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: henningw at (Henning Wulff)
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 14:52:59 -0700
References: <> <> <>

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?
> <>
> 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 
>> 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 for more information
>> Henning Wulff
>> henningw at
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See for more information
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See for more information

Henning Wulff
henningw at

Replies: Reply from digiratidoc at (James Laird) ([Leica] Fuji Xpro vs Olympus OMD)
Reply from digiratidoc at (James Laird) ([Leica] Fuji Xpro vs Olympus OMD)
In reply to: Message from douglasnygren at (Douglas Nygren) ([Leica] Fuji Xpro vs Olympus OMD)
Message from henningw at (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Fuji Xpro vs Olympus OMD)
Message from digiratidoc at (James Laird) ([Leica] Fuji Xpro vs Olympus OMD)