If you could do it all over again...X-E1 or OMD

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by heed

Now, IMHO it seems like many of those who choose against the OM-D do so because of an anti-establishment bent or desire to be 'better' than those who went with the OM-D.

Come on man, you really think this? Perhaps some just like that the Fuji has dedicated shutter speed dials and aperture rings and doesn't feel like a TV remote control?

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by heed

Fuji system is too quirky and no IS or weathersealing.

I didn't want to like the OM-D at first but in the end there were too few arguments against it. Now, IMHO it seems like many of those who choose against the OM-D do so because of an anti-establishment bent or desire to be 'better' than those who went with the OM-D.

That really depends on who you ask - I find olympus digital cameras extremely quirky. The menu system on the om-d is frightfully disorganized and overly complex. The x-pro1 has manual dials/controls and a simple menu, and a single AF spot. Not sure how that's classified as quirky, but each to their own.

A lot of us started out with m4/3 in mirrorless cameras 2-3 years ago, and got sick of waiting for olympus and panasonic (mainly olympus) to bring out an advanced camera with the built-in finder, and fast primes. However many years on, there is STILL no decent fast 35mm equivalent AF lens for m4/3. Panasonic filled in the lineup a little bit recently, but the panasonic supply chain is dismal for their lumix gear outside of japan.

Sonys NEX lens lineup is still nonexistent.

Fuji on the other hand, had a fairly comprehensive lens lineup out of the box with the x-system (28mm f2, x100 35mm f2, 50mm f1.4, 90mm f2.4 equivalents), and next year you can add a 21mm f2.8, 35mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4, 2x fast IS zooms, and several zeiss AF lenses to that list.
Fuji hit the ground running with pretty much everything we were asking for, whilst olympus fumbled around with non-sensical superzooms and dumbed down compacts released one after the other for years.

That's why a lot of us feel strongly about the Fuji's.

[heed]

Originally Posted by gavinlg

That really depends on who you ask - I find olympus digital cameras extremely quirky. The menu system on the om-d is frightfully disorganized and overly complex. The x-pro1 has manual dials/controls and a simple menu, and a single AF spot. Not sure how that's classified as quirky, but each to their own.

A lot of us started out with m4/3 in mirrorless cameras 2-3 years ago, and got sick of waiting for olympus and panasonic (mainly olympus) to bring out an advanced camera with the built-in finder, and fast primes. However many years on, there is STILL no decent fast 35mm equivalent AF lens for m4/3. Panasonic filled in the lineup a little bit recently, but the panasonic supply chain is dismal for their lumix gear outside of japan.

Sonys NEX lens lineup is still nonexistent.

Fuji on the other hand, had a fairly comprehensive lens lineup out of the box with the x-system (28mm f2, x100 35mm f2, 50mm f1.4, 90mm f2.4 equivalents), and next year you can add a 21mm f2.8, 35mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4, 2x fast IS zooms, and several zeiss AF lenses to that list.
Fuji hit the ground running with pretty much everything we were asking for, whilst olympus fumbled around with non-sensical superzooms and dumbed down compacts released one after the other for years.

That's why a lot of us feel strongly about the Fuji's.

I agree about the menu system, but the nice thing is that once you set it up, you shouldn't have to touch it. I also agree about the NEX lens lineup.

It seems to me that the two lens systems are about the same, not that Fuji's is superior. However, m43's system seems more open and expandable since there's more manufacturers onboard (of course they include low-end superzooms though).

[Matus]

I am aware than OM-D is on the 'small size' sensor-wise, but it is the most complete and developed product on the mirror-less market right now (body design, lens offer, ...). And it has definite size advantage what for me would be a plus, as I will, for the foreseeable future, cary a medium format camera with me.

I am still waiting for that external impulse (should I say 'need') to buy a mirror-less camera In comparison to film cameras - mirror-less cameras getting better ever couple of months, so no hurry on my side.

[Mark T]

I prefer the aspect ratio of micro four thirds cameras. This can have quite an effect on the final appearance of an image. Film is still beaut though and addresses many of the issues people talk about - battery life, complicated menus, limited depth of field, lack of prime/zoom lenses and so on.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by willie_901

The OM-D collects 39% less data which is a non-trivial handicap.

You're assuming that both sensor architectures have similar quantum efficiency and noise characteristics. Sony (manufacturer of the EM5 sensor) has been ahead on both fronts for long enough that that's probably not a good assumption.

I really like the output from the Fuji sensor but I believe that to have more to do with the non-Beyer array pattern and the camera's JPEG image processing pipeline than simple sensor area.

[gustavoAvila]

I spent some time with a Fuji X Pro 1 when it first came out and was extremely impressed with the general feel and layout of the camera! (In fact, I think this is the best consumer camera on the market with regard to control usability.)

However, focusing was pokey, camera raw support non-existent and the price high so I passed.

In the interim, the OM-D was released and I purchased one as soon as it was available. (I had an EP-2 and brace of m4/3 lenses so this was an easy decision.)

The OM-D has exceeded all my expectations and is small enough to carry along with a film body. (Paradoxically, the size of the OM-D is both a plus and a negative! It is easy to tote along, but it is also a bit too small for most adult males.)

As such, I have no need or interest in the Fuji XE-1. For me, the Pro-1 is the more compelling product. Hopefully, the next iteration will be the cats meow!

[shadowfox]

OM-D.
Fuji cameras feels flimsy in my hand, dials move around on their base, that kind of thing.

Olympus (or Sony NEX) has higher build quality and with the new Sony sensor (good riddance, Panasonic), the image quality is now unquestionable.

The only thing that will prevent me from getting the OM-D is a Pen -class digital camera that has a real viewfinder.

That or a full-frame E-7 (hahah, keep dreaming on that one )

[semilog]

Many of the comparisons in this thread are of the mountains-out-of-molehills variety.

I'm using an X-E1 and before that had an X-Pro1. I've looked at the NEX's and examined the NEX-7's RAW output closely using a large series of test images that I shot. I've looked closely at the OM-D and I used a GF1 exclusively for a two week vacation. Bottom line: Anyone who can't use the NEX's or the Fuji X's or an OM-D or a GX1 to make good images is a wanker. They're all quite similar in performance and all can be made to work for most sorts of general photography if you're even halfway competent.

We are in a golden age. It is too easy to forget that all of these cameras are amazingly capable for their size and price.

If you need markedly better file quality you'll be wanting a D800 or something bigger. Yes, it really is that simple. The technical differences between the cameras under discussion in this thread are incremental. Maybe half a generation of sensor development.

Last week I was watching David Alan Harvey put up big exhibition prints made by Mike Courvoisier, up to 40" x 60." They were made with GF1, D700, D800, M9, M6, Mamiya 7. All looked fantastic, though of course the D800 and Ma7 prints were a (technical) cut above the rest: more detail and tonal subtlety than the others. N.b.: the prints expected to bring the highest price were shot with the GF1. Let that be a lesson to us all.

DAH is currently shooting mainly with a Panasonic GX1 and a Leica S2, and his Mamiya 7 is still in use as well.

[robert blu]

OM-D or Fuji X... this is my problem ! I'll end in buying another (cheaper) film camera
Seriously I'm in the market for one of these, I have small hands and I like to travel light so Oly should be the obvious choice. But the OVF of the X-pro1 is interesting. And the size of the xe1 is not so bigger than the oly...if I only could compare them in my hands and at my eye....
robert

[semilog]

Robert, I've owned both and the X-Pro1 feels a lot bigger to me than the X-E1. The X-E1 is just a bit smaller than an M6, a bit bigger than a CLE. Close to the size of a GF1. To me this is THE sweet spot in camera size and weight. The X-Pro1 is the size of an M9. Frankly, that's too big for my taste. Just a bit too big, but over the line. I'm currently using the XE-1. With the XF 18/2 I sometimes use a Zeiss optical finder. To my surprise I prefer this arrangement to the X-Pro. I've been using it to shoot nighttime basketball, close-in. Basketball pictures were the first things I ever shot for money, back in the film dark ages (HP5 at EI1600 with fill strobe off a bounce card, on deadline... wahoo!).

These new cameras are genuinely remarkable. The OM-D and GX1, the NEX-7, the X-E1... all a little different, all awesome. Some differences in lens lineups, some differences in control layout and viewing methods. None of these a big deal now that there are good fast medium-to-wide lenses for all systems. The Zeiss 24/1.8 for NEX is tremendous (if a bit bulky), as is the Panasonic 20/1.7. I'm a huge fan of the Fuji 18/2 and prefer its slightly wider FoV.

XF 18/2, ambient light, manual exposure, 1/250, f/3.2, ISO3200... JPEG straight-out-of-camera (over-sharpening courtesy of flickr)... and the RAW files look great in color, too.

[robert blu]

@semilog: great shot! And thanks for your suggestions, grazie!
robert

[Muggins]

I'm afraid I saw the title of the thread and immediately thought of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h7WZtZgszc

(that is a great shot, semilog!)

Adrian

[rbelyell]

ive had an ep2 and naturally went to the omd assuming i would love it. i also had an x100 at the same time. i agree all these new cams/systems are in certain ways amazing, but are clearly aimed at different goals. as a piece of hardware--IS, touch screen focus/shooting, weatherproofing etc--you cannot beat the omd. if those things are ones primary concerns, nothing beats the omd. but its IQ was to me noticeably inferior to the x100 in the world of AF, and to my lowly 12mp gxr using rf lenses. my belief is the lack of AA filter vaults the IQ of other cameras noticeably over the oly, though i remain a fan of the company.

so if IQ was my paramount concern, and i wanted an AF system, hands down i'd choose fuji, whose rendition and quality lens lineup beat sonys. but if i wanted to use the system also with rf lenses, i myself think the only choice is the gxr (or the much more expensive M line). to use all or in part with slr lenses, fuji or sony line, depending on ones preference of the 'look' of the final product. imo the fuji just has a lovely color rendition, handles highlights better, and b&w is the best most film like ive seen.

at the end of the day sly stone said it best: different strokes for different folks.
tony

[retnull]

OM-D vs XE1 -- the question that keeps us all awake at night. ;-)

It should be mentioned, the other factor is cost. I was leaning towards the Fuji (beautiful image samples on the web). But then, Olympus had a brief sale on their online store, and I was able to get an OM-D refurb at, well, half of list price.

I've had bad luck with digital cameras in general, they always seem to last only a year before they break or I get fed up with them. So for me the cheaper camera is the better camera: film is my main interest, anyway.

So, this year, I'll suffer to endure the lowly OM-D, knowing my images are inferior to the sublime Fuji, oh the agony of it, how can I bear to press the shutter. ;-) But then there's always next year...

[traveler_101]

Neither. I have been toying with the idea of getting out of digital altogether in favor of b&w with my IIIf (see recent thread). As it is 75% of my time is spent with film. Still a small digital camera with decent resolving power is useful for indoor shots and for general color photography. I don't take digital too seriously and I don't want to invest any additional serious funds into it. I still have the E-P1 with two Panasonic lenses, 14/2.5 and 20/1.7 and I use a ocular viewfinder. Sometimes I shoot with the cheap and surprisingly good Olympus 40-150 tele-zoom or use an OM 50/1.8 mf for indoor portraits. I may get around to replacing the E-P1 with a new mini-Pen with the same new sensor as the OMD. I voted "something else."

[OurManInTangier]

Interesting, my experience is similar to traveler_101.

I have sold my (personal) digital gear, including an OM-D system, to go back to film rangefinders (although I'm keeping my X100 so I have something convenient and quick should I need/want it.) The OM-D's smaller sensor/lower IQ thing didn't bother me too much but occasionally I missed, or at least felt I missed, the quality I got from my M9. The real reason for me switching back was I missed the fluidity that an RF gives me and that is very important to me.

I may return to mirrorless digitals in the future, but am for the moment quite happy with the decision I've made.

[zvos1]

Neither, I still can't get used to EVFs, looking through my M8 optical finder is a pleasure...

[rhl-oregon]

My first digital was the Panny G1, my second the EP1. Still have and like the first, esp with the 20 1.7; the Oly went to my son. I tried the OM-D, but as some others have felt and written, OM digital menus are not to my ease or liking.

Now my main digitals are the GXR and XE-1. I'm used to EVF. Because of what the XE-1 can do in low light/high ISO, it spends the most time on my wrist right now. Were I to radically consolidate gear tomorrow, the XE-1 and GXR would keep their places; the main film bodies would be medium format (RF 645, Rolleiflex 2.8D, GW690, Ikonta folder); and I'd keep at my M5 and OM4 for 135.

[seakayaker1]

Use the M9 and GF1 for digital but have been shooting film about 80% of the time over the past 18 months.

If I had to choose between the OMD or XE1, it would be the OMD from the reviews I have read and a recommendations from a friend that is using it.

Its all good, lots of choices and they all can create a great photograph.

[RSilva]

OMD or Fuji X-E1 is what has been taking my sleep recently.
I have the E-P1 and two of the best m43 lenses so the natural step would be the OMD and that is what I would buy but... I have almost 30 vintage lenses from Contax G, m42 and Minolta systems and I guess the Fuji is the best choice for using them.
Also and still, no 21mm equivalent for the m43 system, what a lack!

Some complain here about the oly menu system, really? Have you tried the super menu layout?

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by Avotius

GAS aside (is it ever for us?) if you had to buy your CSC, EVIL, mirrorless, or whatever you want to call it all over again with what we have today what would you do? ..

Because I have two entertaining adapted lenses that can only be used on Micro-FourThirds bodies, and I have the Olympus EVF which I use on the Leica X2, I just picked up a used Oly E-PL1 body (with Holga toy lens included). Cost me $114. Might play with it a little bit then sell the whole kit. Don't know yet.

I have no interest in the Fujis. The Oly E-M5 is nice but I'm not thinking of expanding into more or higher end Micro-FourThirds stuff. I just wanted to be able to use my specialty lenses again.

G

[kuzano]

Don't get me as a Fuji Hater.

I shoot Fuji 645 film and 690 film (G690bl). Love those BIG negatives and transparencies.
I shoot and have shot S2, S3 and S5 Pros. Would have had an S4, and would jump right on an S6 Pro, if they had not abandoned the Professional DSLR market. Loved the Super CCD sensor, with its rendering of skin and whites, and the wide dynamic range options.

Since then Fuji has shown me nothing but marketing hype, often misleading and super high pricing. Probably will never have my hand wrapped around their overpriced pseudo "range finders"

Because.....

Started shooting Olympus in 1972, and digital with the intro of the Evolt E300 and the Pro E-1 (Kodak sensors). Bought a number of those, and got the PEN E-PL1. (the first digital camera that relieved me of the agony and frustration of RAW and Post Processing because of the sharp, high quality images straight OOC)

I hear comments about all those legacy lenses to be used on the new Fuji's, but I don't see a legacy lens on that list that Olympus digital 4/3 and micro 4/3 was not shooting long before the Fuji "rangepretenders" came on the scene.

Doesn't it just kill you that Fujica/Fujifilm has been making camera's for decades with very accurate and bright mechanical rangefinders on them, up to and including the BESSA III, and yet won't put a real rangefinder on a digital offering!!??

Would love an OM-D, but can get the same new sensor and process engine in the new E-PL5 and E-PM2 for a fraction of the cost NEW compared to the Fuji new list prices.

Money is a big decider for me, and so long as Olympus PENS are kicking Fuji's A$$E$ on Image Quality, for a lot less money, it will continue to be my decisive factor.

Oh. Yes, did y'all read where OM-D EM-5 captured Camera Of The Year for 2012 over at DPreview. You can try, but cannot ignore that trophy.

[maggieo]

As someone with an M9 and an X100, I found the OM-D to be the perfect compliment to those two cameras, especially since I can use my old Nikkor AiS lenses from the 1980s on the OM-D.

[sailor]

I didn't choose either camera. They are priced in the UK at just above or just below £1000 for the camera and a zoom lens. For £380 I bought a Nikon V1 with 10-30mm and 30-110mm lenses. I have enlarged the V1 files to 18"x12" and the quality is fantastic and could definitely stand further enlargement, so the Nikon outfit is good enough for my needs at a fraction of the cost.

I don't know why so many folk seem to obsess about being able to produce massive prints. If you actually do have a need for huge enlargements on a regular basis, fair enough, but I suspect most folk rarely or never have a need for this. The Nikon V1 is a fantastic walk around camera - it is compact and lightweight and I spend less time post processing the files than with any digital camera I have owned. Nikon is now expanding the lens range and they are comparatively cheap so I have absolutely no regrets.

Here is a recent example.


Broadford Harbour - Isle of Skye. by Elmer Duck, on Flickr