1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

EPL5 doing pretty well, IMO (vs. XE1)

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by WT21, Feb 25, 2013.

  1. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    I'm testing the Fuji XE1, and the high ISO is impressive, and the camera itself is gorgeous, and the controls are great. But the EPL5 is super-portable, and has great lenses and a flippy LCD. What's not to love? Here's a series of tests that might interest you. These are all screen grabs off of 100% viewing in LR. All shot in RAW, using LR default developing.

    I tested the Fuji lens I have (the 18-55, 2.8-4.0 kit) against my Oly 17/1.8 and PL25. OK, you might say, but kit vs. primes is not fair. First, this is a $600 kit! And with good reason. According to Photozone.de the Fuji kit lens is as sharp as the Fuji primes when at it's optimal f/stop (5.6).

    See for yourself:
    Photozone MTF on the Fuji kit: mtf.png
    Fujinon XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 R LM OIS (Fujifilm) - Review / Test Report - Analysis

    Photzone MTF on the Fuji 35mm prime: mtf.png
    Fujinon XF 35mm f/1.4 R (Fujifilm) - Review / Test Report - Analysis

    Here's a comparison at ISO400. This is using the XE1 kit at 35mm and the PL25. Both set at f/4.0. According to photozone.de. the PL25 peaks at f/2.8 for sharpness, and the kit at f/5.6, so 4.0 is in between for both.
    [​IMG]

    Next up is shooting at their ideal aps (2.8 and 5.6 for the PL25 and the kit lens) and letting the ISO float. hint: the Fuji ISO is two stops higher than the EPL5. You can see how good the Fuji high ISO is.

    [​IMG]

    This is a comparison of the Olympus 17/1.8 at 2.8 vs. the kit at 23mm and at f/5.6. (Fuji is on the right. Fuji ISO1000, EPL5 ISO 400)
    [​IMG]

    Lastly is the PL25 and the kit at 35mm, both at ISO400, both purposely underexposed by 1 stop and then pulled up. to reveal shadow detail.

    [​IMG]

    I like the Fuji A LOT, and the Fuji ISO is squeaky clean to 1600. But I can't keep both, so I'm thinking they are close enough that I'll just keep the EPL5.

    Here's the camerasize page to compare the sizes of both:
    Compare camera dimensions side by side

    What do you think?
     
    • Like Like x 5
  2. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    These are, of course, crops and a micro view at noise and sharpness. I'm looking at overall image look/feel/quality as well. If I get a chance, I might post that later, but no promises :)
     
  3. Livnius

    Livnius Super Moderator

    Jul 7, 2011
    Melbourne. Australia
    Joe
    That's one hell of a 'kit' lens !
     
  4. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    It really is. It's biggest issue is distortion at 18mm, it's got a pretty bad 4.6% barrel distortion (see the photozone article). Then, of course, it's aperture is fast for a kit, but not a prime. Still, especially if you get it in a bundled kit, it's worth having.
     
  5. Biro

    Biro Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 8, 2011
    Jersey Shore
    Steve
    As much as I love the Fujis, as an Oly E-PM2 owner, I could certainly see why you'd stick with the E-PL5. I plan to own the Fuji X100s this year. But if the E-P3 replacement turns out to be the stellar micro four-thirds rangefinder with built-in EVF that many of us pine for, there could be complications.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    That's what I kept thinking as I held the Fuji. I love the heft, build, direct ss controls, EV controls, built in EVF, etc. But then I kept thinking, I could sell all my gear and great lenses for fewer options, and if Oly (or Panny) releases an RF type camera, I'd just want to come back. So, I think I'll wait a bit more, and continue to pocket my little EPL5.
     
  7. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    Here's a quick compare on size:

    Jacket Pocket-able
    [​IMG]

    Yeah, not quite as much:
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    Personally I'd stay with E-PL5. If I want heft, etc well I'd just pick up on of my work bodies. I think there is something real special about the Pen's and I don't plan on changing. So if you want to move on from that E-PL5 just let me know. I can see myself either moving up to that or keeping my E-PM1 and looking to add an E-M5 or E-P5 (viewfinder please, please,....)
     
  9. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    Nice try :)

    I wanted to try the Fuji, and it is gorgeous, but the IQ is not up to FF, and the size is not as small as m43. I like have FF + m43. I was hoping the Fuji might replace one or the other, but I don't think it will. Awesome camera, but probably just not for me.
     
  10. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    926
    Nov 6, 2012
    Canada
    I thank you for taking the plunge on the X-E1 and making the comparisons so that I don't have to.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Bokeaji

    Bokeaji Gonzo's Dad O.*

    Aug 6, 2011
    Austin, TX
    exactly!

    i need both of them so i can figure out which one will be my new baby! lol
    i love my em5, i just dislike slr shaped cameras. im silly like that.

    and i love my x100, but i hate cameras that operate as tho the cpu is in another dimension and we have to wait for the transdimensional portal to open for them to communicate...
     
  12. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    I'm not sure if the JPEG compression is the issue, but I'm seeing a lot of artifacts and noise, especially on the E-PL5 images.

    I guess the main takeaway though is that the Fuji kit zoom is every bit as good as two of the higher-priced mFT primes at normal apertures.
     
  13. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    Actually, the kit lens is $600 or $400 when bought with the body. It's not a cheap lens. It's good quality though.
     
  14. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    926
    Nov 6, 2012
    Canada
    I was really tempted by the Fuji zoom. f2.8-4 is a sweet spot for me.
     
  15. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    That's what the E-M5 needs to really make it in the event world. Sure there are 2 really nice f2.8 Pan zooms. But short of buy 2 each for backups? As I've said, just give me those 12-60 f2.8-4 and 50-200 f2.8-3.5....
     
  16. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    The comparison with the 17/1.8 is interesting. Look at the out of focus areas behind the flowers. The Fuji lens shows green fringing (LOCAs as I think the experts call it), whilst the Oly lens is free of it. This is a feature of the 17/1.8 that I've noticed and it's fairly unsual to find wide primes that don't suffer in this way.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. drewbot

    drewbot Mu-43 Top Veteran

    702
    Oct 21, 2011
    Toronto, ON
    I can't wait for all these Fuji RAWs to be processed in LR4.4 RC...
     
  18. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    926
    Nov 6, 2012
    Canada
    It's true.

    When Steve Huff reviewed the 17/1.8, he thought his Olympus body automatically corrected chromatic aberration until readers (myself) pointed out that only Panasonic bodies corrected CA in-body.

    Then he revised his blog entry, simply praising the lack of CA in the 17/1.8.

    I must say, Olympus may not make the best specified lens, but they sure perfect what they sell.

    PS: this is probably the wrong thread to praise the 17/1.8 lens.
     
  19. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    I've recently grabbed a Fuji X-Pro1 and it is a completely different camera from my OM-Ds. Today I downloaded Capture One 7 so I can process the Chineses New Year's Fuji RAW files. I think the IQ of the Fuji rocks. I haven't processed the OM-D images from the same event for a comparison. Hopefully by the end of the week I'll have everything finished.

    The OM-D is quick and super responsive. It can shoot rings around the X-Pro, but the X-Pro slowness isn't a negative. The OM-D is so responsive that one can get 'The Shot' through reaction. But the Fuji requires that you anticipate and think out the shot. A different approach from the OM-D and dSLRs and the change of pace is a good thing.

    If I had to choose only one cameras system, it would be µ4/3. But having both systems is like being a quarterback with a cannon for an arm that can run like a horse.

    Gary
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. dav1dz

    dav1dz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    926
    Nov 6, 2012
    Canada
    Football analogy! +1