Micro 4/3 Compared To APS-C

milster

milster

Messages
2,438
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
Yes
I've decided I'm going to get a mirrorless camera for a day to day carry around camera/holidays/days out with the family etc with maybe the view of going mirrorless full time. I've narrowed it down to 2 cameras, the Olympus OMD E-M10 and Fuji X-E1. Now, weighing up all the pros and cons I really think the Olympus ticks more of the boxes of what I want but I still keep coming back to the same thing of the Fujis (alleged) better image quality. I know all the subject/light/everything else is more important than the image quality debate but I would just like to know from actual users how they think the quality stacks up in real terms.

Cheers

Gary
 
I reckon you'll get Oly users saying Oly are better, Fuji users that Fuji is better. IMHO, decide on the lens choice that appeals to you most - and don't discount Panasonic. They make quite decent cameras too ;)
 
I ran with an X-E1 and Olympus E-PL5 (same sensor as EM10) for a while. Micro four thirds sensors have come a long way, but the Fuji images were cleaner at all iso settings. If you're not pixel peeping or blowing images up too large then either will be fine, with the Olympus having the benefits of smaller, cheaper lens options. Ultimately I sold all my mft gear and went with Fuji for image quality, bokeh and a more classic styled body.
 
manualfocus-g said:
I ran with an X-E1 and Olympus E-PL5 (same sensor as EM10) for a while. Micro four thirds sensors have come a long way, but the Fuji images were cleaner at all iso settings. If you're not pixel peeping or blowing images up too large then either will be fine, with the Olympus having the benefits of smaller, cheaper lens options. Ultimately I sold all my mft gear and went with Fuji for image quality, bokeh and a more classic styled body.
Click to expand...

Your signature indicates a Canon 6D and Oly E-PL5, but my interest concerns your thoughts on the Fuji quality compared to both of them? I'd be thinking of replacing my original 5D and Panny G3 with an XT-1 or maybe an X-Pro, although | might hang on to the Panny as my camera for dodgy situations, and I'm interested in your thoughts on comparative image quality. I'm thinking in terms of 18x12 size prints rather than anything larger.
 
arad85 said:
I reckon you'll get Oly users saying Oly are better, Fuji users that Fuji is better. IMHO, decide on the lens choice that appeals to you most - and don't discount Panasonic. They make quite decent cameras too ;)
Click to expand...

I've had both the oly OMD EM1 & the Fuji X-Pro1, I'm not brand loyal and call things as I see them.
Though the oly was great especially features & AF speed it was let down when compared to the X-Pro1 by iQ & low light performance/noise the fuji beat it hands down in those area's, also with the smaller sensor its harder to get defocused backgrounds when shooting portraits and these area's are all very important to me.
The long & short of it was that the oly was sold and I've stuck with the X-Pro1.
I did consider the XT-1 as well but I just dont like the rendering from the mk2 sensor & processor, it tends to over smooth giving plasticy looking skin & theres just something magical about the way the X-Pro1 works when shooting B&W & jpegs... it just works better than anything else I've tried so far.

With regard to print sizes ... I've had images shot with the X-Pro1 enlarged to 24" x 24" without issue
 
Last edited:
Peter, I'll try to dig out some samples later today. My current kit is a 6D and X-E1 :) 6D rules at all iso settings noise wise, although the Fuji has better ability to recover shadow detail at low iso settings. The Fuji also produces amazing film like images, particularly at high iso, and is much more convenient size and weight wise.
 
magicaxeman said:
also with the smaller sensor its harder to get defocused backgrounds when shooting portraits
Click to expand...
There really isn't a lot in it sensor size wise. It's about 2/3rds of a stop once you are at the right focal length (i.e. if you took a picture at 35mm @ f2.8 on a APS-C sized sensor for micro 4/3rds you'd get the "same" picture if you used a 28mm @ f2.25). It is way, way less than the difference between APS-C and FF.

Also, it sounds like you shoot JPEGs given your description of the output. If you do, that's an important distinction as you are comparing the output of the processing engine - which may or may not be relevant - especially if the OP shoots raw.
 
I thought it was more like a stop difference but arad85 seems to know is stuff tech wise so I won't argue.

There are pros and cons of both. If you use tele zooms m4/3 might be a better option. If you like shooting low light or shoot wide open with primes for shallow dof then aps-c maybe the better option.
 
rjbell said:
If you like shooting low light or shoot wide open with primes for shallow dof then aps-c maybe the better option.
Click to expand...
If you go manual, the fastest lenses are available on micro 4/3. There's a swathe of f0.95 lenses out there for micro 4/3 which I don't believe are available at that speed on other mounts plus you can adapt almost all older lenses with a speedbooster to add another stop of light.
 
And the MFT primes are usually good wide open and that's not always the case with other systems.
 
Thanks for all the input everyone. Just been and had a little play at the shop and got sone images to look at on the computer. Was speaking to a chap in tye shop who uses the e-m10 all the time for magazine shoots and love it
 
milster said:
Thanks for all the input everyone. Just been and had a little play at the shop and got sone images to look at on the computer. Was speaking to a chap in tye shop who uses the e-m10 all the time for magazine shoots and love it
Click to expand...

I've never used a Fuji but have followed developments from a distance.

One issue seems to be processing raws with Adobe, some claim better results with other software so if you are thinking of going down the Fuji route it may be worthwhile asking the Fuji guys here what software to use.

I'm not aware of any issues processing MFT shots, certainly not with my Panasonics.
 
Well, I think I've decided a MFT will be the way for me to go but my first choice of the E-M10 just doesn't feel good in my big hands so it's back to the drawing board. I think the leading contender for now may be the Panasonic GX7. Hopefully the local shop will have one in stock so I don't have to go 25 miles to try one again :)
 
milster said:
my first choice of the E-M10 just doesn't feel good in my big hands so it's back to the drawing board. I think the leading contender for now may be the Panasonic GX7.
Click to expand...
Also see if you can get your hands on either a G6 and/or GH3/4. You have to remember the main saver with micro 4/3rds is lens size, not particularly body size and the G/GH series offer a more DSLR experience (I'd equate the G as entry level, GH serious amateur->pro with the controls). I have GX7, GH3, G5 and G3 (yes, I know!!). The GX7 with 20mm is the compact replacement and lives in my bag now. The GH3 is used if I go out to take photos. Image wise, very little in it IMHO, but the GH3 is much easier to use if you want to be fiddling with ISO/aperture/shutter speed on a photo by photo basis....

BTW: I'm 6' 8" tall and have fairly large hands ;)
 
Thanks Andy, just having a quick look and the g3 is gonna be out of my price range for now (unless I start selling of my nikon gear), I'll see if I can have a go with the g6 but I think I like the shape of the GX7 more. I'm hoping it's gonna feel more like the Fujis in my hand which felt more comfortable (used to the x20) but until I get the chance to try it I won't know for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top