Olympus E-M10 Verses Fuji X-T10

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by CWRailman, Aug 4, 2015.

  1. CWRailman

    CWRailman Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jun 2, 2015
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    When I bought my first E-M10 I had to decide between the E-M10 and the Fuji X-T10 as both had that retro, non DSLR look, size and weight that I wanted. The Olympus won out because of size, available lenses, price and because I would have had to wait about 6 weeks before the X-T10 was in stores. When it finally arrived I did get to play with a X-T10 and it is a nice feeling camera.

    Today I checked the DPReview of the X-T10 and if you go to their "studio comparison" page in the review of the X-T10 and compare the X-T10 to the Olympus E-M10 I was pleasantly surprised to see that at ISO 200 and ISO 1600 the JPG image quality was near identical. Then I switched to RAW and unless my old eyes, and computer screen, deceived me, despite the praise DPReview heaped upon the Fuji for RAW sharpness etc, at ISO 1600 the Oly E-M10 appeared to be sharper than the Fuji. I always move the focused area over to the collar of the old bearded guy B&W image. That is my standard comparison area for all cameras. As such I compare the contrast and amount of detail. I seldom shoot above ISO 1600 so that is the limitations of my comparison as I am a low ISO shooter. (Heck I live in the Valley of the Sun and most times ISO 200 is too much and I am usually shooting with ND filters or Polarizer and or -3 exposure compensation.)

    While the X-T10 seems to be a nice camera and if someone gives me one I will not decline the offer, however I have not been disappointed or regretted my purchase of the E-M10 and I even bought a second one as backup. This comparison solidifies my feelings about not waiting, spending more money and buying into the Fuji system.
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2015
  2. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Yes, the X-Trans sensor - particularly when converted by Adobe software, as DPReview does - is notorious for trading low noise / smoothness for fine detail. Part of why I prefer M4/3, as well.

    In my opinion, all of Fuji's good glass is wasted on their X-Trans sensors. If all they did was put a box-stock-standard 24MP Bayer sensor from Sony or Toshiba for their next body you'd see a a big leap in fine detail quality.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. TNcasual

    TNcasual Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Dec 2, 2014
    Knoxville, TN
    I think that I mentioned it somewhere else, had the XT-10 been available when I bought my E-M10 (last x-mas), I would have definitely compared the two. I was interested in the Fuji cameras, but the XT-1 was just a little too large, and the XE-2 just didn't appeal to me. The XT-10, to me, is essentially an E-M10 but with the Fuji sensor.

    I probably would have still went with the Olympus because of lens size, catalog and cost. But it would have been a good comparison.
  4. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Nov 7, 2010
    Denny, I think a lot of us have been tempted by (or succumbed) to Fuji. I dipped my toe in a bit, but didn't find the water any more appealing (worse in some ways). I think it generally offers a higher ceiling for image quality, if that makes any sense, but the day in/day out performance hardly ever hit that ceiling for me. I'm definitely happier with my E-M5 than the X100 or the X-E1.

    My experience with the lower end of their stuff has kept me away from the newer stuff. While I'm sure they have made improvements I am no longer tempted. Though I do still keep the lowly X10 as my take anywhere snap-shooter...
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, USA
    Fuji colors are really nice, but I always felt like the detail seemed a bit washy.
  6. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Legend

    I was not particulary impressed with the cost/size ratio of Fujifilm vs m4/3 glass (And bodies to some degree) when I choose between the two systems. I also found that the video quality was particularly poor and AF (while improving) is not at the level of m4/3. I don't regret my decision.

    Probably subjective, but I find the X-T10 to be a particularly ugly camera. Just something about it does not work for me. It kind of reminds me of a cheap knockoff of an old Russian Zenit.

    EDIT: Hey, maybe I'm not far off :laugh1::

  7. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Haha, that was something I was going to leave that out of it, since I find Fujis generally handsome, if a bit overdone-retro (I feel the same way about Olympus, if I'm honest), but I agree that the XT-10's visual proportions are...ill-considered. I'm an industrial designer, but I have quirky tastes, so I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way.
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. agentlossing

    agentlossing Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Jun 26, 2013
    Andrew Lossing
    It's a nice camera, there's no denying it. But it is one that makes me think over the strengths of m4/3, including fast focus, good detail, and size (putting a good prime on the XT10 slows down autofocus? What kind of tradeoff is that?).
  9. SkiHound

    SkiHound Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 28, 2012
    Lots of folks love the Fujis and I certainly see lots of nice images taken with them. My read is the X-trans processor raw files are really sensitive to the developer. I'm really happy with my Oly bodies but I think we have tons of terrific options. I know my images are more limited by my lack of vision and skill than by choice of cameras.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. GaryH

    GaryH Mu-43 Regular

    May 1, 2012
    Gary Hasty
    I have perused all of the mirrorless options lately for the third time and for my money, the M43 is the best system to go for if you are looking to downsize a DSLR system or just looking for a high quality alternative to a PNS. I did a comparison of Fuji and Samsung systems and after you get by the body weight savings(which is minimal in their top end products) then the comparable system weight to DSLR is very similar. M43 offers smaller bodies and lenses and now they offer much better zooms than were available 4 years ago.
  11. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    At one time I was pulled into the lure of Fuji. Had the X-E1 and a few primes and a zoom. Used it along side my Nikon kit for a little over a year.

    The Nikon Df came out and I traded all my Fuji gear for it.

    I really wanted an X100...so when the time came and I had some extra spending money, I went to the camera store and handled the X-T1, X100s and the OMD EM1/EM5.

    Walked out of the store with the EM5. Why??

    AF speed/accuracy and system performance. I still feel the edge goes to m43 in this regard over Fuji. I was missing shots with the Fuji gear and that I would not have with my DSLR or m43 - based on the way that I shoot and the conditions that I find my subjects in.

    Why the long drawn out story? Regardless of whether or not I believe/don't believe the Fuji IQ is superior to m43 - that means nothing to me if I can't get the shots I want to get.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. rezatravilla

    rezatravilla Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Aug 7, 2013
    Reza Travilla
    I agreed with you. One of my students using XT10. Indeed at glance you will see a noise free picture but if you manage to see carefully, it is soft almost dull.

    Editing also more complicated since the sensor were worked differently.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  13. bikerhiker

    bikerhiker Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 24, 2013
    Your observation on X series AF I believe is based on an older firmware? The XT-10 new firmware has a better autofocus system which is now very quick; as quick as mid-level DSLR like the Canon 7D and 6D. That new firmware is now available on the X-T1. The X-E2 I think will receive the same firmware upgrade this December.

    In regards to Fuji IQ; Fuji's RAF RAW file will need a good non-Bayer program to convert and is plagued by speed problems. As long as you have a good RAW converter software, IQ looks quite amazing @ ISO 6400 and even @12800 with good balance of detail and sharpness which is very close to a low end Sony full frame, Canon and even Nikon. But you really need to learn how to extract the best out of the file which is no easy task. I was shown this by a friend of mine who shoots for Fuji (they sponsored him with free gear) and showed me the workflow. It's a different approach from my Nikon (Capture NX/Photoshop) and Olympus (OV3/LR/Photoshop).

    The best Fuji converter I've used is Iridient Developer and for HDR RAW, easyHDR which I also use with my Olympus. I don't have a Fuji X camera, but my pro colleagues who own them and know them by heart love them. Some of them are shooting with Nikon D4 and D4s and to have them say they use Fuji X on side jobs along side D4 is pretty impressive. The problem they cited was poor AF performance. I told them about the new firmware upgrade and they are looking into it. XE-1 and X-Pro 1 won't get that new firmware.

    I personally would love to have the XT-10 as a companion system to my E-P5/E-5 system for low light use, because the XT-10 with new firmware focuses in lower light better sometimes than my E-P5. The X series is a good compromise if you want to get close to low end full frame performance without the weight penalty of bigger full frame lenses. I prefer Fuji's colors more so than Sony and even Nikon.
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. bikerhiker

    bikerhiker Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 24, 2013

    Adobe's RAW converter (which I believe DPREVIEW used for the review) is continually improving with Fuji's RAF RAW files to provide much better image IQ, but it can be time consuming. Fuji's approach to noise and detail is a little different. Some like it and some don't and if you know how to deal with the RAF files, ISO 6400 and 12800 RAW can look pretty darn good; almost as close to a low end full frame camera like the Sony A7 or Canon 6D if you use a good RAW converter. Iridient Developer comes to mind. Obviously, it's not going to perform like a full frame, but some people who shoot full frame and want to meet in the middle usually go for Fuji for a weight performance perspective. The new AF firmware on the X-T10 brought the performance up to par with mid-level DSLRs, so unless you really need to shoot at ISO 3200 and 6400 often, then the E-M10 is the best bang for the buck.

    Btw, Fuji X sales are actually doing quite well and they don't drop prices often on their models. Contrast that with Olympus; they seemed to be dropping prices almost every 2 months including the new E-M5 Mark II!! Not good. The E-M10 Mark II is probably out to counteract the X-T10. The X-T10 has a 1/32000 electronic shutter and rumour has it the E-M10 II will have it.
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  15. proximal

    proximal Mu-43 Regular

    Jun 28, 2011
    It also has very good focusing in low light plus a bunch of focus tracking options in the new firmware. I'm probably going to rent an XT1 when I get the opportunity to check it out.
  16. Halaking

    Halaking Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Dec 17, 2012
    Los Angeles
    After having EM5 for a year or two, I bought the X100s as 2nd camera and sold it after 2 months of used.

    I don't think LR5 likes Fuji's RAW, bump up ISO because no IS and I need to step down Aperture (2.0 wide open is not sharp as M43), I don't see real world low light shooting advantage over M43.
    • Useful Useful x 1
  17. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA

    I did go back and re-test the AF with the X-T10. The S-AF is indeed much better, but the C-AF is still lagging behind the GH4 and EM1, in my non scientific testing. Much better, but not enough to get me to jump ship back to Fuji. If I need low light / hi ISO performance, I always have the Nikon Df and the D700 to fall back on.
  18. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Fuji X sales might be doing quite well by Fuji X standards, but they are still hovering at about 5% market share. Less than half of Panasonic's, a quarter of Olympus', and a sixth of Sony's. So they're still the smallest competitor in the mirrorless market, buzz aside.

    Not saying that sales correlate with quality in any meaningful way, but it's worth tempering the enthusiasm...
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    A healthy perspective is always a good thing to have.

    ** edited to correct spelling mistakes
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2015
  20. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    I also tried the lower end of Fuji last year, it was only OK. I had a Fuji S5 Pro a while back and that sensor also took extra processing. But the Auto WB, color, dynamic range, and even SOOC JPegs were great. If they did come out with something like the X-E2 with a 24mp Sony sensor I might have to take another look. I do like the XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 / 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS pair.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.