E-M5 or X-E1

[zapatista]

I just ordered a XE-1 with the kit (zoom) lens. Curiousity got the best of me, but it seems the 18-55mm is pretty close in size, resolution and aperture (f4 on aps-c vs. f2.8 on m43) at max zoom to the Panasonic 12-35mm. The 2 main advantages of the Panasonic to me are MFD being a little closer and the 12mm (16mm eq. on Fuji) wider field of view. The price for the XE-1+ lens off of evilbay ($1150) is just a little more than the going rate for the 12-35mm.

 

[CarlB]

Hey Mike, with a 1.5X crop the Fujinon's 18 - 55mm is equivalent to an m43 2x crop at 13.5 - 41.2mm.

So, very similar to a Oly or Pana kit zoom in view, just a lot faster aperture, and really sharp too. Be sure to update the camera to firmware 1.04, it did seem to help auto-focus, again it's quite fast and sure with the 18-55mm zoom.

 

[zapatista]

Hey Carl,

I know the equivalences...wider is better, I'd rather have 16mm than 18mm.

 

[CarlB]

Ah, misread your post. A Fuji 16mm vs. Fuji 18mm would be more interesting for sure.

 

[gumpbert]

Gumpbert, you may have saved me some money. I too love both my X100 and E-M5, and was thinking about switching the latter to an X-E1 with the 14 and 60 lenses, but I think I should stay where I am, namely happy.

Do give the X-E1 a try, but don't trade in your beloved E-M5 until you have at least had some time to evaluate the X-E1 first and you feel confident it is the correct move for you. You might just find it is the ultimate camera for you

 

[Wolf]

I have both these cameras and I feel that the OM-D is a lot more "jack of all trades" and more reliable (AF wise).
However I really love the XE1 too, because the images it produces are just jaw dropping beautiful.
At the moment I have the 35mm and the "kit" lens. As some people have said the kit lens is absolutely fantastic , so good even then i'm gonna sell my 35mm (since it lacks good AF in low light).
I will by myself the oly 75mm instead, a focal length I don't have covered yet and according to you guys and reviews it's one the best lenses ever.
Note that the 35mm Fuji is a great lens too, but I don't see me using it much since I have the "kit" lens and my om-d with some primes for low light work.
(and the 18-55 is very nice for low light too, with the great XE-1 IQ and the IS the lens has)

Again like somebody else posted, I thought about getting the 12-35 lens (yes i know it's 2.8 fixed and WS) , but then again, the price i paid for the xe1+ kit lens is near equal to the price of that lens and from what I read the fuji lens is a tad better lens.
It's also nicer to have two cameras to avoid lens swapping when you're in the field ;-)

I can take the 18-55 fuji XE1 + omd with 75mm in a small bag and be prepared for any "situation" that comes along ))

 

[CarlB]

That is a great plan, Wolf. I can see doing the same.

 

[zapatista]

Wolf, Yeah the 75mm is just really worth it...it's sublime in operation, feel and rendition.

 

[Lindsay D]

This subject has been done to death on my blog and ultimately I could not manufacture any enthusiasm for the XE1. The OMD on the other hand excites me hugely, perhaps more so than any other camera I've owned. It gets the job done, and it does so with style and efficiency. The image quality is sensational (I didn't really warm to the output of the X Trans sensor on the fuji) and the Micro 4/3 lenses are out of this world. It's an amazing piece of kit and I say that as a full-time professional photographer who is incredibly thankful for the OMD's tiny size and light weight.

 

[Lawrence A.]

Why not both?? I'm quite interested in the Fuji X series, especially not that I have the small sensor X10. But I'm unwilling to give up my E-M5 to acquire the X-pro or X-E1, both of which appeal to me a lot.

But the Olympus has a better selection of primes, faster auto-focus, easier to process raw files, is weather-sealed. Since I'm not keen on any of the 17mm (35mm EFL) lenses for m4/3, at least for the money they are charging for the new one, I'll probably get a Fuji X100 with the fixed lens to cover that focal length, which will give me the rangefinderish experience in a form that I really do need.

 

[xdayv]

I have to unsubscribe here for my own sake LOL!

 

[TDP]

Why not both?? I'm quite interested in the Fuji X series, especially not that I have the small sensor X10. But I'm unwilling to give up my E-M5 to acquire the X-pro or X-E1, both of which appeal to me a lot.

I have both XE1 & EM5 and I shoot with both quite often. They both bring something to the table (IMHO) unique to the photography toolbox of today.

 

[Microman]

I have used both the Olympus EM-5 and the Fuji X-E1 and I think the image quality of the Fuji is much better. It's not just the lower noise levels at higher ISO's, there's something about the look of the photos that's very, very nice. I'm not sure what it is. I guess it's the wonderful sensor. Photos from the Fuji seem to be less harsh with lower contrast, more open shadows and an almost film-like 3D look. To my eyes, dynamic range seems better too. You gotta love the amazing 35mm f/1.4 and the excellent 18-55mm f/2.8-4 zoom. Build quality is very high and the image quality is, well you know what it is, excellent.

The Olympus has some amazing features like weather sealing, touch screen, lots of fidly buttons and wheels, tilting OLED screen and slightly faster autofocus, but the Fuji feels better in my hands. Everything is a little bigger, better grip, buttons feel more tactile, the controls are great too. I just love the dedicated wheels/ring for exposure compensation, shutterspeed and aperture. The camera and lenses are not heavier then the Olympus system. Although the sensor, grip and controls of the Fuji are better, it's about the same size as the Olympus.

Personally I'd trade all the Olympus features for the image quality of the Fuji alone. Luckily the Fuji handles well and the autofocus is fast enough for my needs too.

 

[inthecage]

Fujifilm X-Pro1 and X-E1 — The same 16mp pixel size with a larger (APS) sensor tends to be the attraction here. I love the X-Trans sensors for black and white work, but the tendency to color smear is something I find annoying and problematic. While there are many that claim the Fujifilm sensors are better than the E-M5's, I would disagree. What one giveth, it then taketh in something else. It's really mostly a wash for my work (again, except for black and white, where I prefer the Fujifilm). A lot of folk get taken in by Fujifilm's attractive JPEG rendering, but I kind of like Olympus's better, mainly because it has less color shift in it ~Thom Hogan. Sansmirror.com

Image quality is subjective at best. For some reason Fuji camera owners see a magical quality about the images it produces. There is no such thing as magic.

 

[mattia]

Microman - are you talking out of camera JPG or processed RAW?

I know a lot of people like the native Oly JPG engine, and it's pretty good, but it can be a little too punchy. Although you can adjust the tonal curve to taste to 'open up' the shadows and soften the contrast if you so desire on the E-M5. Feed the raw files to a half-decent processor and it's a whole different ballgame in terms of possibilities.

 

[NJH]

Image quality is subjective at best. For some reason Fuji camera owners see a magical quality about the images it produces. There is no such thing as magic.

I agree 100% with that. TBH the main difference I see between my X100 and the E-P2 I had is smoother tonality, especially in blue skies which look smooth rather than speckled. I don't think that is anything to do with the sensor though but down to very very good JPEG processing OOC. I also appreciate not having blown out skies but the wider DR of the latest M4/3 cameras have improved dramatically in this department. However I think I have gone off the Fuji colour in the JPEG processing. Velvia is OTT and makes grass look way too punchy, it also crunches out the dark end unless the shadows are set to soft. Astia is my favourite but its more muted than vivid on Oly cameras. After shooting with the X100 for several months as an ex-Oly user I have to say that overall I think I prefer Oly Vivid for OOC JPEG or processed in Olympus master software. This actually brings me on to the number 1 gripe I have with Fuji. You can only get those lovely JPEGS from the camera, unlike Olympus they don't give you an easy to use software package that replicates the in-camera processing options with your raw files. Instead you get a copy of Silkypix. This really really sucks massively IMHO.

I think AWB is better on the Fuji but its not a big deal, especially given that its film simulations such as Velvia produce unrealistic green colours IMHO as an example.

 

[mattia]

If you want good to great film simulations and have a camera supported by DxO Optics, consider getting DxO's film pack. It's not really my deal, but I got to try it out free for a month or two when I first purchased DxO Optics Pro, and they did look good...

 

[drewbot]

Pro Neg. High on the X-E1 and X-Pro 1 are sublime. I suggest you guys try it out.

My default processing "look" I gravitate towards when using the E-M5 was already very close to the Fuji JPEG.

 

[dnightingale]

Pro Neg. High on the X-E1 and X-Pro 1 are sublime. I suggest you guys try it out.

My default processing "look" I gravitate towards when using the E-M5 was already very close to the Fuji JPEG.

Agree, Pro Neg Hi is fantastic. Astia is also very nice. Provia (Standard) is too flat, and while Velvia is great in certain situations, I don't just use it for a standard setting. I personally don't like Oly Vivid either for that matter.