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

Fuji X-E1 VS OM-D EM-5

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by mesmerized, Jul 6, 2013.

  1. mesmerized

    mesmerized Mu-43 Veteran

    344
    Jun 18, 2012
    Howdy,

    I do realize that my question might stir up feelings and passions but what's better than putting the cat among the pigeons... ;)

    OK, let's make it simple. Firstly, E-X1 is worse than OM-D AF-wise, isn't it? I don't take sports-related or any in-motion pictures anyway. Secondly, Fuji (so far) can offer a poor selection of lenses, can't they? Yet, the 18-55 f/2.8-4.0 OIS produces really impressive shots and I have no money to buy anything else at this point...

    Here's my current set:

    Olly E-PL1 with Zuiko 14-45mk2, Lumix 45-200 (yeah... you'll curse me for this one, won't you?) and Zuiko 45mm :)love:)

    My initial idea was to get an OM-D... but the more I read about Fuji X-E1, the more I feel like cheating on Olympus... Is it true that Fuji will produce significantly better shallow-depth-of-field pics?

    What faults can we find about X-E1? It does seem to be gorgeous... It's hard not to drool over it...

    PS. Please don't say that I have already answered my dilemma myself by saying what I said in the first part of the post.
    PS2. I do not possess a vast knowledge in the field.
     
  2. chasm

    chasm Mu-43 Veteran

    262
    Mar 2, 2010
    I'm very tempted by that same camera at the moment - the draws for me would be, in order of priority, Fuji's 14mm f2.8 lens, the X-E1's IQ, and their 35mm f1.4 which would, I believe, give me much of what my Nokton 25mm gives me while being significantly easier to use. But the super-quality 21mm-equivalent prime is the killer.
    However, unless a financial miracle happens...
     
  3. Mat - MirrorLessons

    Mat - MirrorLessons Mu-43 Veteran

    274
    Mar 10, 2013
    Turin
    From my experience so far with the OM-D and Fuji X cameras, I can say that:

    _ the X-trans sensor makes a difference, especially with colours and tonal range, different that any other sensor. It has a look of its own, then you can like it or not.

    _AF is still the Achille's tallon for Fuji's cameras. Firmwares are slightly improving it, but we are far from the speed of a OM-D.

    _Yes there aren't a lot of lenses available yet but they all are good piece of glass, especially the primes, which for me better suit the X cameras such as the E1 or the X Pro.

    Right now with the OM-D you can do almost anything, while the X-E1 is more suited for certain kind of photography.
     
  4. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    :horse::horse::horse::dash2::dash2::dash2:
     
  5. OMD4ME

    OMD4ME Mu-43 Rookie

    10
    Jun 27, 2013
    DMV
    I had the x-e1 for 2 months before returning it and getting the OMD. Bottom line is that you will get the shot with the OMD. When you do nail the shot with the X the IQ is incredible but, I was missing way to many shots. I needed something more versatile. Overall the OMD is super fast, weather proof, has incredible IS, tilty screen and a TON of glass. The X is sexy but I missed way to many shots using it... Maybe it came down to my skills. I love my OMD but the simplicity of the X is greatly missed.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Mu-43 mobile app
     
  6. mesmerized

    mesmerized Mu-43 Veteran

    344
    Jun 18, 2012
    Can you elaborate on this one? I'm intetrested in taking pictures of landscapes, architecture and people.

    What about Fuji's better shallow-depth-of-field? How does OM-D performs there?
     
  7. mesmerized

    mesmerized Mu-43 Veteran

    344
    Jun 18, 2012
    Hmm... Well, isn't OM-D more versatile as long as you get enough lenses? My budget is limited so I'll probaby have to choose just a camera only for the time being.

    What kind of shots did you miss while having the X-E1?
     
  8. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Hi.. There is not much DOF different between OMD and EX1, u won't notice it. OMD has more DR than Fuji XE1. MFT has more wide lenses if u wanna shoot landscape . Some people like X tran sensor output but I don't . I like old Fuji X100. Both cameras are excellent and no one can decide which one will suit u. Fuji will be unsuitable for quick and responsive kind of photography where as OMD is an AF beast .Fuji is not that bad and 18-55 is a good lens . There is nothing like betraying Olympus.. U r customer and customer is the king :2thumbs::2thumbs:
    Cheers
    Bhupinder
     
  9. mesmerized

    mesmerized Mu-43 Veteran

    344
    Jun 18, 2012
    Thanks!

    "Kings die like flies" Tyrion Lannister (Game of Thrones) :D
     
  10. Mat - MirrorLessons

    Mat - MirrorLessons Mu-43 Veteran

    274
    Mar 10, 2013
    Turin
    Fuji's have more shallow depth of field because the sensor is bigger, but there isn't a huge difference. I can have a wonderful creamy dreamy bokeh with both system, after that it is a matter of personal taste.

    For me Fuji's cameras are great for landscape, street, portraits.
    The OM-D is a more complete alternative to DSLRs, because you have more lens choice, more accessories, more bodies, etc...

    AF can also be a key factor, and the OM-D is a lot faster than any Fuji.

    For landscapes, Fuji colours could make a difference, I really like them.
    For architecture, it depends what kind of lens you like to use. Both system have very interesting wide angles lenses.
    For portraits, you will find better lens on the Olympus side because Fuji will release them next year.

    So it isn't an easy choice, personally I think that the Fuji X100s is its best product right now: it is a perfect camera and I use it a lot with my OM-D.
    For the interchangeable lens models, I'm gonna wait a little bit more before considering seriously a X-E1 or X-Pro1.
     
  11. TDP

    TDP Guest

    The infamous duo

    9218190667_bd1c26c4ef_b.
    Untitled by Photos By 夏天, on Flickr

    I've shot a LOT with both. The olympus is a bunch of tech in a small package with a healthy army of lens choices to pick from. The Fuji layout is traditional and the sensor produces a film-like image, it also has a larger sensor which does make a difference.

    If you dig the tech, you will prob like the Olympus. If you are a traditionalist, perhaps the Fuji is more your solution.
     
  12. OMD4ME

    OMD4ME Mu-43 Rookie

    10
    Jun 27, 2013
    DMV
    I only have experience with the kit zoom and I missed all kinds of shots due to the faulty AF. If I took time to stage my shots/ subjects the results were remarkable but on the fly its a different ball game. Shame because in really want to love the x.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Mu-43 mobile app
     
  13. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    I have FF's (1Ds), APS-C's (XP1's ana X100S) and µ4/3's (OM-D's). For what I shoot and how I shoot, if I were to have only one camera it would be the OM-D. The OM-D does it all and does it all very well (except fast action ala sports where the OM-D does merely okay, gotta work harder for less keepers than my 1D's).

    The IQ of the Fuji is great (but then so is the IQ of the 1D and the OM-D).
    Native lens selection is minimal for Fuji, it is very very good for µ4/3 and getting better all the time. Fuji lenses are all tops. I have yet to meet a Fuji lens I didn't like. (The new 55-200 is slower than I would want, but I still like it.) The argument is yes, µ4/3 has a ton of lenses, but how many do you need? (Example, do you really need a 12mm, 14mm, 15mm, 17mm, 19mm and 20mm? Probably not, as there isn't a big different in FOV between those lenses, but it is always good to have options.)

    For me the biggest difference is:

    The OM-D is lighting fast to use. It delivers "The Shot", day-in and day-out. The OM-D can be use almost in a shooter's reactionary mode. You see something, boom it's captured.

    The Fuji is slower, not P&S slow but slower than the OM-D. This second or so of slowness is an eternity in capturing subjects that move. If you shoot the Fuji as you would the OM-D you will miss a ton of shots. The Fuji is an anticipatory camera. You gotta think before you shoot. You cannot walk around and boom, boom, boom ... got my shot. You have to anticipate the action, get ready then boom. I find the challenge of thinking (thinking is always a challenge for me) and anticipating the shot refreshing and the final image just that much more rewarding.

    The two cameras are different, not different good or different bad, just different.

    The OM-D hasn't any soul. It is this cold-hearted, steel and glass mechanical killer of an image capture machine. It is merely a tool, a damn good tool, but I haven't any love for it. (I think it's a mutual feeling). The Fuji, ... ohhh the Fuji, is like the cutest cheerleader in the squad and you're dating her. The Fuji is a thing of beauty, beautiful to look at and beautiful to hold. The Fuji is full of personality, its biggest flaw is that it isn't fast as some 'lesser' girls with glasses and big noses (AF, EVF refresh and Write). So you gotta make some allowances just to be with her. For some it is worth it for others no. The Fuji takes me back to when I was shooting film with Manual Nikons and Leicas, back when auto was a car not a camera setting (... and dating cheerleaders - lol).

    Again, if I could only have one system, it would be µ4/3, OM-D.

    Gary
     
  14. Mat - MirrorLessons

    Mat - MirrorLessons Mu-43 Veteran

    274
    Mar 10, 2013
    Turin
    Great post Gary, I couldn't agree more with you.
     
  15. OMD4ME

    OMD4ME Mu-43 Rookie

    10
    Jun 27, 2013
    DMV
    Bingo! OMD is the best all around tool. Granted soulless but ridiculously effective at just about everything... This is why I still own and use my AE-1 and am hunting for a Contax G.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Mu-43 mobile app
     
  16. mesmerized

    mesmerized Mu-43 Veteran

    344
    Jun 18, 2012
    Such a wonderful post! Thanks Gary.

    Hmm... so I suppose the sensor's size doesn't bother you at all, does it?

    Guys, Sony claims that their NEX-6 camera is quite fast as far as AF is concerned. Whenever I bring up the topic of NEX-line cameras people usually claim that there aren't too many lenses available. But like Gary said... how many do we really need? I'd be perfectly happy with 3.

    Recently I've read that Trey Ratcliff totally abandoned DSLRs in favor of NEX-system cameras...
     
  17. stratokaster

    stratokaster Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 4, 2011
    Kyiv, Ukraine
    Pavel
    Sony has all the lenses I personally need.

    I prefer the NEX-6 looks/size/general layout to anything Micro 4/3.

    What I can't stand is their UI — it feels like a cross between PSP and an ancient cellphone. And because of almost missing customizability, you're going to use that horrible UI often.
     
  18. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Nov 7, 2010
    I agree with stratokaster. I was very happy shooting a 5N w/3 or 4 lenses (image wise), and actually liked the fact that there weren't a dozen lenses to covet. But that UI just wore me down after a while. Instead of getting used to it and accepting it I just got more and more annoyed at it.
     
  19. mesmerized

    mesmerized Mu-43 Veteran

    344
    Jun 18, 2012
    Does SONY has in their offer something like Zuiko 45mm f/1.8? I mean, a damn good portrait lens?
     
  20. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    From a different thread:

    I think that for most of us ... for the photogs that don't shoot landscape or architecture or technical stuff ... the differences between FF images and µ4/3 images are so subtle that the differences are rendered insignificant.

    I think image impact is far more significant than a slight difference in IQ. After a certain baseline of IQ, (which all modern digital ILC's have attained), a little more DR, a little less DOF, a slight improvement in ISO noise, doesn't matter. Nobody is looking at those elements. What the viewer sees is the total image, shutter release timing, sharpness, proper exposure, composition and even contrast are far far more important than that extra percentage of FF IQ.

    Nobody says "Lousy picture, but man ... look at that dynamic range, kudos for DR!"

    Sure, DR, extremely shallow DOF, extremely low noise all enhance an image, but even collectively, after attaining that minimum baseline of IQ, that FF enhancement for most images is not relevant ... it is insignificant to the viewer.

    Don't misunderstand this final statement, it is not meant as an attack. It is early ... I'm still half asleep waiting for the coffee to kick in, and my wordsmithing is in low gear ... but in the name of directness and brevity:

    Thinking that sensor format will improve your photography is more wishful than accurate. Working on timing, composition, exposure, post processing skills and harmonizing with your equipment is much much more important than sensor size.

    Gary