Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/06/16

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Fuji Xpro vs Olympus OMD
From: digiratidoc at gmail.com (James Laird)
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 20:07:20 -0500
References: <1339846542.22383.YahooMailClassic@web126003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <39AC5FBD-E586-4DD4-A969-0D2CD4225B47@archiphoto.com> <CAMGHw9BnMKvWQXOTHgi3UEd0dKbvoC1XX8T9rYFLrwxmMuOBsw@mail.gmail.com> <BF6397F5-2248-4AF7-8CC8-FE3381D0BA86@archiphoto.com>

Henning,

I'm glad to hear that manual focusing is so smooth and easy. I've got
a 90 Tele-Elmarit 2.8 I'm dying to try on it because I love the 180
2.8 but got tired of carrying that beast around. I know the
Tele-Elmarit is old technology but I've been using mine since the 70s
and it's sharp, sharp, sharp. Can't wait, but I guess I'll have to. I
also have the Oly and Panasonic glass but it's gathering dust now.

Jim Laird

On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Henning Wulff <henningw at archiphoto.com> 
wrote:
> I haven't really looked for it, so haven't seen it. I imagine Olympus will 
> have a firmware fix for it, as it definitely seems a firmware problem.
>
> It supposedly only happens in really high ISO situations, and before it 
> gets to that I tend to change the 20 for the Voigtlander 25 to gain 
> another stop and a half. That one doesn't have the problem, as there are 
> no electronics in the lens. BTW, manual focus, with magnification and IBIS 
> on, is very smooth and easy. I've tried the Voigtlander in very low light, 
> as well as the 280/4 Telyt with 1.4x converter and some other lenses and 
> achieved very good results.
>
> On 2012-06-16, at 1:28 PM, James Laird wrote:
>
>> Henning,
>>
>> What about this banding problem the OM-D has at high ISOs with the
>> Panasonic 20mm 1.7?
>> <http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/06/12/Olympus-acknowledges-OM-D-E-M5-banding-with-panasonic-20mm-f1-7-lens>
>> Of course I realize with the speed of the 20 you would rarely need to
>> use high ISO settings. Have you experienced it? It would be a definite
>> problem for me as I love my 20 1.7.
>>
>> Jim Laird
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Henning Wulff <henningw at 
>> archiphoto.com> wrote:
>>> I just got an OM-D. I've not had it long, but it looks good. In any 
>>> case, I've handled but am not interested in the Fuji, because I have an 
>>> M9 and focussing and shooting with the M9 is a lot easier and pleasanter 
>>> for me. Of course, if I had a Fuji I'm sure I'd start to get used to it 
>>> but I can't say I'm delighted with the viewfinder/focussing setup. Also, 
>>> the range of lenses available is not really going to make me happy at 
>>> this point. I know that many more are supposed to come, but.....
>>>
>>> I've had m43 for a while, and the OM-D definitely has the best image 
>>> quality. Is it up to the Fuji? Not quite. Is the Fuji's quality up to 
>>> FF, as they advertised? Not quite. It's still a matter of size, and FF 
>>> trumps APS-C trumps m43. What is amazing about the OM-D is the dynamic 
>>> range which is greater than that of almost all APS-C cameras, and the 
>>> fact that the files are more forgiving than those of the Panasonics and 
>>> earlier Olympuses. With the OM-D, I also have as backups the Panasonics.
>>>
>>> As for high ISO quality, the Fuji has about a stop on the OM-D, but then 
>>> I have faster lenses for the OM-D than Fuji has available at present for 
>>> the most and the OM-D has first class stabilization. For my purposes the 
>>> OM-D wins in the low light area, and especially with the lenses I have 
>>> vs. those I could get for the Fuji. Lens quality for the m43 format is 
>>> at least up to the level of the Fuji's, which are certainly very good.
>>>
>>> As for colour accuracy, Olympus has been at the very pinnacle of colour 
>>> accuracy for a long time, with their larger 4/3 cameras as well as their 
>>> m43 offerings. In any case, I profile all my cameras so it becomes a 
>>> non-issue. Processing for the web by various people is definitely an 
>>> issue, and making comparisons on the web for colour is not going to 
>>> actually get you anywhere. Do your own tests. Or profile everything; 
>>> that's the only answer in the end.
>>>
>>> Bokeh is of course rather subjective, but that quality is in fact rather 
>>> similar between the Fuji lenses and the majority of the m43 prime lenses 
>>> I have (or tried). It seems a lot of companies are now paying attention 
>>> to this.
>>>
>>> Resolution/detail differences can be seen on the web at 100% if things 
>>> are processed optimally. The Fuji should have a slight advantage here, 
>>> nearly to the extent of the difference of a 13x19 print compared with an 
>>> 11x17 print. I haven't made this comparison, nor am I likely to, but to 
>>> this point some 13x19 OM-D prints I've seen look fine. I'm unlikely to 
>>> print larger than 11x14 myself, so I would have a little room for 
>>> cropping. If I really intend to print larger, I'll use a larger sensor 
>>> or stitch
>>>
>>> Summarized, my opinion is this: If you don't have m43 or an M9 and would 
>>> like something 'M-like', have a look at the Fuji and see if you can get 
>>> along with it. It's no M9, both in a good and bad sense, just different 
>>> enough so that it really should be judged on its own.
>>>
>>> If you have any m43 items or would like immediate access to a fairly 
>>> well developed system, don't hesitate about the OM-D. The issues you 
>>> raised aren't real issues; only with respect to resolution can Fuji be 
>>> said to have an advantage, and it's not really that big a one. Handling, 
>>> features, size, price, how it fits in with your other cameras and a lot 
>>> of other things are a log bigger factors.
>>>
>>> Finally, get the one you like! and go our and shoot!
>>>
>>> Henning
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2012-06-16, at 4:35 AM, Douglas Nygren wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've been studying the picture posted on the web and the lug taken with 
>>>> the Fuji Xpro and comparing them with others taken with the new Olympus 
>>>> OMD.
>>>> The Fuji looks better. The colors look better, the bokeh looks better, 
>>>> the images are sharper.
>>>> What have you all noted, if you have compared the two?
>>>> Gru?--Doug
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Henning Wulff
>>> henningw at archiphoto.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>
>
> Henning Wulff
> henningw at archiphoto.com
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


In reply to: Message from douglasnygren at yahoo.com (Douglas Nygren) ([Leica] Fuji Xpro vs Olympus OMD)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Fuji Xpro vs Olympus OMD)
Message from digiratidoc at gmail.com (James Laird) ([Leica] Fuji Xpro vs Olympus OMD)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Fuji Xpro vs Olympus OMD)