Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fuji X100, X100S, and X100T' started by iammine, Feb 9, 2013.
I'd like to know your impression about this switch.
What you gain and what you lose.
Switch? Heck no! I always add. . Alas, I don't have Fuji gear yet so I cannot help you. Others will shortly, I am sure. Welcome aboard.
I havec not switched but I have reduced the size of my M4/3 arsenal, one camera 4 lenses down from 3 cameras and 10 lenses
I have both a full m43 setup and a nice but partial X-Pro setup. The m43 stuff is far more versatile and does just about everything well. The Fuji stuff just has its own look and feel that I like at least as much, but in a much more limited way. I look at them as complimentary rather then either / or. If I had to pick one it would be m43 for its all-around capability, but I'd be extremely bummed to have to lose either. Fortunately, I don't see that happening.
If you are looking for a comparison between the X100 and a m43 setup like the OM-D, I can offer one.
The OM-D, particularly with new lenses, offers much faster and more responsive camera than the X100. AF is super fast and accurate, with almost no racking of the lens for focus in difficult conditions. Burst mode is much faster, shot to shot time is almost like a pro level DSLR, and the entire shooting experience is one of ease.
Today I was shooting with the X100 for Chinese New Year, along with the OM-D. I really noticed the difference in AF speed; where the OM-D seemed like it locked on instantly, I could feel the X100's AF motor whirring in my hand. It was quite noticeable. There was an unfortunate difference in shutter lag as well.
On the other hand, the X100 delivers an entirely different colour profile and look when compared with the OM-D. In many ways I prefer the way Fuji does colour, particularly the X100. There is an emphasis on blues, greens and yellows that I really like, and skin tones with the X100 are very nice indeed. The OM-D, when shot in raw and processed with Lightroom, tends towards a much warmer, redder tone. Skin ends up looking more brown or yellow rather the the usual Fuji creaminess Interestingly, even the X10, with its 2/3" EXR sensor, delivers a more accurate and pleasing (to me) colour profile than the OM-D.
Also, the X100 has files that just seem to have more 'depth', and this is not a comment about shallow depth of field. I think that the aps-c sensor of the X100 is able to show more subtle gradations of colour than the OM-D, which adds a sense of richness and depth that the OM-D doesn't have, IMO.
Being used to the speed of the OM-D, I found the X100 a touch annoying in the AF speed and shutter lag. On the other hand, whenever I pressed the shutter button of the X100, I knew that I had just produced another image with those lovely Fuji colours, so the trade off was just about even. In less demanding conditions, like simple snapshots or slightly more deliberate shooting, this would not be an issue for an X100 user.
I have both a XPro and OMD system and like Ray I admit that the OMD is a more versatile camera platform, at this point there are more lenses both wider and longer, the image stabilization is second to none, fast burst speeds, tilt screen, fast refresh evf, weather proofed and the AF while fast too lock I still find has a number of missed focus shots, for me actually much more than the Fuji. What I think some find as missed focus on the Fuji is in actuality camera motion due to no stabilization. My Fuji's have very little issues with focus. All that being said I much prefer shooting with the XPro and that is the reason I have downsized my M4/3 commitment. Some have said that is because for some of the more DSLR functions in a camera I can grab my work Canons, which might be true. BNut honestly for personal I am having fun imaging I prefer shooting with my Fuji XPro too almost anything else. There is just something about the way the camera feels in my hands and the image quality is just stunning.
I added an X100 to my Nikon stuff, and soon was shooting almost exclusively with the Fuji. I kept the DSLR for the odd wide-angle or tele shot.
When the E-M5 came out, I decided to get one and sell my Nikon gear. I soon had 4 lenses to go with it.
But my X100 stays!
As has been said, the Fuji images have something special. But the m43 lens range is wonderful, and I don't have that "I'm fed up lugging that heavy stuff" feeling any more.
Would I have bought the X100 if I already had a m43 system? I think so - the direct controls and great looks are very persuasive ...
I started w/ gf1 when I got back into photography. Skipped all the other m43 cameras until omd came out, but never really got to a point where I liked it, even though ad was better and the stabilization system was the best I have ever used. I used it w/ both my old lenses from gf1 and the 12-60 kit zoom.
I like the ui of xp1 much better. At end of day, how comfortable u are w/ camera us just as important.
Like many of the previous posters, I have fortunately not had to switch, so I use both my digital Pens and Xs. I added the X for the great body design, the analog controls and the OVF, and the slightly better IQ (when I got the Xs, I still did not have the E-M5). m43 has a much better native lens selection at this point, but I can use all my legacy Olympus OM and Leica lenses on both systems, which is great. The Xs, with their OVFs, make me shoot more deliberately, just like my film rangefinders, while the digital Pens are smaller and more intuitive cameras to use, very much like my compact film SLRs. In addition, I foresee continuing to use my m43 (especially the E-M5) for nature/air show photography with my longer legacy lenses. Both are great systems, but I tend to use the Xs when I am in a more reflective and deliberate, less stream-of-consciousness mood.
That sounds pretty much like what I did myself. I had a Nikon D3 along with some very good lenses. Then I got a X100, which made me realize how much a small, compact, but capable camera actually get used instead of sitting on my shelf at home. I got used to the EVF as well, and then I tried the Olympus. I sold my D3 and all my lenses, and I now use the OM-D with 12mm, 45mm and 75mm lenses. The X100 still gets a lot of use, and I use them both together pretty much all the time. The X100 stays, and the only thing I'll ever replace it with is a X100s.
I'm planning to get the X-100 (with used prices coming down since the announcement of the X100S) to cover the 35mm equivalent focal length, for which I don't have a good prime. It's how I'm justifying it anyhow. The X-Pro or XE1 seem very attractive to me, but I'd have to sell my E-M5 kit to make the switch, and I'm simply unwilling to do that. It's just too handy a camera, and it does everything I want it to do well.
I'd love both systems, for the different shooting experince, but in the meantime the X100 seems like a good and economically rational addition to the great little X10.
While I'm not entirely interested in the X100 myself, I see it and a Micro 4/3 system as being complimentary rather than competitive. The application of the X100 is too narrow to compare it to an entire camera system that boasts such a large variety or bodies, lenses, capabilities and prices.
I have both and use both equally.The OM-D does everything well.The instant focus and stabilization is just amazing.I have a number of lenses for it although I mostly use it with the Pana 14 now.It is my real workhorse system.The X100 is just such a lovely thing and a joy to use.It's the camera I carry out for city walks or night functions.The onboard flash is amazingly accurate and iso 3200 looks fine.I bought it used in response to having too many lens choices for the Oly.I just wanted something to grab and walk out the door with.I've preordered the 100s to gain faster focus and to try out the xtrans sensor.
I have both the X100 as well as an E-P3 with the Oly 12mm, PL25mm, the kit lens and the Oly 45mm prime. I took both systems with me in a recent trip to Europe, and some parts of asia. I love both systems very much, but the limitations of the m4/3 systems really showed through in Europe, where the sun set early and darkness settled in. The images were grainy, and the camera did not always react the best with the available light. This is where the X100 shone for me.
I always edit my images in Lightroom afterwards, so the whole colour rendering does not have that big a sway on me for jpegs. However, I will admit that there was just a certain quailty to the X100 that has meant I did not have to alter much.
Where the X100 let me down was in the autofocus. When I'm at an event, like a wedding, a party, etc, I prefer the snappy autofocus of the E-P3, as my reaction time is slow, and it is more likely to capture the "moment". That being said, I've come to adapt to the quirkiness of the X100 so this is not as much as a problem as when I first started. Last thing is that if you want someone else to take a photo of you with your camera, the olympus is much easier to use
At the moment I am seriously considering selling my E-P3 kit, but I am worried that I will miss the versatility of being able to change lenses. For reference, on my trip, I took about 3000 photos with the fuji, and about 1200 with the olympus.
Those are not the limitations of the m43 system - those are the limitations of the EP3 and the older 12mp sensor that all Olympus cameras prior to the OMD used. The newer 16mp sensors, particularly those used on the Olympus OMD, EPL5, EPM2, and Panasonic GH3, are FAR FAR better in low light and have far more dynamic range than those earlier sensors. I know the EP3 is not that old a camera, but the sensor in it dates back to 2008 or 2009, which is a loooong time in sensor development terms. They've just gotten a LOT better, but it took Olympus a while to source a better sensor than the one Panasonic had been offering them. I agree there's something special to the Fuji images and colors, but in terms of low light one of the modern m43 bodies is arguably right there with the X-Trans sensor and slightly ahead of the X100. Don't sell your system - sell the body and update it to the OMD or EPL5, depending on the features you want. Or wait and see what else they come up with - there's a rumored EP5 coming along sometime this year that will certainly have the same better sensor.
Sorry, I should have clarified that - yes, those were the limitations of my particular body - and the money from the system, I was thinking of investing into the X-E1 or XP1 . I did use the OMD for a period of time also, but kept the E-P3. Its weird how preferences work - but I am waiting this year for an EP5 before I make my decision.
Like Melonbread, I too am seeing the limitations of the older m43 sensors (I hate shooting them over ISO 200) which has led me to looking into the X-Series cameras. I know I could pick up an E-M5 and experience better high ISO performance and dynamic range as well as faster AF, but I continue to be drawn to the film-like look of the Fuji images. Like most who have commented here, I also wouldn't replace my m43 system with a Fuji one, but would rather see them as complimentary, even though my m43 system is held back a little by the older 12MP sensor and slower AF.
I have the Fuji X-E1, and almost bought the Olympus OMD. I didn't because I can't see going back in sensor size. Just doesn't seem feasible to me. APS-C is the perfect fit for me. Yeah, the AF speed on the Fuji is a pain and no match for the OMD, but the files coming out of the Fuji, well, I have NO complaints on that aspect.
I came to Fuji from m4/3 with an X100 back in Nov 2011. I had been a GH1 and GF1 user. Previous to that Olympus E-3 and E-1. The X100 has been more favorite camera of all time. I added an X10 and even and XS1. As others noted, the colors are simply astounding, especially skins tones vs. Panasonic's m4/3. Oly has always done skin tone well and I was very tempted by the OM D. I tried it - yes it's faster and more versatile, but it's not and X100 and the IQ was nowhere close for me. Today, I have the 3 Fujis and no m4/3 (other than an old GF1 sans lenses gathering dust).
So I came from m/43, went to Fuji, tried m4/3 again and couldn't do it. It's Fuji for me
I have the X-Pro and the OM-D(2). Two very different cameras, both are different good. I am a former news photog and still shoot in the same manner as when I was working. The OM-D is terribly responsive, as responsive as my 1D's. I could and have used the OM-D for publication. The exception being action/sports assignments where C-AF is required to shoot competitively. While the SAF of the OM-D is lightening fast, the C-AF of the OM-D just doesn't work.
I shot the Chinese New Year parade with both the X-Pro and the OM-D. This was my very first dance with the X-Pro. Even realizing my complete lack of experience with the X-Pro, I found it extremely slow when compared to the OM-D. The X-Pro started up slowly, it focused slowly, it wrote slowly ...it felt like a film Leica ... and it forced me to slow down, anticipate shots, to work with the camera on a give and take basis instead of having the camera work solely for me. But that was okay, the Fuji completely changed my approach to the image, like working with a tripod.
If I had to choose between the two cameras, I would take the OM-D, it is fast, it is responsive, it delivers a great image. Even though I've only used the camera a few days, I would sorely miss the X-Pro. It has a unique feel and usability. The OM-D may be able to shoot rings around the Fuji, but the camera feels cold, a product of mass production. The Fuji feels handcrafted, while not nearly as responsive or versatile as the OM-D, the Fuji still has a ton of charm which makes you feel good when shooting with her.