jloden
All-Pro
- Name
- Jay
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.
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.
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.
Liquid band rockin' the Hyatt! by jloden, on Flickr
DSCF5784 by jloden, on Flickr
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.
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.
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.
Liquid band rockin' the Hyatt! by jloden, on Flickr
DSCF5784 by jloden, on Flickr