Fuji Fuji X vs M-43

i honestly do not understand what folks gain from trying to delineate objective criteria for what are clearly subjective notions. it is most assuredly not objectively 'silly', or 'silly' as a matter of fact for anyone to judge 'a cameras usefulness' however that person subjectively wants to judge it. maybe anothers criterion or criteria have no meaning for you, but that most assuredly does not make them objectively 'silly' or 'stupid' or any other negative connotation one feels the need to apply to make themselves feel better about their own choices.

the fact that others dont agree with you doesnt denigrate your choices, and thus should not subject you to denigration. the converse is true as well. we really need to get away from this type of discussion, its extremely off-putting.
 
chester.a.arthur said:
Only if you're cool with being limited to the focal lengths and also cool with f/2.8 max aperture. And ergonomics...and the Foveon processor...

They're great cameras but they present a very unique list of pros and cons.
Click to expand...

Flash pretty much nailed it, and Tony did, too. In the response of mine you quoted, similar claims could be made with the Fuji X-Trans camera (whose output I like very much) with regard to sensor quirks and limited lens selection, albeit not as limited as with the Sigma DPMs.

Different horse for courses and all that stuff... in general, I'm happy that there are so many great cameras. :)
 
rbelyell said:
i honestly do not understand what folks gain from trying to delineate objective criteria for what are clearly subjective notions. it is most assuredly not objectively 'silly', or 'silly' as a matter of fact for anyone to judge 'a cameras usefulness' however that person subjectively wants to judge it. maybe anothers criterion or criteria have no meaning for you, but that most assuredly does not make them objectively 'silly' or 'stupid' or any other negative connotation one feels the need to apply to make themselves feel better about their own choices.

the fact that others dont agree with you doesnt denigrate your choices, and thus should not subject you to denigration. the converse is true as well. we really need to get away from this type of discussion, its extremely off-putting.
Click to expand...

Tony, I fear some of us simply spend too much time in Camelot...

[video=youtube;P8ghXxXyAuw]
 
Yeats said:
Flash pretty much nailed it, and Tony did, too. In the response of mine you quoted, similar claims could be made with the Fuji X-Trans camera (whose output I like very much) with regard to sensor quirks and limited lens selection, albeit not as limited as with the Sigma DPMs.

Different horse for courses and all that stuff... in general, I'm happy that there are so many great cameras. :)
Click to expand...

Maybe I wasn't clear, but I thought I was trying to say pretty much the same thing: that there are several valid options and when one really comes down to it, the right camera depends on very individual needs and preferences. Horses for courses, as you say. I thought you were saying that the Sigma DPM's were the obvious choice if you're going sub-full-frame, and I was just trying to note that they're not a universal slam dunk. But maybe I was just pointing out the obvious.
 
I have gone full in on the Fuji for my fun camera stuff(except for the Ricoh GR), all of my m4/3 stuff is gone, while one could argue minor objective reasons for one system or the other, it mostly came down to subjective ones for me. I just like shooting with the Fuji more and now that they have expanded the lens line there was less reason to hang onto my m4/3 stuff.
And honestly if I really need something out of the box in terms of af focus speed or long lens stuff, I will just grab one of the the Canons from the studio.
 
chester.a.arthur said:
Maybe I wasn't clear, but I thought I was trying to say pretty much the same thing: that there are several valid options and when one really comes down to it, the right camera depends on very individual needs and preferences. Horses for courses, as you say. I thought you were saying that the Sigma DPM's were the obvious choice if you're going sub-full-frame, and I was just trying to note that they're not a universal slam dunk. But maybe I was just pointing out the obvious.
Click to expand...

We're in agreement... I brought up Sigma because they seem to be the APS-C leader in quantitative "measureables" compared with similar cameras, and the person to whom I had responded had taken a rather condescending tone with regard to m43 quality. I was intentionally being slightly ridiculous.

Of course, I am also sometimes unintentionally ridiculous. too. :tongue:

7 or 8 years ago a friend of mine was looking to buy a new TV, and couldn't decide between LCD or plasma. While looking thru bunches of TV reviews, I came across an article which stated that according to a survey they authors had done, TV viewers reacted most positively to a TV's contrast, then color, and sharpness was last.
 
rbelyell said:
i honestly do not understand what folks gain from trying to delineate objective criteria for what are clearly subjective notions. it is most assuredly not objectively 'silly', or 'silly' as a matter of fact for anyone to judge 'a cameras usefulness' however that person subjectively wants to judge it. maybe anothers criterion or criteria have no meaning for you, but that most assuredly does not make them objectively 'silly' or 'stupid' or any other negative connotation one feels the need to apply to make themselves feel better about their own choices.

the fact that others dont agree with you doesnt denigrate your choices, and thus should not subject you to denigration. the converse is true as well. we really need to get away from this type of discussion, its extremely off-putting.
Click to expand...

Hence the reason the first words I used were "I think". My opinion only. Never stated as a fact. But thanks for the lecture.

Gordon
 
I have the Panasonic GX7 but even I can see that Fuji is a step up in IQ.

Yes I can make them look similar with good lighting but to me the Fuji really shines in far away detail and in ISO performance.

I am going to get the x100s for that very reason.

I got the GX7 for the video and AF.
 
It seems like the OP lost interest in this topic?

One of my New Year's resolutions is not to participate in Brand X versus Brand Y or sensor size X versus sensor size Y threads! ;)
 
Andrewteee said:
I've sold my M43s gear twice. Now I'm back with an EM1 and I get it. As long as I have other cameras with better IQ for when it really matters the EM1 will suffice for so many other purposes. Think family cam. Think outdoors in the rain on hikes or just watching soccer. I don't plan to build a "system" around the EM1, just use the two PRO zooms and the Panasonic 25mm. That said, I've been experimenting with processing EM1 RAW files and I'm coming around to liking them in my artistic efforts too.

I'm also coming to realize these are - in fact - tools, and each one is different. The EM1 sensor will render differently than the Ricoh GR which is different than the Fuji Xtrans sensor. They each have something to bring depending on what you want out of them or what you are looking for.
Click to expand...

I literally have the same set up but with the GX7
 
Tough choice for me: E-M1 or X-E2.

I have the X-E1 and have had an E-M5, so I think I know how the above both shoot. For "keep it smartly simple" on the controls, the Fuji has a slight edge. (Leica would be my ultimate choice here, it it weren't for missing electronic level and price.)

For landscape, X-E2 has an edge for me because of the 3:2 versus the 4:3 aspect ratio. Wider is better for me for landscape, which is a lot of what I shoot.

For color, most of the time an Oly, especially on flat-light/overcast days. But with good light, the X-E1 can do some near magical things.

I think I get a slight edge in image quality from the Fuji, given an Irridient or Photo Ninja processing. Perhaps not even so much in resolution, but in some other quality (contrast?) that pulls me to feel, "more precise." Perhaps not more accurate, but at least an appearance of more precise. (Green distance foliage definitely requires more care with the Fuji, although Photo Ninja may have made that much less of an issue).

Last, I have this beautiful 14-150mm Pana-Leica four-thirds lens I so want to pair with that E-M1, heh!

So, a lot to think about, and weigh relative importance for ...

Who here has looked over DPreview's new image standard tool for the Fuji versus Full-Frame? I think it amazing how well it stands up to "average" full-frame even in low light. For me m43 stands up really well to most APS-C, while Fuji X-Trans stands up amazingly well to Full-Frame ...

Anyway, just my thoughts and leanings.
 
well, im a big fuji fan, from way back with my old st601 film cam, to the GA645 and i still have an xpan and x100. but tbh, comparing the xp1 to the tweaked em5 sensor in my lowly epl5, in good or low light, the differences were slight indeed to my eye--a very slight edge going to the fuji for just a bit more 'depth' or microcontrast. but overall noise, IQ etc, very very close. and as between the xp1 and my sony (btw i dont like sony!) rx1, the sony blows it out of the water, imo, in every discernible IQ category. from what ive seen, the nikon df also blows away the fuji, though thats based only on web, not personal, assessment. none of this means that fuji has not put out some great products. i love my x100, even in the face of the incredible rx1 performance. but imo the contest is more 'on' between fuji (and all aspc) and m4/3 as opposed to aspc and the new crop of FFs.
 
krugorg said:
It seems like the OP lost interest in this topic?

One of my New Year's resolutions is not to participate in Brand X versus Brand Y or sensor size X versus sensor size Y threads! ;)
Click to expand...

No, still here and still reading and still deciding :)

Have an E-M5 on loan right now but seeing the IQ difference is hard. On DPReview all X-Trans images appear very soft and blurred both in JPEG and RAW compared to all other cams which is off putting. But on other sites the samples show a huge detail increase for Fuji.
 
Since you did mention video, you might want to consider a Panasonic G6. The IQ is fine especially if you shoot raw. You do need OIS in the lenses, however.
 
if you cant see a difference, why continue to try?! imo, FF aside, we're at the point where you just pick the camera and lenses you like best ergonomically, because the results from most any apcs or m4/3 have no meaningful differences.
 
rbelyell said:
if you cant see a difference, why continue to try?! imo, FF aside, we're at the point where you just pick the camera and lenses you like best ergonomically, because the results from most any apcs or m4/3 have no meaningful differences.
Click to expand...

I think that is some wisdom that often escapes many in this hobby.

I used to be an "audiophile", but now cured. I would compare speakers and amps listening to music that I didn't particularly like but that pushed the gear and revealed differences. Now I listen to music I like on decent computer speakers. Much happier. I've tried to go the same way with photography. Good enough is good enough.
 

Similar threads

R
Fuji Nikon d7000 vs Fujifilm x100 vs x100s vs x pro 1?
Replies
4
Views
2K
EgillBjarki
E
D
    • Like
Fuji Fujifilm X-T1 vs. Leica T
Replies
4
Views
2K
DoubleNegative
D
V
Fuji Fuji X-e1 vs X-e2s
Replies
15
Views
1K
KillRamsey
KillRamsey
Back
Top