Real Life Difference Between Fuji-X and Current M4/3?

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by hunyuan7, May 30, 2013.

  1. hunyuan7

    hunyuan7 Mu-43 Regular

    140
    Aug 31, 2011
    This thread is a bit of a fart in your face to the images I have seen in another thread called "Share: Fuji-X Images."

    I have not seen one photo there that a m4/3 camera cannot do. It goes to show that the photographers in this website are just good photographers. The equipment--proverbially--is just a tool.

    I hope I don't regret starting this thread. I'm actually a reserved guy, but I just don't see the hooplah over the Fuji X system.
     
  2. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    None except different ergonomics , different handling and different AF speed. IQ wise - none :drinks:
    Cheers
    Bhupinder
     
  3. phrenic

    phrenic Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 13, 2010
    While there is probably some excessive excitement over the X-trans sensor tech (vs say something extreme like the foveon sensors), I think there's enough opinions from experts in the photography community to note that it is different and highly regarded.

    I'm not sure why there should be any more need to prove that it can do things that M43 can do than you have to prove that M43 can produce images that you can't get with an advanced compact camera (for example there's some very nice pictures produced at SeriousCompacts.com).
     
  4. Hyubie

    Hyubie Unique like everyone else

    Oct 15, 2010
    Massachusetts
    Herbert
    I have both - and I can tell you I don't think I can let go of any one system. And I respectfully disagree with my friend Bhupinder -- I wouldn't keep both if there were no real differences between them. It would be too rich for me. :biggrin:

    I am not a pixel-peeper or a technical-testing guy - I just look at an image. Sure, they overlap, but there is something to the Fuji sensor that creates an X-factor (pun fully intended).

    You don't have to move from :43: if it suits you. But I think you should be confident with what :43: does best for you. Don't look at what XYZ system can do vs. what :43: cannot do.

    P.S. - I commented something along the same vein in the full-frame image thread. I noted that as far as landscape/street/etc., FF doesn't seem to have a real advantage of m43. Except maybe when you blow it up. And most agreed. But I do know that there was a difference, and I wouldn't say I don't see what the hoopla is about. I guess it is just the tone of the question, for me.
     
  5. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    I agree with the OP, and it certainly comes down to the shooter more than the camera.

    I'll put in my two cents worth, and I'll introduce the word "better" here, which is NOT a term the OP used, but is often implied in system comparisons.

    I think I have now tried every camera or system EXCEPT -- Samsung, Pentax and Leica. I am VERY confident that the newest sensor m43 keeps pace very well with everything else out there, and with the size and lenses, fits better for my needs than all the others.

    But "fits my needs" and "different" does not mean "better". I think Fuji is different than m43 (certainly in ergos and handling, and people I respect have also said the images are different, though I haven't noticed it myself, but I trust their judgement). I think Sony NEX is different, and I think FF is different. But they are all great, and there are only a couple of times where "better" comes in. For example my FF 10,000 ISO is noticeably better than my m43 at super-high ISO, but I've only shot there for grins and giggles. I have never had to shoot that high on purpose. I think also the C-AF on any DSLR current is "better" than C-AF on any mirrorless (though focus accuracy is better in mirrorless than DSLRs).

    But in general, I no longer find any of these systems to be "better" than another -- perhaps better in certain specific tasks, but I find the word "different" to be more appropriate.

    Just my opinion, of course.
     
  6. Livnius

    Livnius Super Moderator

    Jul 7, 2011
    Melbourne. Australia
    Joe
    It's a funny thing sharing images via sites like this and Flickr etc....scaled down to 1024x768 or something similar and site managed sharpening added, I could swear I've seen Panasonic GF1 + kit zoom landscapes that look as good as the landscapes taken with a Phase One medium format camera.....bet those guys feel so stupid.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Captmatt

    Captmatt Mu-43 Rookie

    21
    Apr 7, 2013
    Homer, Alaska
    Matt Wilkens
    I have both as well and do see a difference in the two, not only in image quality, but also in handling. If I had to choose one, I would probably choose the Fuji. Not to say the Olympus is not a fun, capable camera, with a great lens line up, but at the end of the day they are all just tools. This kind of discussion has been going on for years, film vs digital, 35mm vs medium format, aps vs full frame, nikon vs canon, etc, etc. If I was a pro I would get a camera that provided me what my clients needed. As an enthusiast I can get a camera that I enjoy using that gives me the result I want. Most of the results seen from either system can be duplicated with a film SLR that would set you back less than a hundred dollars, so it probably isn't really a matter of what one system can or can't do, it is a matter of what works for you and your budget.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Hyubie

    Hyubie Unique like everyone else

    Oct 15, 2010
    Massachusetts
    Herbert
    :2thumbs:

    Ask Amin, too - afaik he has Leica, m43, Fuji, and NEX. BUT he went out and just bought a Sigma DP2 Merill. Maybe he's writing them off somehow as tax deductions? :biggrin:
     
  9. spinyman

    spinyman Mu-43 Top Veteran

    603
    Nov 19, 2010
    San Diego
    I just don't see the point in this thread.
    Web posted photos from all the current cameras will appear to be equal in quality if shot well.You just cannot make that kind of judgement based on what's posted here.And it is natural for people to prefer what they own and shoot with.That's why we are called enthusiasts.With a glut of great cameras to own, it all comes down to the shooting experience via ergonomics, in my opinion.I own an OM-D and an X100s.Very different cameras but both take good pics if I do my part.
    How about RX1,Leica,do those pics look better to you on your monitor?Or is it the picture maker that sets some apart from others.
     
  10. absolutic

    absolutic Mu-43 Veteran

    416
    Jan 21, 2011
    Fuji XE1 vs m43: my opinion after using both.

    I sold off my Fuji X gear and kept Panasonic GX1. I had Fuji XE1, 18-55, 35 1.4, and 60mm 2.4.

    The reason I sold Fuji after using it extensively is for my purposes the AF was just not there. I have a one-year-old who is constantly on the move and quick AF is a must. With Fuji XE1, whatever technique I have tried, I was getting an unusually high number of missing shots due to AF. And that was frustrating, because I really liked the ergonomics. I love how engaging the Fuji system is where you can select aperture on the lens itself and then select shutter speed, and the picture quality is very good. However, inside or in low light, AF was just not there for my specific purposes. If I was just taking photos of landscapes, or people who could stand there and pose for me, it would be fine, but in my situation, Panasonic GX1 (or my former Olympus OMD) could just grab that shot of my son who can't stop, while Fuji often could not.

    However, Fuji is definitely more fun to use. The form factor is just right for me, the camera is small and light, the Electronic Viewfinder is the best I've ever used (Better than Sony NEX7 or any m43). The controls are logical.

    If Fuji can fix AF situation, and I know that they are on the way (I also own Fuji X20 which I susprisingly don't use as much, but it delivers fast and reassuring AF with its phase-on-sensor af points), I might look to that system again. However, at this point, for me, in my situation, it is back to reliable af of m43
     
  11. John M Flores

    John M Flores Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 7, 2011
    Somerville, NJ
    Take any two photos taken with any two cameras and the biggest difference between the two is the person pressing the shutter.
     
  12. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Holy cow ...wow ..WELCOME BACK JOHN ..:th_salute::th_salute:
    Cheers
    Bhupinder
     
  13. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    I have both systems, to my eye the Oly and Pany cameras have this digital-ish look, while the Fuji's look more filmesque. And Joe is correct that internet viewing isn't the best medium to determine subtle differences between cameras.

    Gary
     
  14. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    If you had a stack of 8x10's or even 11x14's all shot under ISO 800, it would hard if not impossible to separate them in piles by camera manufacturer. From the flagships of Nikon and Canon to the Pens of Olympus ... all of them have such superior quality at lower ISO's.

    Gary
     
  15. hunyuan7

    hunyuan7 Mu-43 Regular

    140
    Aug 31, 2011
    When I look over the photos in various threads, I always think to myself: "Is that a shot my Panny G3 can grab or not?" For every shot in the "Share: Fuji-X" thread, I said yes. I was intrigued by Fuji-X as well (mostly because I used to shoot Fuji Reala :)), but the photos in that thread do not look any different from photos from another M4/3 camera or lens thread on this website.

    There was another thread on this website related to this topic: A married couple went through New York City with a Fuji-X camera and an OMD. Then they tallied a vote on which photos taken with the two cameras that you liked better. That thread also showed me that between the Fuji-X system and the current M4/3 cameras that the the difference was between the photographers.

    Agreed. I still shoot silver halides with my Minolta SR-T 102 and 202.

    More times than not, I do. I see a "better depth" to the photo taken the from DSLR format and from the Sony NEX system. I used to own a Nikon D7000, and somehow, the photos I took with that camera (with the no frills Nikkor AF 28-105mm/3.5-4.5D IF) seemed to have "more depth" to the photo than what I can grab with my current G3+ Panny 20mm and Oly 45mm). I own the G3 and M4/3 believing that the best camera is the one you always have with you. I carry the G3 more than my cell phone. :)

    There just seems to be a recent upload of many Fuji-X photos, way more than other systems', so I commented. I mean no harm and am just extending an opinion on what I see on the computer screen.
     
  16. madmaxmedia

    madmaxmedia Mu-43 Veteran

    335
    Feb 20, 2010
    What OP said maybe generally true of a lot of gear, but who said any differently?
     
  17. spinyman

    spinyman Mu-43 Top Veteran

    603
    Nov 19, 2010
    San Diego
    hunyuan7,
    I think we agree that the photographer is more important than the gear.I just don't see that it's a competition as to whose got the better camera.madmaxmedia just said it." who said any differently?"Just because I post my pics in the Fuji thread doesn't mean I'm implying that they are any better than your G3 pics.That's why I don't see your point in starting this thread.Unless you just want me to have to defend my camera choices.You may see differences between the postings shot by different cameras but I maintain there are too many variables to really make a judgement call based on web viewed postings.That said, I'm with Gary regarding the slightly more digital look of m4/3 vs. Fuji.However,the really huge difference for me is the physical controls and layout.We can blather on about high iso or focus but if you don't get the Fuji approach to picture taking, then nothing else matters.
    So enjoy your G3,I sure enjoyed mine,and don't rain on our Fuji parade!LOL
     
  18. drewbot

    drewbot Mu-43 Top Veteran

    702
    Oct 21, 2011
    Toronto, ON
    IQ wise is a small difference, which can be attributed to its larger sensor size...
     
  19. Hyubie

    Hyubie Unique like everyone else

    Oct 15, 2010
    Massachusetts
    Herbert
    Not to turn this on a this-vs-that thread (and anyway this touches on the difference of the Fuji), but I never got the results I get from Fuji when I used other aps-c cameras. I think it's more that X-trans sensor. Of course it could entirely be due to the brain connected to the finger pressing the shutter - but I'd like to think that that brain has been pretty consistent. :)


    Sent from my iPad using Mu-43 mobile app
     
  20. Chrisnmn

    Chrisnmn Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 26, 2012
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Chris
    May I say why they look different at 100% pixel peeping?

    apparently Fuji (at least on my X100s) theres a constant NR applied to the files. You cant turn NR off, only to -2. But if you see the raw files theres a constant NR and smearing in the files, which at first glance make the files look cleaner and "film like" (remember film was soft, not sharp, thats why to me). while on the other hand, olympus files dont have that NR applied and when you turn the NR off is actually Off, this brings some "noise" to the files when at 100%. BUT even though there is that noise, you can see no smearing (I know the lens is crucial for this part of my explanation but lets say the 25 or 75 for example) and YOU the user/photographer decides what to do with that sharpness. sometimes i want soft looking photos sometimes i dont.

    BUT, when it gets to printing files.

    Ive done printing from both the X100s and the OMD up to A1 and there is NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL. in fact, a photo shot with the 75mm and sharpened for printing will have MORE details than the X trans sensor on the X100s. IF you see them with a magnifying glass.

    but again, that is my experience. that is what ive seen and my impressions. dont expect to the same for the rest of the world. my $0.00002