m43 ... it's the lenses (for me)

sprocket87

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
532
Well... the 10-24 Fuji is way better than the 9-18 Olympus...
Also, some of these comparisons just don't work in reality. I own a GX85, and an X-T2. I have tried multiple times to compare low light shots between the two cameras and their zoom lenses (on the Panasonic, the 12-40 and the 35-100 f/2.8 - on the Fuji, the 18-55, 55-200, and 18-135) and even if the m43 lenses are faster, I get consistently better images with the slower lenses on the Fuji. So, no, no need to use the 16-55 on the Fuji setup.
One thing that the GX85 does better is low shutter speed stuff with the primes. The Fuji primes are not stabilized and to get the same level of sharpness you just need to crank up the shutter speed and ISO. But that's about it. Still, in broad daylight it is a totally different story.

Regarding the 18-55 specifically... it has considerably more narrow FOV than the 12-40 or 12-35, so it's not an option if you need wide angle. Which bites, because otherwise it's a killer lens.

As for the IQ comparison you made, do you think the Fuji lens is sharper, or that the advantages offered by the larger format, higher resolution sensor, and better ISO handling are the difference? Because I would have a hard time believing the 18-55 is superior optically than the 12-40mm Pro.
 

sprocket87

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
532
Again, no doubt. My OP was not about ultimate performance, but the intersection of size, price and performance.

I don't want to speak for @sprocket87 but I think the point was the 16-55 goes wide, whereas the 18-55 does not. If you can lose those 2mm on the wide end, the 18-55 is a great comparison.

EDIT, yes, this, haha :D
 

Starfleet

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Feb 14, 2015
Messages
529
Location
Michigan, USA
Real Name
Alex
Regarding the 18-55 specifically... it has considerably more narrow FOV than the 12-40 or 12-35, so it's not an option if you need wide angle. Which bites, because otherwise it's a killer lens.
As for the IQ comparison you made, do you think the Fuji lens is sharper, or that the advantages offered by the larger format, higher resolution sensor, and better ISO handling are the difference. Because I would have a hard time believing the 18-55 is superior optically than the 12-40mm Pro.
I was specifically talking about handheld low light/high ISO scenarios. On the GX85 noise kills all details beyond a certain point.
Both the 12-40 and 35-100 are extremely good lenses. Never complained about their sharpness, and I do not think the 18-55 is any sharper than those. The advantage coming from teh sensor is clearly there though. One more consideration, the focus motors on the 14-40 and 35-100 are great too... while those on the Fuji lenses are kind of blah. Not well suited for fast tracking, which is unfortunate because tracking on the X-T2 works very very well.
 

sprocket87

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
532
I was specifically talking about handheld low light/high ISO scenarios. On the GX85 noise kills all details beyond a certain point.
Both the 12-40 and 35-100 are extremely good lenses. Never complained about their sharpness, and I do not think the 18-55 is any sharper than those. The advantage coming from teh sensor is clearly there though. One more consideration, the focus motors on the 14-40 and 35-100 are great too... while those on the Fuji lenses are kind of blah. Not well suited for fast tracking.

Agreed on all counts. Sorry if it seemed like I was calling you out -- I was actually just trying to make sure I understood your point clearly. And I agree. As a GX85 owner, I find the sensor performance less than satisfactory (this is m43 in general for me personally). But it's a trade off.

Really, this conversation sums up my current gear lineup: GX85, O9-18, P20, O45. I also have a P14-140 that I may sell due to (1) underuse and (2) size -- it isn't huge for what it is, but in my quest for a diminutive system it's a boat anchor.

The low-light, bokeh-loving pixel peeping side of me really, really wants to get in bed with Fuji or maybe even Sony. But every single time I run the numbers, think of the focal lengths I want to cover and the actual use cases and costs involved (including size, weight and portability), I just can't make it work. My basic kit acquits itself every time.

Although sometimes, just barely.
 

Starfleet

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Feb 14, 2015
Messages
529
Location
Michigan, USA
Real Name
Alex
And I agree. As a GX85 owner, I find the sensor performance less than satisfactory (this is m43 in general for me personally). But it's a trade off.
Yep, it is a trade-off, any system you go with. I see the limits in the Fuji setup, and I see the limits in the m43 setup, and that's OK. Can work around them, especially considering that I am not a professional photographer. I am keeping m43 mainly for the size, just like many other people. m43 in good light is extremely good. Went the Fuji route because I wanted, in order of importance, 1. better controls on the camera, 2. faster lenses for higher subject separation (without breaking the bank with the f/1.2 m43 lenses), 3. better low light performance, and 4. a more reliable continuous autofocus. These days some m43 bodies match my wants for item 1 and 4 (the GX85 continuous focus and eye recognition is amazing), but items 3 and 4 keep me attached to Fuji. Also for item 1 the X-T2 remains my absolutely favorite camera ever. But tempted by the IBIS of the X-H1. It would be a dream to be able to shoot reliably sharp shots with the 56mm f/1.2 lens at shutter speeds lower than 1/60 s, or any other fast prime. With time I have kind of become a prime shooter... and the 16, 23, 35, and 56mm lenses are just awesome.
 

sprocket87

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
532
Yep, it is a trade-off, any system you go with. I see the limits in the Fuji setup, and I see the limits in the m43 setup, and that's OK. Can work around them, especially considering that I am not a professional photographer. I am keeping m43 mainly for the size, just like many other people. m43 in good light is extremely good. Went the Fuji route because I wanted, in order of importance, 1. better controls on the camera, 2. faster lenses for higher subject separation (without breaking the bank with the f/1.2 m43 lenses), 3. better low light performance, and 4. a more reliable continuous autofocus. These days some m43 bodies match my wants for item 1 and 4 (the GX85 continuous focus and eye recognition is amazing), but items 3 and 4 keep me attached to Fuji. Also for item 1 the X-T2 remains my absolutely favorite camera ever. But tempted by the IBIS of the X-H1. It would be a dream to be able to shoot reliably sharp shots with the 56mm f/1.2 lens at shutter speeds lower than 1/60 s, or any other fast prime. With time I have kind of become a prime shooter... and the 16, 23, 35, and 56mm lenses are just awesome.

Nice articulation of the key points. You have no idea how many times I've lusted after the X-T2 in line with this very reasoning. But in my current situation I can't afford and don't want to maintain two separate systems, and (so far) the math works out in favor of keeping the m43 system and dealing with its limitations. But honestly, if Fuji had a faster, smaller wide (prime or zoom), I would have to think really hard. The 10-24, as nice as it is, is just a tank.
 

Turbofrog

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
5,362
Agreed on all counts. Sorry if it seemed like I was calling you out -- I was actually just trying to make sure I understood your point clearly. And I agree. As a GX85 owner, I find the sensor performance less than satisfactory (this is m43 in general for me personally). But it's a trade off.

Really, this conversation sums up my current gear lineup: GX85, O9-18, P20, O45. I also have a P14-140 that I may sell due to (1) underuse and (2) size -- it isn't huge for what it is, but in my quest for a diminutive system it's a boat anchor.

The low-light, bokeh-loving pixel peeping side of me really, really wants to get in bed with Fuji or maybe even Sony. But every single time I run the numbers, think of the focal lengths I want to cover and the actual use cases and costs involved (including size, weight and portability), I just can't make it work. My basic kit acquits itself every time.

Although sometimes, just barely.
Do you have the 14-140 version 1 or 2? If it is the version 2, and you find it to be a boat anchor at 265g, you will struggle to find any lenses that you can use in the Fuji system. The only zooms will be low-grade consumer ones. Fuji's 14-140 competitor, the 18-135 with a considerably smaller range, weighs 490g...
 

mike3996

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 17, 2018
Messages
394
Location
Finland
Fuji 23/2 is nice and compact but I do not like the spherical aberration one bit! 23/1.4 is nice but heavy and I hear it's not as fast to focus as one'd hope. (Never missed shots with Fuji primes in terms of AF speed, but the faster the better. Fastest possible AF provides a very positive fast feedback, highly satisfying. Oly 17/1.8 for the win.)

I have rare occasional need for a "70-200" for landscape work and stuff like that.

M43: Panasonic 35-100 f4-5.6. Less than 3 inches and something like 120 gr. Enough said!
 

tino84

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
290
There’s to say that f2 Fuji primes you take into the comparison are WR, while those for Sony and m4/3 are not..
 

Turbofrog

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
5,362
There’s to say that f2 Fuji primes you take into the comparison are WR, while those for Sony and m4/3 are not..
True, but then you need a WR body, so you're up to a $1600 X-T2 or $1900 X-H1. (I don't consider the X-T1 to be comparable to modern bodies, too many limitations and liabilities).

It's nice that you can get a weather sealed camera and zoom kit in M4/3 for $900. That's $2500 with Fuji...
 

tino84

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
290
True, but then you need a WR body, so you're up to a $1600 X-T2 or $1900 X-H1. (I don't consider the X-T1 to be comparable to modern bodies, too many limitations and liabilities).

It's nice that you can get a weather sealed camera and zoom kit in M4/3 for $900. That's $2500 with Fuji...

Well, but that lenses taken in comparison are WR is a fact, and you not considering ax-t1 a comparable body is..well, your opinion ( that I don’t share f.e. :) ).

In any case, it’s not equal even consider a zoom kit wr ( and which are you referring? 12-50? 14-140? 12-40 2.8?) to a prime f2.
Are we comparing what every system could offer, or are we comparing one with each other?
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
6,129
Location
Mars
I always find it funny when people bring up Fuji's weather sealed f2 primes because they are cheaper. A very good friend of mine shoots Fuji and wishes they had made the faster and better IQ lenses weather sealed like Olympus is doing. He does a lot of event shooting and needs fast glass for the limited light so needs the fastest primes Fuji has, but also shoots a lot of outdoor stuff that could involve rain. So now he has to buy two lenses instead of just buying 1 lens that can cover both like I can with Olympus. Plus, most of the times you need weather sealing it is also light limited and you want the faster glass to keep ISO lower.
 

WT21

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
7,411
Location
Boston
In any case, it’s not equal even consider a zoom kit wr ( and which are you referring? 12-50? 14-140? 12-40 2.8?) to a prime f2.
Are we comparing what every system could offer, or are we comparing one with each other?

There are lots of ways to compare systems. My OP was not meant to find the lenses that are all alike. The point was what is the combination of price, compactness, quality.

If someone needs WR, then you have to go larger body and more expensive (generally speaking). In any of the systems. The fact that the cheapest and smallest lenses in a certain FOV happen to be WR is besides the point for this comparison.
 

jli

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
82
Yep, it is a trade-off, any system you go with. I see the limits in the Fuji setup, and I see the limits in the m43 setup, and that's OK. Can work around them, especially considering that I am not a professional photographer. I am keeping m43 mainly for the size, just like many other people. m43 in good light is extremely good. Went the Fuji route because I wanted, in order of importance, 1. better controls on the camera, 2. faster lenses for higher subject separation (without breaking the bank with the f/1.2 m43 lenses), 3. better low light performance, and 4. a more reliable continuous autofocus. These days some m43 bodies match my wants for item 1 and 4 (the GX85 continuous focus and eye recognition is amazing), but items 3 and 4 keep me attached to Fuji. Also for item 1 the X-T2 remains my absolutely favorite camera ever. But tempted by the IBIS of the X-H1. It would be a dream to be able to shoot reliably sharp shots with the 56mm f/1.2 lens at shutter speeds lower than 1/60 s, or any other fast prime. With time I have kind of become a prime shooter... and the 16, 23, 35, and 56mm lenses are just awesome.

Fuji was my intro to mirrorless 2 years ago and I'm still with it, added m4/3 now too. I still think Fuji has the best ergonomics and to add to your list of points, I just like the 'look' of the jpgs with the film simulations. For me, m4/3 is for the extra reach from the crop factor for telephotos without feeling like you're carrying a brick (those DSLR/sony 100-400's my goodness). I haven't investigated the m4/3 compact primes/zooms as my fuji x100 fits perfectly in my coat pocket, but I suspect they are great as well, though having used the fuji 16 and 35 before, I don't know if much can top the look of those lenses :)
 

Starfleet

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Feb 14, 2015
Messages
529
Location
Michigan, USA
Real Name
Alex
Fuji was my intro to mirrorless 2 years ago and I'm still with it, added m4/3 now too. I still think Fuji has the best ergonomics and to add to your list of points, I just like the 'look' of the jpgs with the film simulations. For me, m4/3 is for the extra reach from the crop factor for telephotos without feeling like you're carrying a brick (those DSLR/sony 100-400's my goodness). I haven't investigated the m4/3 compact primes/zooms as my fuji x100 fits perfectly in my coat pocket, but I suspect they are great as well, though having used the fuji 16 and 35 before, I don't know if much can top the look of those lenses :)
You are right about the jpegs. I always shoot raw, but with the xt2 sometimes I just pick the jpeg cause they already look good out of the box. The jpegs on my gx85 are way worse than what I got with the xt2.
 

Turbofrog

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
5,362
Well, but that lenses taken in comparison are WR is a fact, and you not considering ax-t1 a comparable body is..well, your opinion ( that I don’t share f.e. :) ).

In any case, it’s not equal even consider a zoom kit wr ( and which are you referring? 12-50? 14-140? 12-40 2.8?) to a prime f2.
Are we comparing what every system could offer, or are we comparing one with each other?
I was referring to the Panasonic 12-60mm, which is sold as a kit with the G85 for $899 these days (intro price was just $999).

Olympus has sort of let the 12-50mm go quietly by the wayside recently, but I believe you could have got an E-M5 kit with that lens for under $1000 as well.

The least expensive WR zoom that Fuji offers is the 18-135mm for $899. (Olympus equivalent: 14-150 for $499, or in a kit together with the 17/1.8 for $799).

I definitely wish that we had some small weather-sealed primes. But that's not really the way the market winds have blown. The assumption is that if you can't change lenses due to environmental conditions, you need to have a versatile lens on your camera, meaning a zoom. And it's true to say that a WR zoom kit is not equal to an f/2 prime...but which of those two is the better option? That's not at all an obvious choice.

And there is the Sigma 16mm/1.4 with a degree of weather-sealing for $449. That is an identical price tag to the Fuji 23mm/f2 (which is obviously smaller and lighter, though the Sigma is faster and seems to be optically better). So you still get a weather-sealed M4/3 kit with a fast(er) prime for significantly less money than Fuji.

Anyway, you pays your money and you takes your choice. Obviously there two systems are not directly comparable in terms of what they offer.

You are right about the jpegs. I always shoot raw, but with the xt2 sometimes I just pick the jpeg cause they already look good out of the box. The jpegs on my gx85 are way worse than what I got with the xt2.
To be fair...$600 camera vs. $1600 camera. I'd really, really hope that would be the case.
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom