Olympus OMD v Fuji X Pro 1

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by chrism_scotland, Jun 10, 2012.

  1. chrism_scotland

    chrism_scotland Mu-43 Veteran

    483
    Jun 1, 2011
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    I was just wondering if anyone has had or has both the OMD and the Fuji X Pro 1 and could make some comparison?

    I've just got rid of an EP2 and picked up a Fuji X100 which I'm really impressed with but I'm looking to pick up another interchangable lens camera.

    However my experience with the X100 and EP2 has led me to have a requirement for any camera to have a viewfinder built in (EVF or OVF) as I found the VF2 very fiddly as an add-on to my EP2 and its great having one in the X100.

    I'm mainly attracted to the OMD and Fuji X Pro 1 mainly because I've had M4/3 before and it seems the OMD is a major step up and that the lenses, etc are really good.

    But I do like the "look" and handling of the X Pro 1 and with it being basically an X100 with a lens mount would be very like my X100.

    But like I said I just wondered if anyone has had both and could make comparison?

    Cheers,

    Chris
     
  2. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Super Moderator

    Apr 17, 2010
    Near Philadephila
    I have both and its not really a comparison because they're such different cameras. On a rational basis, the OMD makes more "sense" because its obviously far more versatile, is a much faster operating camera, has incredible IBIS, has a great flip-up touch screen that's incredibly functional if you liked shooting with TLR's in the old days, has all of the lenses in the world available NOW, has very very good image quality, and is a lot less money (particularly if you already have some m43 glass). And the raw can be well processed today if that matters - raw processing for the Fuji looks like it may take a while to get right.

    The X-Pro is limited to three lenses right now, is a much larger camera (its a good deal larger than the X100 also, although it feels quite good in the hand), is not nearly as fast in operation (write speed, bursts, auto-focus, etc). It just doesn't feel as refined and complete on some levels.

    BUT...

    The X-Pro is just a blast to shoot with in ways I can't fully explain. And if you define image quality as "QUALITY" rather than how it scores in tests and taking photos of brick walls, the Fuji has its own unique look (particularly shooting jpegs, which are so good I don't care about the raw issues) that I personally find nicer than just about anything out there. The EVF on the Olympus is better than the EVF on the Fuji, but the OVF on the Fuji is obviously something you don't get with anything BUT Fuji - I'll take the OVF any day and to me that's one of the key reasons to get an X100 or X-Pro. I'd say the X-Pro is better at high ISO but not by as much as I initially thought. The OMD stops being really good (for my purposes) at about 3200 - the Fuji is still really good at 6400. But sometimes I can get the same exposure with the OMD at 3200 at a shutter speed only slightly slower than the Fuji at 6400, so unless really low light is a high priority, its not a huge difference.

    There's no rational basis to choose the Fuji over the OMD, but what's rational about what we LIKE? If I'm shooting a particular event or type of shooting that calls for the particular capabilities or focal lengths I can only get with the OMD, I take the OMD. I do a lot of street shooting, and the OMD with the 12mm lens is the best street setup I've yet found for how I shoot (which shouldn't mean squat to anyone else - the Fuji is a fully capable street camera also). BUT, more often than not, I'll just grab the Fuji with the 18mm (maybe the 35 in really low light) and be really happy just shooting with it all day. When I take my bigger bag with both the Fuji and the OMD, I tend to shoot more with the Fuji and pull out the OMD for specific tasks.

    So, objectively, the OMD has a lot more going for it. But subjectively, I personally like shooting with the Fuji more most of the time and I like its output more as well. Which you would prefer is something only you can decide. If you were looking for a detailed technical breakdown of the IQ differences, you're never gonna get that from me - I just don't look at cameras that way. I shoot with them, process the files, and over time I end up knowing what I like. Tests mean nearly nothing to me... But that stuff is out there if that's what you're after...

    -Ray
     
    • Like Like x 7
  3. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
  4. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
  5. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    • Like Like x 2
  6. chrism_scotland

    chrism_scotland Mu-43 Veteran

    483
    Jun 1, 2011
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Thanks Amin, I did do a search but to be honest there seems to be more OMD v NEX 7 debate than Fuji X Pro 1.

    Ray, thankyou for your insight, I always prefer to hear from people rather than people on their own website!!

    I've spotted a few days old X Pro 1 kit with the 35mm lens at what I think is a steal so I'm very tempted.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. chrism_scotland

    chrism_scotland Mu-43 Veteran

    483
    Jun 1, 2011
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Well just an update, I've bought the X-Pro1, for £1300 I've got a 2 week old X-Pro1 and the 35mm f1.4 lens so I'm delighted as I've saved about £500 on the new price..

    I did have another play with an OMD and sadly its just too small for me to comfortably grip and the add-on grip makes it too large for a "small" camera, looking forward to getting the X-Pro and giving it a whirl!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. chrism_scotland

    chrism_scotland Mu-43 Veteran

    483
    Jun 1, 2011
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Well after a few weeks with the X-Pro 1 I've decided to pass it on for now, like Ray I agree there is just "something" about the images but for me I have a more urgent need for wider lenses that Fuji won't have until later in the year in the shape of the 14mm.

    Excellent camera and I can see it developing into an excellent system in the future the EVF/OVF is excellent and I really love the styling/handling of the body.

    The 35mm f1.4 lens is probably the best lens I've ever owned and I do really like the 50mm (effective) field of view on it.

    I wasn't quite as impressed with the 18mm f2.0 or I might have just used that until wider glass is available.

    High ISO and low light performance is excellent, its really good to know that you can bump it well up and use it safely, something I could never do with the EP2, however I understand that the OMD is much better at higher ISO's.

    I've not fully decided where to go next but frankly for lens choice there is only one compact system worth having for me and thats M43, although I would prefer a body with an EVF built in this time as much as I loved the EP2.

    I did have another play with an OMD tonight and while it is smaller I suspect that adding the landscape grip portion of the add-on grip would make it comfortable enough for me so its possible I will go down the OMD route, particularly due to some of the frankly stellar images I've seen here and over at SC taken with the camera, it looks like Olympus have made a real step forward with the camera.
     
  9. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    Is there a reason you're not looking at Panasonic? The G3 and GH2 have excellent IQ and built-in EVFs, and are lot less expensive than the OMD without the grip, much less with the $300 grip factored in.
     
  10. chrism_scotland

    chrism_scotland Mu-43 Veteran

    483
    Jun 1, 2011
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    No not really, I do quite like the GX1 although I'd prefer a built in EVF, I'm not sure about the G3, I've found it a little cramped to use when playing in store and part of me also would like the IBIS in the Olympus bodies.

    It could well be an option though to pickup a G3 for now and some lenses and then an OMD later.
     
  11. NJH

    NJH Mu-43 Regular

    164
    Mar 8, 2012
    South West England
    Chrism did you keep the X100?

    I bought an X100 recently after reading about all the firmware updates and the new lower prices. Its actually more or less the same price in the UK now as the E-P3 with kit lens. I have absolutely fallen in love with this camera but after reading a lot about the X pro it seems to me that the biggest problem with it is not perhaps other cameras but Fuji's own X100 being so good for so much less money. Its even more odd for Fuji to release an optically excellent wide angle conversion lens for the X100 and rumours of a teleconverter abound, its like they are creating 2 systems which must make the X pro even more limited in its appeal.
     
  12. landshark

    landshark Mu-43 Veteran

    307
    Apr 27, 2010
    SO CAL
    I have both, in fact I have 4 two of each body, they will both do a great job they are just different. The OM-D does lots of things very well, the AF is pretty fast but after quite a bit of shooting actually proving to be slightly less accurate than the XPro, the IBIS is exceptional, the range of lenses fairly extensive mix of fast primes and nice zooms with more coming out all the time, evf is good, does decent video, small, weather sealed, well made, great street shooters camera, especially in stealth mode with the tilt screen, very customizable to the point of being almost too much and cheaper. On paper the OM-D seems like the clear winner.
    But then one uses the Fuji and I have to admit you either fall in love or not. I fell in love, for me it is more of a photographer’s camera, one in which you have to pay more attention, with no IBIS one needs to use two hands to hold the camera, with the ovf, love, love the ovf, one has to pay attention as to where the corrected AF square is, there is no real video to speak of, no face detection af, no menus and menus of custom functions.
    It is just a camera that feels and shoots like a camera, simple controls where there are supposed to be, marked apertures on the lens, marked shutter speeds on the top dial on the body, exp comp dial, function button for ISO, all the things people rave about when using a Leica, just with AF.
    There is something about the XPro that just makes me want to shoot, both cameras do well on the street but the OM-D feels more like a hidden photo experience, where the Fuji when working at it’s best, one shoots the subject through the viewfinder, it sort of forces you to admit your taking someone’s photo. Sure you can shoot from the hip with the XPro but then I think one is missing out on what this camera is. Then there is the image quality, it is lush, thick and stunning, there are not many other small cameras that produce such beautiful images as the Xpro, the Om-D is very close and if one only shot with it you may not see the difference but when you shoot with both the XPro is all by it self.
    As to the Fuji lens, they very nice with the 35 being outstanding, the 60 is good but can hunt a little in low light, as all macros do, the 18 is a very good serviceable lens. Real world shooting is very different then lens tests and I like what I am getting out of the 28, just as much as the Olympus 12.
    As Fuji goes forward with their lens road map, the lens gap should close up between both systems.
    So at the end of the day like I said in the beginning, they are both great both capable of stunning images, they are just different
     
  13. wildwildwes

    wildwildwes Mu-43 Veteran

    456
    Jun 9, 2012
    Brooklyn, NY
    After playing around with the X1 Pro and comparing it to the OM-D, I have to agree with most of what Landshark opined about the two cameras... For me, I ultimately preferred the little Oly because quite frankly it allowed me to capture better images -- consistently. The Fuji was a bit too quirky with it's hit or miss autofocus, inconsistent auto exposure, etc. Perhaps the Fuji simply needs a little more time to evolve into what we all thought it would be right out of the box?

    Just my two sense... :rolleyes:
     
  14. landshark

    landshark Mu-43 Veteran

    307
    Apr 27, 2010
    SO CAL
    Please forgive me but it seems like you did just play around with the Fuji and not really use it, talking about the AF one could go in circles for a long time but inconsistent auto exposure, I have not seen anything like that in fact it is consistently more accurate than most with exposure, including the OM-D, the Fuji does a much better job in those difficult high contrast harshly lit shots than the OM-D, could also be the longer Dynamic range.
     
  15. chrism_scotland

    chrism_scotland Mu-43 Veteran

    483
    Jun 1, 2011
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    I have and am currently using the X-Pro 1 and there is no doubt for me that its an amazing camera, the AF while not exactly fast is very similar to the X100 and better than the EP2 I had before, its not the cameras performance that I'm bothered about its the 18mm lens which is good but not great, especially v the 35mm which is astounding.

    If I was happy to just use the 35mm then it would be a no brainer and I would keep the XP1 I have no doubt it will only get better with firmware updates and the lens lineup planned looks very very good.

    Its just that for now I could really use A: A wider lens and B: a cheaper 50-60 (approx) mm lens, at present M4/3 would allow me to get both (12mm & 45mm)

    I have to say I am tempted to just return the 18mm (already packaged to go back) and keep on with the 35mm and maybe look at a wide 15mm Leica but I have seen reports that like the NEX 7 the sensors aren't really great for UWA legacy glass.

    Again and this goes for the NEX too, the XP1 with a lens is actually larger than I expected, the X100 was very pocketable (in a coat) which was great, where the XP1 with even the smaller 18mm lens is a much larger combo.

    It seems to me that the OM-D with a 14mm or 20mm is potentially an even smaller package than the EP2 I had before was albeit a bit taller perhaps, that said the OM-D is still very pricey, at £1000 in the UK there are probably big questions for me as to whether its worth more than 3x the price that I could pay for a G3, although having had the Olympus EP1 and EP2 I am used to the Olympus setup on the camera, buttons etc and I was never fully sure about the Panasonics.
     
  16. NJH

    NJH Mu-43 Regular

    164
    Mar 8, 2012
    South West England
    This is why I have decided to not buy any more cameras for a while but will continue exploring m4/3 lenses, the x pro could be a great system in a years time with the 21mm equivalent lens and firmware upgrades. Olympus may release an E-P5 with the guts from the E-M5, Canon may produce a killer MILC with PDAF that uses its range of telephoto lenses as good as their APS-C DSLRs, who knows?
     
  17. krugorg

    krugorg Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jul 18, 2011
    Minnesota USA
    I keep trying out different APS-C systems and it seems like a lot of them get the normal range right, they seem to all struggle on the wide primes. Soft corners, even when stopped down, CA, etc.

    I do like going out the door with two camera bodies. Most recently, I have been using the E-M5 with the 12mm mostly mounted, and then a K-01 with a 45mm equiv. It works well for what I am doing and I like having both ready to go, rather than changing lenses in the field. I decided that I am going to sell off the Pentax, though, and either get a full WR Pentax kit, or maybe jump up to something FF.

    I think an E-M5 with the 12 and 45mm lenses would be a great kit and keep you happy until maybe some of the other systems have matured.
     
  18. wildwildwes

    wildwildwes Mu-43 Veteran

    456
    Jun 9, 2012
    Brooklyn, NY
    Yessir. As stated I did not have an extended audition of the camera but simply played around with one at a store and another out in the field for a few minutes that belonged to someone else. During those opportunities, what I reported herein is exactly what I experienced. My style of shooting requires that the camera delivers the goods quickly and without hesitation. With the Fuji, the focus was often NOT spot-on nor was it fast or "instantaneous", but rather it hunted back and forth (and quite slowly I might add). Exposures were not consistently accurate either... If I were more of a shooter that took my time composing an image and had the time to focus carefully the X1 would be on my short list however. That said, the X1 handled & performed for me more like a traditional Leica rangefinder while the OM-D delivered more like a high performance DSLR. Neither is right nor wrong, but one definitely will benefit from the "right" camera for the job! Yes?!?
     
  19. Monza76

    Monza76 Mu-43 Regular

    98
    Mar 22, 2012
    This is all a moot point to me because of my limited budget, however I must say that camera bodies are often given too much emphasis, especially in the digital age. I am primarily a Pentax DSLR user who has owned a number of Pentax bodies and has a large selection of Pentax lenses. I have learned (through painful, pricey experience) that glass is where it is at. I jumped into m4/3 with both feet a few months ago by buying closeout sales of an E-PL1 14-42mm kit, an E-P2 and a 17mm. These, all-together cost me much less than the cost of an OM-D (body only) and I have been shooting with them, exclusively, for a couple of months.

    What I discovered was that I still want my DSLR but I have a new constant companion camera in the E-P2. The E-PL1 was one of the first Olympus models with a weak AA filter, and it shows, the image quality of the E-PL1 is better than the E-P2 (comparable, or even better than my Pentax K20D). I have mounted the 17mm on the E-PL1 with the VF-1 finder and it is marvelous, but... Image quality is not everything. I have mounted the 14-42mm (the cheaper plastic mount version) that came with the E-PL1 onto the E-P2 with a modified lens hood. It will fit in a big jacket pocket, it has good image quality, the AF (with latest firmware) is acceptably fast and the MF function is quite good. The E-P2 has such a solid feel and a good control layout (although the wheel surrounding the four way switch is very fiddly). It is somewhat less refined in some areas compared to the newer E-PL1 but it just feels so right.

    Any decent camera will get you the images you want with the right glass so, to me at least, the feel of the camera has become more important than the ultimate IQ. I briefly dabbled in Nikon but found that I liked the feel of the Pentax better so I sold the Nikon gear again.

    I believe that if you like the X-Pro1 so much it is worth your while to wait for the UWA lenses you want. I have been through some terrible cases of GAS (financially limited of course) and know that it is usually best to wait until a system reaches a level of maturity before giving up on it. I looked at SONY before going to m4/3 and the biggest factor in that choice was availability of lenses and adapters. Next year things may be different but I will stand by my choice.
     
  20. landshark

    landshark Mu-43 Veteran

    307
    Apr 27, 2010
    SO CAL
    On this I will have to disagree on the first point and agree on the second.
    Back in the days of film the body was less important, one could argue about film transport, or focal plane alignment but at the end of the day it was the film that mattered, in today's digital age the chip is what matters, it is not the body it is what is in the body, great glass with a bad chip does not equal great images. Chips are the modern day film