Landscape equipment - Fuji vs Olympus

P

Petey

Messages
100
Edit My Images
No
I recently purchased an Olympus E-M1 ii from classifieds on this site to have a fully weather sealed kit along with my Olympus 12-45mm f4 Pro lens. Mainly because I'll be embarking on a trip to Scotland. But, I also have a Fujifilm X-E2 with an XF 10-24mm f4 (non-weather-sealed version). I also own a handful of primes for both systems, but nothing I'd consider for landscapes over those two lenses. I'm thinking the Fujifilm will produce the better landscape images, but I'm concerned the lack of weather sealing will cause a problem. I'm being tight on what to bring with me as I'll be travelling with my fiancée and dog in a three door hatchback, with dog bed, dog towels, clothes, etc. for a week. So, I'm being limited to one camera and a small tripod.

Given obvious potential for wet weather conditions in Scotland, I'm leaning towards the Olympus, but I'm curious as to what other people would take with them between the choice of these two? Will I regret not taking the Fuji? Will the Fuji survive wet weather conditions? I don't plan on buying into another camera system. Would it be worth selling the Fuji and buying something like the Panasonic 8-18mm?

Hmm..... scratch that. I'm not sure I could part with the Fuji altogether. I love both systems. Choices, choices.
 
I was going to say. Those two choices aren’t going to take up much room if you take them both.
I was wondering similar for a cruise later this year. I think my x-e1 will get used the most, but I will probably take the x-t4 as backup anyway
 
I have Panasonic MFT cameras and have had X100s and f Fuji cameras so my views are only partially relevant but here goes.

I found the IQ differences between my newer Panasonic MFT cameras and the Fuji's to be negligible so my choice would come down to other factors such as which I prefer to use and focus consistency and performance. I personally wouldn't worry about weather sealing unless you are going to expose the kit to prolonged exposure to water. I've never had weather proof kit but despite using my kit in any and all weathers including heavy rain I've never had a failure using just common sense precautions.

I'd chose a prime over a zoom but perhaps a good mix of kit could be a zoom on one body, either Oly or Fuji, and a fast prime on another body?
 
Sell the Olympus and get a WR Fuji kit?

Looking at the lens selection you have, the Oly lens is (in 35mm equivalent FL) 24-90 and the Fuji is 15-36 so very different ranges.
 
I owned the EM1 Mk 2 for a couple of years when it first came out; it is a fabulous camera; however... I got rid because of poor low light performance and hence, it isn't really ideal for landscapes. That being said, in good light, I got some great images with that camera.
 
Nod said:
Sell the Olympus and get a WR Fuji kit?

Looking at the lens selection you have, the Oly lens is (in 35mm equivalent FL) 24-90 and the Fuji is 15-36 so very different ranges.
Click to expand...
The thought crossed my mind before I ended up purchasing the Oly camera last week on what I thought might be a low ball offer. I realise the two lenses are very different ranges which is what makes the decision tricky. In an ideal world I'd have an x-t5 with the 10-24mm wr, but I have to limit my budget as I don't earn money from my photography. It's just a hobby. Tbf... I think whatever choice I make, I'll probably be satisfied with the results. I might have to sneak both systems onto the trip though.
 
Santafe2000 said:
I owned the EM1 Mk 2 for a couple of years when it first came out; it is a fabulous camera; however... I got rid because of poor low light performance and hence, it isn't really ideal for landscapes. That being said, in good light, I got some great images with that camera.
Click to expand...

One thing that really helps with this is modern software. I recently took some indoor low light pictures with a Panasonic MFT camera at ISO 25,600 and the pictures did look poor on the back of the screen but after some non heroic (I'm no very good at processing) processing using Adobe DeNoise I was pleasantly shocked at how good the results are.

I'd expect landscape to be considerably lower that ISO 25,600 and I'd expect MFT results to be good for even close viewing.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
One thing that really helps with this is modern software. I recently took some indoor low light pictures with a Panasonic MFT camera at ISO 25,600 and the pictures did look poor on the back of the screen but after some non heroic (I'm no very good at processing) processing using Adobe DeNoise I was pleasantly shocked at how good the results are.

I'd expect landscape to be considerably lower that ISO 25,600 and I'd expect MFT results to be good for even close viewing.
Click to expand...
That technology hasn't advanced that much in the last few years since I had this camera. I had & used lightroom and Photoshop then, as I do now. When I talk about poor low light performance, this also relates to poor dynamic range, and constantly working to exposure blend images, and again, you can overcome this issue with some work. At night, the low light performance was just awful and no amount of denoise software was going to correct that.
 
Petey said:
The thought crossed my mind before I ended up purchasing the Oly camera last week on what I thought might be a low ball offer. I realise the two lenses are very different ranges which is what makes the decision tricky. In an ideal world I'd have an x-t5 with the 10-24mm wr, but I have to limit my budget as I don't earn money from my photography. It's just a hobby. Tbf... I think whatever choice I make, I'll probably be satisfied with the results. I might have to sneak both systems onto the trip though.
Click to expand...


The second system would slide into the legs of a pair of wellies... ;)

An XT-2 would do the job nearly as well as the later models.

IF at all possible, I'd take both systems and see which suits YOUR wants/needs best. There's enough overlap in field of view to take the same shot with both to see which gives the results YOU like best, then you can make a better informed decision as to which system to stick with.
 
Santafe2000 said:
That technology hasn't advanced that much in the last few years since I had this camera. I had & used lightroom and Photoshop then, as I do now. When I talk about poor low light performance, this also relates to poor dynamic range, and constantly working to exposure blend images, and again, you can overcome this issue with some work. At night, the low light performance was just awful and no amount of denoise software was going to correct that.
Click to expand...

Adobe DeNoise came out in 2023, so that is quite new. I suppose a lot hangs on what ISO is thought of as high (some people think 1,600 is high) and what quality you are willing to accept and how much you pixel peep but as above I'd be mildly surprised if landscape was being done at what I'd think of as high ISO and if going for the extremes of what's possible and being critical of what's acceptable I don't think I'd be looking at MFT or APS-C Fuji as in my experience my ancient FF Sony A7 smokes them all.
 
Nod said:
The second system would slide into the legs of a pair of wellies... ;)

An XT-2 would do the job nearly as well as the later models.

IF at all possible, I'd take both systems and see which suits YOUR wants/needs best. There's enough overlap in field of view to take the same shot with both to see which gives the results YOU like best, then you can make a better informed decision as to which system to stick with.
Click to expand...
True. An x-t2 was a consideration before I got the e-m1 ii. You’re absolutely right. I should experiment with both and see what best fits my needs. I worry too much about the gear than actually taking photos
 
woof woof said:
my ancient FF Sony A7 smokes them all.
Click to expand...
Exactly... I'm not anti M4/3's, like I said the EM1 Mk 2 is a great camera... I always used to wish I could have that body with a full frame sensor. It's horses for courses.
 
Petey said:
True. An x-t2 was a consideration before I got the e-m1 ii. You’re absolutely right. I should experiment with both and see what best fits my needs. I worry too much about the gear than actually taking photos
Click to expand...

Just take the two. One with a zoom and the other with a prime. Chances are that if you do this you wont need to change lenses in the field.

Whatever you choose have fun and I'll look forward to seeing your pictures :D
 
Santafe2000 said:
Exactly... I'm not anti M4/3's, like I said the EM1 Mk 2 is a great camera... I always used to wish I could have that body with a full frame sensor. It's horses for courses.
Click to expand...

I've had MFT since the Panasonic GF1 and I still have 3 of them so there must be some good (for me) in the system :D
 
Take both. You've got some new kit, a trip away is the ideal time to test it out, but Fuji is better (I may be biased... :fuji:)
 
If you can mansplain that to your other half, you should get away with it!!!
 
snerkler said:
If it's purely landscapes I'd choose m4/3 over Fujifilm.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Could you please elaborate on your reason as to why? I’m still on the fence about one system over the other. I was thinking Fujifilm will offer the better dynamic range of the two. But I’d like to have input from both sides of this debate. Is your choice of m4/3 over Fujifilm camera specific?
 
Petey said:
I think I’ll manage to fit both and this trip might be the decider as to which system gets sold off
Click to expand...

I don't personally think WR is much of an issue as regards rain. My biggest issue with weather over the years in Scotland has been keeping the lens (or filters) clear in wind and rain - and making sure the interior of my bag remains dry. I usually just use a cloth and a plastic bag or shower cap to protect the camera. I tend to find WR is of more use when having to suffer precipitation in a more dynamic environment such as on the street. I suspect WR may be of more practical benefit in terms of wind and sand / dust particles.

I would go with the Fuji over M4/3 if I absolutely had to choose. Sensor is a bit better. I think you're carrying a whole load of features in the EM1 that add weight if carrying it - but have less value for landscape. (If it was a EM5 then I think you get a real benefit in terms of size and weight). If you get other benefits from the EM1 when travelling such as the lens options and excellent IBIS then that 'little better' gets traded the other way. Or if one setup just feels nicer .... just go with it.
 
Petey said:
Thanks. Could you please elaborate on your reason as to why? I’m still on the fence about one system over the other. I was thinking Fujifilm will offer the better dynamic range of the two. But I’d like to have input from both sides of this debate. Is your choice of m4/3 over Fujifilm camera specific?
Click to expand...
To be honest it's a contentious issue and I often get flamed for this, but I still don't believe Fuji can resolve fine foliage as well. I've always loved Fuji's form factor and colours, and for the most part love their images however I do take quite a bit of landscape photos and found that on occasion it didn't deliver as well as I'd like. I always check sample raws and SOOC jpegs of each new Fuji X-system release but I find fine foliage and grass still doesn't resolve as well in certain situations, and sometimes tree bark can look a little off. I appreciate that I'm in the minority with this opinion though (y)
 
I agree most recent gear is capable of producing good images. But if I were going to Scotland I'd definitely take a weathersealed camera+lens.
 
snerkler said:
To be honest it's a contentious issue and I often get flamed for this, but I still don't believe Fuji can resolve fine foliage as well. I've always loved Fuji's form factor and colours, and for the most part love their images however I do take quite a bit of landscape photos and found that on occasion it didn't deliver as well as I'd like. I always check sample raws and SOOC jpegs of each new Fuji X-system release but I find fine foliage and grass still doesn't resolve as well in certain situations, and sometimes tree bark can look a little off. I appreciate that I'm in the minority with this opinion though (y)
Click to expand...
Agreed.

The very reason I got rid of my XT2 kit a few years ago.

And before anyone says it's the processing the artifacts were present in the RAW image.
 
I really appreciate the input on this thread everyone. Thanks. I made a mistake of recently falling in love with xf 16mm f2.8. Was thinking of pairing it with a weather sealed x-t model. Interesting to hear about Fuji not resolving foliage very well. I wasn’t aware of that. I’ll still see what I make of the x-e2 on holiday. I love it for street and landscape is a bit different for me. Landscapes could turn out not to be my cup of tea altogether
 
There are ways around the foliage "issues", the main one being not to pixel peep. But turning down the amount of input sharpening in Lightroom helps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
Craikeybaby said:
There are ways around the foliage "issues", the main one being not to pixel peep. But turning down the amount of input sharpening in Lightroom helps.
Click to expand...
Pixel peeping yes, but it's there on the SOOC jpegs and unprocessed raw (y)
 
My landscapes are shot on M4/3 mostly now an E-M1ii using an 8-25mm f4 now but the Panasonic 8-18mm is superb
 
alfbranch said:
My landscapes are shot on M4/3 mostly now an E-M1ii using an 8-25mm f4 now but the Panasonic 8-18mm is superb
Click to expand...
I think the 8-25mm looks a superb lens, very useful focal length as well. I wish Sony would do a 16-50mm f4.
 
snerkler said:
To be honest it's a contentious issue and I often get flamed for this, but I still don't believe Fuji can resolve fine foliage as well. I've always loved Fuji's form factor and colours, and for the most part love their images however I do take quite a bit of landscape photos and found that on occasion it didn't deliver as well as I'd like. I always check sample raws and SOOC jpegs of each new Fuji X-system release but I find fine foliage and grass still doesn't resolve as well in certain situations, and sometimes tree bark can look a little off. I appreciate that I'm in the minority with this opinion though (y)
Click to expand...

I set up an import filter that reduces sharpening to zero when Lightroom. Since then I have had no issues whatsoever with Fuji RAW files.

flower 2 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

Basking Chaffinch by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

Foliage in these seem fine to me.
 
Last edited:
alfbranch said:
The 8-25mm f4 is a versatile lens in true Olympus/OM System style


feeding fly by Alf Branch, on Flickr
Click to expand...
That’s very sharp too. I think I’d side with camp Olympus over Fuji if they (or rather OM System) re-released the small f1.8 and 12mm f2 primes as weather sealed. I’m trying to justify not having two systems, but the truth is I just like my toys too much.
 
Jelster said:
I set up an import filter that reduces sharpening to zero when Lightroom. Since then I have had no issues whatsoever with Fuji RAW files.

flower 2 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

Basking Chaffinch by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

Foliage in these seem fine to me.
Click to expand...
That’s not the type of shot you see the issue. But I’d advise not to go looking for it, if you’re happy with a system and the images it produces then why go looking for problems (y)
 
I have just returned from Porth beach in Cornwall and took these with the OM1 and 8-25mm lens. I am trying to convince myself that I need to buy a FUJI GFX 100s but they look fine printed at A3+. GAS is strong but it is hard to justify such a large outlay when the results from this light combo are very acceptable. I also shot some using the 40-150 lens which is also a great combo and something I couldn't do on the GFX100s.

Whipsiderry beach by Gordon Ford, on Flickr
Whipsiderry beach by Gordon Ford, on Flickr
Whipsiderry beach by Gordon Ford, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top