« Ch-Ch-Changes | Main | Is Today Really the Web's 25th Birthday? »

Wednesday, 12 March 2014


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

oh dang. this is like one of those click-bait headlines.

I thought the Mike v Ctein turned nasty after assurances otherwise like... hours ago (RSS Savings Time).

NB: E-M1 wins on account of being m43 and allowing the use of the awesome pinhole cap Pinwide optimized by CAD for it.

Not a fair fight between Fuji and Olympus as the Olympus has a tiny sensor.

[No it doesn't! It's a Micro 4/3. You're probably thinking of the Olympus Stylus 1, which does have a tiny sensor. --Mike]

It'd be nice if the camera size comparison had the Oly without lens to show the sensor size difference.

Man, if you like the X-T1, I may be in trouble. I WANT that camera, but my D600 tells me I sure as heck don't NEED one. Or could even convince my wife that I should get one. Ah well, cameras are fleeting, lenses last - and after finally getting to know mine, I'm loathe to have to relearn all of that again.(Or excited. Gear-lust is tricky that way)

The XT-1 is the nicest digital camera I've held in my hands, very Contax-ey, and it feels fantastic with that 23mm on it. I really found it very hard to walk away from the shop without it.

Just make sure B&H don't send you a review copy of the GH4 with a Nocticron, or the showdown might turn into a monstering. :) ;)

It seems that MAGNUM and National Geographic shooter David Alan Harvey is using one, with the "35mm equivalent" he characterizes as "SWEET." Check the video "Photo Tips #1" and see the comments for it.

I have handled/played with a friends X-T1 and I rather suspect that MJ will love it especially if you added the 27mm pancake (40mm eq) though the 23mm is a well loved lens.

Expect a new attack of GAS, Mike.

I've been keeping my eye on the Fuji's for some time now, and I'm still drawn to the XE-2 -- specs are surprisingly similar to the XT-1, but it's actually got some advantages, starting with the size and weight. I'm eager to read your thoughts on all these new Fuji's.

I just finished my own showdown between the two. Wonder if you're going to agree. Mine is at www.photographicwanderings.com.

Dear Folk,

The difference in sensor size between mu43 and APS-C is not enough to matter. Really! Honestly! Truly!

Where's that mole mallet...

pax / Ctein

I sing "la-la-la-la" in the general direction of the Fuji. They do look quite good! I'm on my second M43 body and at this point have...hmmm, seven lenses plus the PinWide for it. Not starting up a third system (I've got a Nikon D700 for the heavy lifting) any time soon (financial constraints; give me a winning lottery ticket and I'll be a much worse gear-head than I am now).

(Hmmm; maybe the remark about the D700 should just be "for heavy lifting", i.e. referring to the weight of that camera bag.)

A lot about the X-t1 will be really nice. I would have one if not for its small size. The X-pro1 is enough larger it fits my hands well. The smaller bodies just don't fit and I am always hitting the buttons in use. So, will wait for the X-Pro2.

OK guys, don't flame me for this, but I'm still not ready for EVF. Crazy as it may seem, no matter how little image lag the newest EVFs have or how sharp they look, they still don't come close in color and tone of the actual scene. Often they try to make it look brighter, but no matter where they set the gain levels, the color and contrast are a cheap imitation of reality.

So, why does this matter to me? It's because I print my images with a nod towards pleasing color and tone, but always with some kind of grounding in reality that came from understanding what the original scene actually looked like to me when I took the photo. You may be tempted to say, well then just look at the scene directly or with your other eye first, or maybe after you press the shutter but , but here's the weird part that maybe others may actually understand. When I look through a really good OVF, the very moment I press the button, my brain works extra hard to put that last glimpse of the scene into my memory. And that memory informs my post processing style, serving as my "guide print" to help me when I prepare my "digital negatives" for print.

I'm just not ready for EVF. Your mileage may vary.

El Inglés: "If I'd not regressed to film (hating the digital darkroom), I'd buy an X-T1 in a heartbeat."

That's not regression: it's rehabilitation. Welcome back!

I lusted after the 23mm for awhile before making the plunge along with a (relatively) cheap X-E1. The lens really is fantastic all-around, sharp throughout the frame, and built wonderfully. The quality of the raw files is impressive, although I did run into some nasty moire in Adobe Camera Raw that I had never seen before. I am looking forward to hear your thoughts.

My only wish is that the lens or the body had image stabilization built-in. There is a world of difference for me to hold something like a Nikon D800 steady versus a smaller mirrorless body. The X-T1 is likely better in this regard.

Have you spent much time with Fuji's recent cameras, Mike? If not I'll be interested to see how you feel about the files. They've got an "it factor", IMO, and convert to b&w very nicely. I tried Olympus but wasn't in love with the files. But I'd say the same for my main rig, Canon. Fuji has had the only files I've used where I felt they had something special going on. Good luck with your testing!

I look forward to this. As I predicted just a few days ago, I think your days are numbered, Mike. These cameras and lenses are irresistible. From everything I know about your likes, this will be a camera you adore.

For me, I just need to bury my head in the sand that I should consider upgrading my X-E1.

I also have my eyes on the X-T1 with a potential fade out of my Canon stuff. So far, much praise, few faults, for the Fuji. Looking forward to another data point from Mike.

I was also a bit amused by the nature of the LuLa deal-breaker post about the XT-1. There was no disagreement about the quality of the camera as a picture-taking tool or image-producing technology. The "problem" was that it traded off (just as it was supposed to do) some of the automatic, preset performance of modern cameras (mostly of the DSLR persuasion) for the direct manual control of old-school cameras.

I do understand the LuLa observation that the plethora of manual controls means that the camera doesn't come with a series of custom pre-sets, and that for certain types of photography this could sometimes be a reason to select a different camera. But in the end, that seemed a bit less of a criticism of the camera and more of a comment on shooting preferences... along the lines of why one person might select a rangefinder and another a SLR and another a TLR back in the day.

I've never (ever) lusted for a digital camera... until the X-T1. It's got it all- build, size, design, performance.

PS- The OMD-10 would make a nice, everyday sports car.

Mike wrote: "That's a sign of good reviewing, when you can accept the reviewer's insights but don't feel the need to accept his (or her) verdict (judgments)."

I see it more as a sign of good reading comprehension. Today on some other site, I participated in a thread discussing Thom Hogan's review of the A7 & A7r. His review wasn't 100% glowing, so Thom was roundly attacked, accused of being an anti-Sony, Nikon-worshipping, m43-fanboy. Despite the fact that he's been criticizing Nikon regularly, has been shooting a Sony RX1, and is now going to sell that because the A7 (which he RECOMMENDED !) with the 35/2.8 makes more sense.

I came to the conclusion that people like Thom, Steve Huff, Michael Reichman and yourself all review cameras based largely on how you use them and, presumably, how many of your readers use them. Regular readers know where you're coming from and read the review from that perspective. And even if they're not regular readers, most subjective reviews include verbiage that points on, very explicitly, that it's a subjective review containing personal opinions. Yet what happens, time and time again, is that as soon as a review is posted, it gets linked across fan sites and forums and within seconds, people check it out. They don't read it. They scan it, looking for anything negative, and then they trash the review.

Anyway, have fun with the camera. It will be interesting to see what you think of it. I really liked the XE1 and lenses when I tried them out, and I love Fuji's strategy. It's not the most practical choice for me, but the system I'd most enjoy using (I think). But I have to wonder if it's been so overhyped that you're bound to be disappointed.

"The difference in sensor size between mu43 and APS-C is not enough to matter. Really! Honestly! Truly!"

It just don't matter to you. It matters to me.

Sincerely, etc., etc.

From Ctein: "The difference in sensor size between mu43 and APS-C is not enough to matter. Really! Honestly! Truly!"

I have to respectfully but uneqivocally disagree.

That statement might be true for other APS-C sensors, but not Fuji sensors. I own three Fuji X-series cameras, including the marvelous but overlooked little X-A1, which sports a Bayer pattern sensor.

I also own an Olympus OM-D E-M5, and while it's image quality is excellent, I can unequivocally say that the Fuji APS sensors notably outperform the Oly M4/3 sensor for dynamic range and low noise at higher ISOs (1600 and greater). Even the little Fuji X-A1 outperforms the E-M1 for noise performance at ISO 3200 (see the comparison at Imaging Resource).

Moreover, as nice as the Oly M4/3 sensor is for it's color, and it's really nice, NOBODY does color like Fuji.

While some folks (most notably DPReview) will state that support for Fuji RAW conversion is "patchy", there are no fewer than seven count 'em, SEVEN applications that provide excellent Fuji RAW file conversion: Lightroom, Photoshop ACR, Iridient Developer, Photo Ninja, AccuRaw and my personal favorite, Capture One (which I personally find to perform the best RAW conversion of *any* camera, not just Fuji's).

@Josef: The 23mm prime does not have OIS, but the 18-55 and 55-200 zooms do, and they work very well.

@BH: Regarding the "it factor" that the Fuji files have. I fully, 100% agree, and it's this "it factor" that has fully driven my first love for my X-Pro1 and now the X-T1 (and even the little X-A1). My Canon 1D-series and Oly EM-5 produce excellent images, but they don't have that "it factor" that, IMHO, produces "magic" in the files. The last camera I shot with that did have the "it factor" was the original Canon 5D.

And they "draw" in black and white just beautifully, better than any camera I've ever shot with.

Then...there's those Fuji colors. Gasp!

With respect, I'd call the differences in size not mattering _in most cases_. M43 falls apart quicker, and uglier(to my eyes), than APS-C in low light, especially stacked against the Fuji and Sony's 16mp chips. Even at 1600(in color) I can see a noticeable difference in the formats in low light - anywhere else, tho, it's not a thing. Same reason I'm sticking with my D600/35 1.4 combo over something smaller - I can reach just a tad more into the dark without spending hours cleaning up.

The Michael Reichman review appears to have been done, prior to reading the camera's manual. I could be wrong, but it seems he never used the Q (quick menu) button, i think the T1 has (like my x100s).

Camera reviews. To actually see specs, and tech tests, i go to Dpreview (steering well clear of the forums :) ) and the DXO site, and for lenses, photozone.de.

Then if i am really interested in a model now days, i go to scoop-it and search by camera name, it pulls up every review there is almost.

For regular "pleasure" reading, not expecting "objectivity", looking for camera "feel" and some actual good pics; Online Photographer, Hogan, Luminous Landscape, and Huff.

In case it's of interest, the photos in that recent 'Kiev's Fatigue' by Eric Bouvet post had the Exif data in them. The cameras used were Fuji's X-T1 and X-Pro-1.

Mike, if you dislike the X-T1, I'll eat a (metaphorical) hat! I love mine! MY problem every time I shoot: X-T1 or X-Pro-1. Now, there's a choice I never thought I'd have. Love Fuji at the moment. And I hope you do too.

Having said that, I want to read what you think about the OM-D - a camera I really wanted to love (until I went Fuji) but found I couldn't.

Funny... I went to the camera store just 3 days ago thinking I would buy the Fuji, yet the Olympus and a few of their fantastic, jewel-like, fast prime lenses were far more compelling.

It is worth mentioning that the X-T1 has a fantastic viewfinder. Stunningly good.

I think some of it depends on whether you like to focus manually or just stick with AF... As an AF camera, the EM-1 is excellent. It's manual focus implementation is *terrible*, as in I have *no idea* what the Olympus engineers were thinking. Two button presses to magnify, then another press to exit out of the magnification mode so you can see the histogram and use the regular controls!!! And what the heck happens to the EVF when you're in peaking mode, it drops the frame rate back to 2010! It's also hampered by poor button placement and weird customization choices.

But the IS, AF, lens choice (and size!) makes up for at least some of it. I just need to remember never to try to manually focus with it, or I may throw it out the window!!!

I'm curious to read your comparison...

"Dear Folk,

The difference in sensor size between mu43 and APS-C is not enough to matter. Really! Honestly! Truly!

Where's that mole mallet...

pax / Ctein

An unqualified "matter" is hard to disqualify. ;-] Indeed, I think for most casual photography even the camera make/model does not "matter" (i.e. phone cameras are fine).

But there is a significant difference in the size and design of the m4/3 and X-Trans II sensors. I have found that difference to matter in my more intentional work, with Fuji's cameras and lenses now being my favored platform for much work.

Olympus EM5 (m4/3) -vs- Fujifilm X-E2 (APS-C)

Apologies for the poor focus.

I just got back from a week in NYC, replaced reading TOP with eating and photographing with my week old XT-1!Catching up on TOP and its GREAT to have a whole weeks worth of wonderful posts to read and a quite a few images to work through. I had a fine time with the Fuji and the 23mm lens. I took a number of legacy lens, which I normally prefer to shoot with, and they spent most of the time in the room safe! Not that they don't perform great on the camera... but that 23!! Pretty sure you will fall in love with the combination. One tip- the focus ring has two positions, one manual/ one auto- its a push pull change, and for quite a while I thought the auto focus had broken on the lens! I was shown my error and fell in love with the feature! Everything else about the camera falls perfectly to hand for a 40year film user.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007