Fuji Fuji X vs M-43

I just don't find it particularly instructive to ask a general question of what camera has better IQ. There's too many variables involved to be sure that you will get an answer that is relevant to your particular tastes and end use. Technical image quality is a game of numbers. What you want to know is what camera will give you images that look best to you, but no one here can look through your eyes and tell you exactly what you want to know.

Unfortunately I think that the only way that you can really know which you would prefer is to get your hands on each, learn how to shoot each camera to it's best, and learn how to process each type of image to it's best.

Personally, I can't rely on opinions and uncontrolled comparisons to tell me what camera I am going to prefer.
 
I think this 10% vs 50% is about right...

I can't say I agree that it's 10% vs. 50% but I think Gordon and Ray's way of breaking it down feels right to me. To me, the pertinent pros and cons as the systems stand right now:

Fujifilm X-Mount:
- Slightly better image quality.
- Somewhat better high-ISO/low light performance.
- Potentially better ergonomics.
- Optical viewfinder in X-Pro 1.
- Lower crop multiplier when using glass from other mounts.

Micro Four-Thirds
- Much faster autofocus.
- Potentially better ergonomics.
- Exponentially greater lens selection.
- More rugged build (Oly E-M)

The one caveat I'd throw out has to do with these as long-term platforms. If I were buying for a short use horizon, then I'd go with M43. But I could see a strong argument for FX due to the idea that the platform will continue to evolve, specifically when it comes to AF performance and lens selection.

I think, at least hypothetically, FX has a lot more room to improve whereas M43 is pretty much maxing out what is possible with its sensors. After a certain point, the IQ delta may widen to a more dramatic difference. And, at that point, AF and lens selection for the Fujis may be much better.

And so if you're buying for a long use horizon, then consider that you're not buying just to use right now, but buying to make an investment in where a platform will be some years from now.
 
I think, at least hypothetically, FX has a lot more room to improve whereas M43 is pretty much maxing out what is possible with its sensors. After a certain point, the IQ delta may widen to a more dramatic difference. And, at that point, AF and lens selection for the Fujis may be much better.
I'm not sure about this at all. The difference between m43 and APS has been getting smaller, not larger. And they're really not that different in terms of size except for the aspect ratio, so I don't see any reason why sensor development should stall in m43 and continue to improve in APS. For sure, there's a pretty notable gap between APS and full frame, but a much much smaller gap between m43 and APS. And I'd expect that to continue to be the case. I agree that m43 probably won't always have the performance advantage it has today, but it'll always have the advantage of smaller glass and a more compact overall system with a relatively minor IQ penalty.

-Ray
 
I'm probably overstating my case, and my case is really only hypothetical, based upon the sensor size. Frankly, the introduction of the Sony A7 cameras makes me wonder if Fujifilm or others' APS-C platforms will be made comparatively archaic in a relatively short number of years from now.

I think my problem is being overly-attached to sensor size...the way people used to fetishize megapixel resolution. At some point I should stop being surprised that M43 can be so good. I'd agree that the IQ in most circumstances is only marginally different. APS-C only has a significant advantage with high ISO.
 
I'm not sure about this at all. The difference between m43 and APS has been getting smaller, not larger. And they're really not that different in terms of size except for the aspect ratio, so I don't see any reason why sensor development should stall in m43 and continue to improve in APS. For sure, there's a pretty notable gap between APS and full frame, but a much much smaller gap between m43 and APS. And I'd expect that to continue to be the case. I agree that m43 probably won't always have the performance advantage it has today, but it'll always have the advantage of smaller glass and a more compact overall system with a relatively minor IQ penalty.

-Ray


Actually, Ray, APS-C is more than 50% larger in terms of surface area than m43. That's part of what impresses me so much about modern m43 - the IQ is closer than the size disparity would lead one to believe. And, as you point out, the size advantage to the gear...!
 
I'm probably overstating my case, and my case is really only hypothetical, based upon the sensor size. Frankly, the introduction of the Sony A7 cameras makes me wonder if Fujifilm or others' APS-C platforms will be made comparatively archaic in a relatively short number of years from now.

I think my problem is being overly-attached to sensor size...the way people used to fetishize megapixel resolution. At some point I should stop being surprised that M43 can be so good. I'd agree that the IQ in most circumstances is only marginally different. APS-C only has a significant advantage with high ISO.

I shoot both m43 and APS-C, and I find there is a certain subtle dimensionality to my Pentax K-01's images - even with the kit lens - that I do not get with my Oly E-PM2. I imagine there are some full frame shooters who feel that way in comparison to APS-C.

Once advantage APS-C and m43 (even more so) have over FF is the fact that lenses become "longer" due to the crop factor. A 300mm lens offers a 300mm field of view on FF, but that becomes a 450mm field of view on APS-C and 600mm FOV on m43. Of course, if you want to shoot wide, FF is more accommodating.
 
The only thing you can guarantee is that technology will continue to overcome what we think should be true. There seems to be a belief that the Sony A7 will steamroller the mirrorless market, but this will likely be no more true than "affordable" full frame DSLRs destroying the APS-C market (which they have obviously yet to do. How long ago was the first 5D released? 7, 8 years ago?)
 
There is obviously a not too subtle difference between mft and aps-c sensors, still. I find the "it does not matter for most users and uses" or "in the real world" argument to explain away key IQ differences amusing. Yes, mft is "good enough" as is the 1 inch Sony sensor for a lot of uses. But when IQ really matters, best in class aps-c with a good lens is superior. Concerning lenses and the argument of a great mft selection, many of it are consumer grade whilst the Fuji ones are only (almost) matched by the very best mft lenses. The Fuji 14mm, 23mm, 35mm, 60mm are excellent with the 14 and 23 having no equal in the mft stable and the 35mm and 60mm beating the 25mm and 45mm mft offerings imo. And even the weakest of the Fuji primes, the 18mm, easily beats the Pana 12mm. The quality of Fuji 18-55mm is known and whilst the Panasonic 12-35mm might be comparable in performance, it`s priced much higher. Provided the next generation of Fuji bodies improves on performance (AF speed and accuracy, file write time, EVF refresh rate) and a next generation higher resolution X - trans sensor will be available, I`d rather bet my money on the excellent Fuji prime lenses.
 
Provided the next generation of Fuji bodies improves on performance (AF speed and accuracy, file write time, EVF refresh rate) and a next generation higher resolution X - trans sensor will be available, I`d rather bet my money on the excellent Fuji prime lenses.

I was just going through photos that I took with the XPro1 when it first came out. And photos with the XE1 when it first came out. Good numbers of inaccurate AF locks. Here's to hoping that Fuji steals Oly/Pany's AF technology soon!
 
I was just going through photos that I took with the XPro1 when it first came out. And photos with the XE1 when it first came out. Good numbers of inaccurate AF locks. Here's to hoping that Fuji steals Oly/Pany's AF technology soon!

Fuji was almost there with the X Pro and XE-1except for performance. Imagine they had gotten it right from the beginning. Things would be tough for mft or other mirror less systems.
 
So at any rate, the short term debate is whether to cut my losses with M43. I just got an EPL5 and the VF4 to replace my Panasonic kit; I really like M43 and wanted to give it a fair chance before making a decision on the format, and so I wanted to spend some time with more advanced gear. I got really good deals - once I sell the kit lens I think I'll end up spending $500 total for a new body under warranty and new VF4 out of warranty. So that, the 20mm and maybe someday the Oly 45mm plus adapted Rokkor lenses = pretty good kit to go with the Ricoh.

I don't know whether it's just extremely high quality of the images out of the GR, but I see significant differences in the image quality. Here's some pictures, shot RAW, edited in LR, exported as JPEG. They have the same ISO and FStop but different focal lengths. Basic PP with a bit more sharpening then I would normally use (around 65) and a little noise reduction with the Oly, no noise reduction for the Ricoh.

{EDIT - Sorry, I forgot the key fact that the first of each pair is a cropped image, roughly 100%, though I wasn't being super precise. The second image in each pair is a further crop of the same image. I don't know the ratio, but it was only a small piece of the original. I'd guess about 1/8th of the length. }

OLympus EPL5 with Panasonic 20mm:


View attachment 8355

View attachment 8357


And these are the RICOH:

View attachment 8356

View attachment 8358


So you could say the quality is pretty close, but to me the difference is pretty substantial and it makes me wonder if I should ditch M43. So I'm wondering, do you think these photos are a good representation of the difference between the two formats? Because I did a bunch of different comparisons and the Ricoh always came out ahead of my M43, which has near top IQ with one of the sharper prime lenses.

And here's a bonus photo, showing some of the ability of M43. It's an MD Rokkor 135mm f3.5 on the EPL5.

View attachment 8354



Firstly, thanks for going to the trouble of posting some example images. I would however agree with some of the other comments about the E-PL5 image showing signs of motion blur. As such I don't think that can be considered representative of that particular combination of camera and lens nor the entire Micro 4/3 system. I don't doubt that the GR should show slightly higher pixel level detail than an E-PL5 since it doesn't have an AA filter, but it shouldn't be this noticeable.

I've posted some images and 100% crops below that show what I would expect as a minimum standard out of a Micro 4/3 camera for sharpness.



10249511575_eb8f38fa64_z.jpg

PGH1-P1050362-PR Panasonic GH1 Sydney Australia by Nic (Luckypenguin), on Flickr

PGH1-P1050362-CROP_zps6681f734.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)




8559707542_c9edbe2dca_z.jpg

PGH1-P1050426-PR Panasonic GH1 Sydney Australia by Nic (Luckypenguin), on Flickr

PGH1-P1050426-CROP_zps780666e1.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)




8518234737_e7e980a9ba_z.jpg

PGH1-P1050405-PR Panasonic GH1 Sydney Australia by Nic (Luckypenguin), on Flickr

PGH1-P1050405-CROP_zpsc801a1ea.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)




8370259470_a6bed8c030_z.jpg

PGH1-P1050631-PR Panasonic GH1 Sydney Australia by Nic (Luckypenguin), on Flickr

PGH1-P1050631-CROP_zpsda4696fa.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)




8370264744_f08afdbe39_z.jpg

PGH1-P1050630-PR Panasonic GH1 Sydney Australia by Nic (Luckypenguin), on Flickr

PGH1-P1050630-CROP_zpseeb5a8f6.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)




8404805767_d1b0080f09_z.jpg

PGH1-P1050642-PR Panasonic GH1 Sydney Australia by Nic (Luckypenguin), on Flickr

PGH1-P1050642-CROP_zpsa20dde69.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)




8077519349_76cebd86d1_z.jpg

PGH1-P1070221-PR Panasonic GH1 Hobart Australia by Nic (Luckypenguin), on Flickr

PGH1-P1070221-CROP_zps1df8d214.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)




8482519790_06ee397218_z.jpg

PGH1-P1050639-PR Panasonic GH1 Sydney Australia by Nic (Luckypenguin), on Flickr

PGH1-P1050639-CROP_zps24d395eb.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)




8032817133_450ae7c8d6_z.jpg

PGH1-P1070214-PR Panasonic GH1 Mt Wellington Australia by Nic (Luckypenguin), on Flickr

PGH1-P1070214-CROP_zps2a77218f.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)




8085879545_f05301e642_z.jpg

PGH1-P1070308-PR Panasonic GH1 Port Arthur Australia by Nic (Luckypenguin), on Flickr

PGH1-P1070308-CROP_zpsd1dfda9f.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)




Now the reason that I mentioned these as a standard for minimum sharpness is that these weren't taken with the AA filter-less E-M1 and high-end prime lenses, but a GH1 (released 2009) and the 14-140mm 10x superzoom lens at various focal lengths, and some of them were even taken from a moving boat. Having said that, some of these I wouldn't want any sharper because they are already bordering on displaying aliasing on the high contrast edges. I'd be disappointed if I couldn't get an image from a Micro 4/3 camera near-as-dammit to match the pixel-level sharpness of an APS-C sensor camera of the same resolution. I've got a thousand of these from a variety of different cameras but that would get boring very quickly so I'll stop here.
 
I lose sleep over the same question all the time. I've gone back and forth twice already!! And possibly in the process of a third time ...

20% better IQ vs. 20% better AF. That's pretty much how I see the eternal struggle within me of Fuji v. m4/3.

For me, it's 10% better IQ and 30% better controls for Fuji vs 100% better AF and 30% better portability for MFT.

I think some of the IQ difference comes down to the smoothing/noise reduction that automatically happens when X-Trans files are demosaiced either in camera or by a RAW processor. I think you can most of the way there by processing MFT files to taste, if smoothness is desired.

My purposes are similar to the OPs, and after a quick spin with XE-1 and X100S, I sold them both. My MFT cameras have never left me.


Is anyone willing to share a full res Xtrans RAW file with me? I'd like to try one in Iridient Developer.

Here are some:

Really Random Shootout - Fuji 18-55mm f/2.8-4 and Fuji X-E1 vs Zeiss ZM 35mm f/2.0 Biogon and Leica

Really Random Shootout - Sigma DP2 Merrill vs Fuji 35mm f/1.4 and Fuji X-E1
 
Firstly, thanks for going to the trouble of posting some example images. I would however agree with some of the other comments about the E-PL5 image showing signs of motion blur. As such I don't think that can be considered representative of that particular combination of camera and lens nor the entire Micro 4/3 system. I don't doubt that the GR should show slightly higher pixel level detail than an E-PL5 since it doesn't have an AA filter, but it shouldn't be this noticeable.

...

Now the reason that I mentioned these as a standard for minimum sharpness is that these weren't taken with the AA filter-less E-M1 and high-end prime lenses, but a GH1 (released 2009) and the 14-140mm 10x superzoom lens at various focal lengths, and some of them were even taken from a moving boat. Having said that, some of these I wouldn't want any sharper because they are already bordering on displaying aliasing on the high contrast edges. I'd be disappointed if I couldn't get an image from a Micro 4/3 camera near-as-dammit to match the pixel-level sharpness of an APS-C sensor camera of the same resolution. I've got a thousand of these from a variety of different cameras but that would get boring very quickly so I'll stop here.


Thanks for this post. Very helpful. I'm going to reshoot my uncontrolled test to see where I stand. I had a feeling that I wasn't getting the best results.

And thanks to everyone for your patience about throwing the GR into the mix. I sort of lost the thread, as it were, which was to compare M43 to Fuji. That's actually a move I'm constantly mulling over and I didn't quite bring that point home in my post. But I think the point is clear enough, and that's: how does good aps-c compare to good M43. My particular case is trying to decide what best complements the Ricoh and wide angel lens, which I committed to even though it eats half my budget and covers only wide and wider.
 
I think that for most situations the performance of the current m43 sensor is close enough to the larger Fuji sensor to be a complete
non issue.
That said, I do prefer the Fuji output but consider other factors to bear more weight in a decision/comparison.
 
My purposes are similar to the OPs, and after a quick spin with XE-1 and X100S, I sold them both. My MFT cameras have never left me.

That's the one constant for me as well. I keep trying out different systems and pondering whether or not to leave m4/3. I've come close before. But at the end of the day, m4/3 is still here.


Sent from my iPhone using SeriousCompacts mobile app
 
That's the one constant for me as well. I keep trying out different systems and pondering whether or not to leave m4/3. I've come close before. But at the end of the day, m4/3 is still here.

Yup, me too. As recently as a week and a half ago I was ready to sell off my M43 gear and go all-Fuji for my system gear. Now I'm one lens away from having sold off all of my Fuji gear, am shooting with and will buy an EM1, and have sort of doubled down on m43. Admittedly, my "system" gear is the less important part of my system now (with a couple of fixed lens gems being my mainstays), but when jt came time to fish or cut bait, I cast off the Fuji and reeled in the m43 stuff. And I REALLY LIKE the Fuji gear a lot!

-Ray
 
I sold my m43 stuff. Haven't gone back (but the GM1 is tempting just for fun). I've not been comfortable with the m43 colors since the Sony sensor. I prefered the colors of the old 12MP sensor, but not the DR of that sensor.

I'd consider dropping my Canon stuff (6D + EOS-M) and go all Fuji if (and only if) they could step up their AF game.
 
Back
Top