 mm and Oly 75 mm can give u better skin tones n better pics than these ones . Lets accept this gracefully that current MFT is at par with many APS-C sensor cameras . There is no shame or harm in this . We all are different and our choices are different . At the end of the story what cameras do ? They just take pictures.. If someone is able to prove Fuji X trans is slightly better at ISO 6400 then tell me
How many times we shoot at 6400? All cameras will produce different pictures, different looks n different skin tones.. It's all upto us to decide what does please us .. I am sorry but I am not being rude but the examples u have shown don't show any huge advantage


Sorry, I'm on vacation up here in NY, so didn't see this comment till now.

But Yes, you're correct! The first 3 images are from the E-PM2. Which you quoted to be horrible.
Which I agree! Shot with the E-PM2 + 17/1.8.
Only the last image was shot with the Fuji, in similar lighting conditions with high ISO.

So please read the whole thread before you jump into another Fuji vs M43 thread.
You obviously do not like the X-E1 thus sold your gear, correct?
Yet, you continue to linger around and jump into every Fuji vs M43 to contribute your option.
If you're so happy with your M43 gear, why bother?
 
I use both, simply because the Fuji lens line isn't as complete. If it were I would use the Fuji only, based on handling and feel for me, rather than image quality. Im sure it is a bit better by sensor size alone, but not the over riding factor.
 
View attachment 2080

View attachment 2081

THANK YOU for being so considerate to actually post some pics! So much talk about "filmesque" and "being smitten" with so little supporting images.

Looking at your 3 posted samples: to me, the best WB is the middle shot, and the hot spot on (her) left side should/could be toned down.

The 3rd shot (the Fuji) shows a pronounced redness (likely just the bar lighting) but more concernedly, it's OOF/way too soft for my taste. If you look at the bokeh, you go "oooooo" but the bokeh is there at the expense of the subject itself. Also, the DOF is so shallow that, the lady on the left is even more out of focus. So, to my DPR-trained/pixel peeping eyes, I have a problem with the Fuji shot.

But I was at a conference with a co-worker yesterday, and asked his opinion on the 3 images. First I asked which he liked better, then I asked which was the "better" image in terms of image quality. He knew nothing of the cameras or camera issues.

He chose the bottom picture as being the best picture, though he did say he thought it was because it looked social and fun, and picked the middle for the best image quality and color. You might not be surprised at that, lol.

Having said ALL that, I think you have far more stunning examples on your Smugmug account that shows both these cameras. After swimming through your Smugmug account, I ordered a Fuji Weds am anyway. This time, I ordered the 35/1.4. I've only ever played with the kit zoom before.

I appreciate your kindness in posting your pics, and am really impressed with your work!

For me, I'm going to give it a whirl, and also see what's announced June 25th. I'm going to unwind my participation on boards after this decision, because, TBH, I don't see what board participation actually gets me anymore. All these cameras are so good. A few years ago, there were real differences. Now, less so. I feel like the music is about to stop in my game of musical cameras, and I'm going to grab a chair. Either Fuji or Oly, and just go a and shoot.

I appreciate your help!
 
For me, I'm going to give it a whirl, and also see what's announced June 25th. I'm going to unwind my participation on boards after this decision, because, TBH, I don't see what board participation actually gets me anymore. All these cameras are so good. A few years ago, there were real differences. Now, less so. I feel like the music is about to stop in my game of musical cameras, and I'm going to grab a chair. Either Fuji or Oly, and just go a and shoot.

I appreciate your help!

Can this be true? I don't believe what I see!! (In Javert's baritone voice) :)

Don't get out of the boards, share your images! Just stay away from gear-centric threads. I like looking at images produced by other people, and get some new ideas. Or, you can think of it as "It's not what you get, but what the others get." :)
 
The 3rd shot (the Fuji) shows a pronounced redness (likely just the bar lighting) but more concernedly, it's OOF/way too soft for my taste. If you look at the bokeh, you go "oooooo" but the bokeh is there at the expense of the subject itself. Also, the DOF is so shallow that, the lady on the left is even more out of focus. So, to my DPR-trained/pixel peeping eyes, I have a problem with the Fuji shot.

But what does any of this say about the camera? To me, your (certainly valid) critique shows that the photographer should have focussed more precisely, maybe should have stopped-down the aperture, and should have used a different film simulation (like Pro Neg. Hi in order to get great skin tones) and/or a different WB setting. It really doesn't say anything about X-Trans vs. Bayer (OMD) sensors or about different cameras.

That's why such comparisons are really difficult to perform. I know this from personal experience. For example, I recently spend more than 30 hard-working hours on a practical comparison of the new Zeiss Touit lenses and their Fujinon counterparts. Sounds simple, but it's not. You really have to think hard when you are choosing your subjects, set-up the scene (think "distance to subject") and choose your comparative settings.

Let me give you an example. In order to compare the sharpness of the Touit 1.8/32mm and the XF35mmF1.4 R at close range (aka MFD) and different apertures (wide open and stopped-down to the "sweet spot"), I very deliberately chose this subject:

8981193889_8ddb406fda_c.jpg


8982389694_59529f38d4_c.jpg


Why? Because this setup illustrates both center sharpness AND corner sharpness without interference of any field curvature one or both lenses may or may not have. Unfortunately, many reviewers tend to shoot flat walls (or a flat test diagram) at open aperture to assess the corner sharpness of a lens, but they set the focus on the center of the test subject. Obviously, any corner softness in such setups can be the result of actual lens softness OR field curvature OR both. Remember, not every lens is a perfect flat-field lens, not even from Leica, and also not from Fuji (think X100).

My setup rules out any field curvature, because no matter how flat or curved the field of the lens actually is, at least SOMETHING near the lower left and right edges of these test shots should be perfectly in focus. To me, that's a much better and practically more relevant comparison. Why? Because when you are shooting at open aperture, you usually want just one part of the image perfectly in focus: the one you are focussing on. You want to isolate that part from the rest of the image. So no matter what lens curvature there is at any given distance (yep, lens curvature can change with shooting distance), you will set the AF field on the part of the image that you want to be in focus (no "focus and reframe", that's a really bad idea with many lenses). This will nullify any lens curvature. That's why I need a test setup that nullifies it as well.
 
I found that the Olympus has a tendency to turn light blues to cyan and mid blues to navy, both of which are pet peeves of mine. I love how the E-M5 works, and how it's images look in terms of headline items such as DR, noise, tonality, sharpness, etc, but I still find it's colour output to be problematic on occasions. Sometimes it gets it exactly how I want it, and other times it can be quite frustrating.

This is the one thing I've seen in the Fuji shots, especially in Taz's gallery (click through his link in his sig line), and other Fuji shots I've seen. The colors seem to be deeper/richer/more saturated, without getting garish. It's like Fuji's red is the Platonic ideal of Red.

That was one reason I can't stand NEX. I find the colors get clownish/garish. Over-saturated in a mostly unpleasing why. I find the OMD colors to be a bit unsaturated. It's actually a look that can be cool, but when I want them richer, they tend to color shift more readily, making the images fussier to color adjust. When the colors are rich (or if shot in black and white) from the OMD, the images are gorgeous. It just takes more time (sometimes) to get there.

I agree with your other point on "filmesque" too -- I am wondering if filmesque just means "soft like my 1970s 50mm 1.4 was" lol

UPS man arrives today with the Fuji, so we shall see :)
 
IIRC, Olympus has a JPEG engine with plenty of options (and also a built-in RAW converter), so isn't the matter of "colors", "saturation" and "contrast" just a matter of JPEG settings?
 
I'm a RAW shooter, but maybe I do need to explore SOOC jpgs. I just so often make exposure mistakes through lack of attention to details, that I've become very dependent on RAW.
 
View attachment 2080

View attachment 2081


THANK YOU for being so considerate to actually post some pics! So much talk about "filmesque" and "being smitten" with so little supporting images.

Looking at your 3 posted samples: to me, the best WB is the middle shot, and the hot spot on (her) left side should/could be toned down.

The 3rd shot (the Fuji) shows a pronounced redness (likely just the bar lighting) but more concernedly, it's OOF/way too soft for my taste. If you look at the bokeh, you go "oooooo" but the bokeh is there at the expense of the subject itself. Also, the DOF is so shallow that, the lady on the left is even more out of focus. So, to my DPR-trained/pixel peeping eyes, I have a problem with the Fuji shot.

But I was at a conference with a co-worker yesterday, and asked his opinion on the 3 images. First I asked which he liked better, then I asked which was the "better" image in terms of image quality. He knew nothing of the cameras or camera issues.

He chose the bottom picture as being the best picture, though he did say he thought it was because it looked social and fun, and picked the middle for the best image quality and color. You might not be surprised at that, lol.

Having said ALL that, I think you have far more stunning examples on your Smugmug account that shows both these cameras. After swimming through your Smugmug account, I ordered a Fuji Weds am anyway. This time, I ordered the 35/1.4. I've only ever played with the kit zoom before.

I appreciate your kindness in posting your pics, and am really impressed with your work!

For me, I'm going to give it a whirl, and also see what's announced June 25th. I'm going to unwind my participation on boards after this decision, because, TBH, I don't see what board participation actually gets me anymore. All these cameras are so good. A few years ago, there were real differences. Now, less so. I feel like the music is about to stop in my game of musical cameras, and I'm going to grab a chair. Either Fuji or Oly, and just go a and shoot.

I appreciate your help!

Glad that I could help! The images posted were from the limited shots that I could find in my Flickr stream & yes, the girl on the left was not in focus!

& thanks for checking out the photos on Smugmug, those are my "real" images that I am proud of!

Hope you enjoy your new camera & happy shooting!

Still on vacation so that's it for now, I'm holding up my friends :p
 
Sorry, I'm on vacation up here in NY, so didn't see this comment till now.

But Yes, you're correct! The first 3 images are from the E-PM2. Which you quoted to be horrible.
Which I agree! Shot with the E-PM2 + 17/1.8.
Only the last image was shot with the Fuji, in similar lighting conditions with high ISO.



So please read the whole thread before you jump into another Fuji vs M43 thread.
You obviously do not like the X-E1 thus sold your gear, correct?
Yet, you continue to linger around and jump into every Fuji vs M43 to contribute your option.
If you're so happy with your M43 gear, why bother?


Hi Taz
My apologies . Nothing to get offended here . Olympus offers the best WB and I have used FUji as well and I like it . I didn't sell EX1 , but I was thinking of getting one . Now I think we all are entitled for opinions and they are like noses . So u have urs and I have mine . If u have shot those pics with Oly17 mm with PM2 then something went wrong there mate. There are thousands examples and shots which show that new sensor in new generation MFt is fantastic even at high ISO. As I said all cameras can't be the same . If you like FUji looks that's fine , go for it .I agree that Fuji pics have a distinct look and we all like it.But dont get this sensor vs sensor argument .
 
I like to believe that it is me (the photographer) and not the camera who is aiming at a certain "look", certain skin tones, a certain white balance and a clearly defined focus and out-of-focus areas. It may sound old-fashioned, but I really like to think it's me who's taking a picture, not my camera. That said, I usually try to be "nice" to my cameras, meaning that I try to play to their specific strengths and not their weaknesses.

Using all X series cameras (I'll also get a Sigma DP1M soon), I can't ignore that there are major differences between, for example, an X-S1 and an X-E1, certainly much bigger ones than between an X-E1 and an OM-D. I like to embrace these differences, as they grant me an opportunity to use different cameras on different occasions and for different applications. However, I try not to let the camera dictate the look of my images, because I'd rather be the master of this domain, at least within reason (as in playing to each camera's strengths).
The following shots were taken with an X-E1 and X-S1, quite different cameras with very different sensors (APS-C vs. 2/3", X-Trans vs. EXR) and lenses (fast "enthusiast" Zeiss prime vs. slow "consumer" super zoom), but really, who cares? I don't, as long as I get the look, the colors, the WB and the exposure I want. IMHO, exposure (I tend to shoot my skin tones to zone 6) and WB are very important for portraits, but you also have to make sure that your lighting is right. It's true that you can rescue many ill-fated shots in post processing, but I think you are much better off creating nicely colored and exposed SOOC samples in the first place. It seems to make my job much easier. Here are a few recent SOOC JPEGs (Astia) to illustrate my point:

8995386212_c81d9c8a95_z.jpg


8995367670_5e54e15125_z.jpg


9086365790_c719ec726f_z.jpg


9084151707_4614f8aa5c_z.jpg


And here are the same images with different post-processing to create different looks that are a clear departure from the standard OOC results:

9007598855_568a4c03d8_z.jpg

DSCF7812 – f/2 by ricopress, on Flickr

9005621810_2069c37388_z.jpg

DSCF7781 - f/2 by ricopress, on Flickr

9052278479_379896f009_z.jpg

DSCF7287 by ricopress, on Flickr

9054517258_55e9d26689_z.jpg

DSCF7413 by ricopress, on Flickr

Obviously, there are differences between all these images and versions, but they have much less to do with what camera, lens or sensor I used than how I exposed my subjects and processed the RAW (or JPEG) files.

My advice: Try to care less about those little hardware differences (especially those at the 100% pixel level), because how you shoot a subject may be more important than with what camera you shoot it.

Thanks a lot for those these wonderful pics .. I think this is the best answer.
Cheers
 
Back
Top