[shoplink 19929 ebay]
[/shoplink]
ePhotozine (Click here) compared the Olympus E-P2 and Fuji X100 image quality at ISO 100. What do you think? The X100 shows a very sharp and detailed image!
You can get the Fuji X100 at Adorama, Amazon UK and [shoplink 19929 ebay]eBay[/shoplink].
Olympus E-P2 at [shopcountry 14830].
33 Responses
This just shows that the Zuiko 17 is not very sharp (as we already knew). They could do another test with the Panasonic 20mm 1.7
That’s actually could have been interesting: X100 vs. GH2+1.7/20mm: compare by trying to shoot same real world scenes and see how it works out. I hope somebody would do such comparison.
It’s striking how much sharper the x100 image is, with far fewer aberrations also.
Yes, at F8 it looks very sharp, but I expected a bit better at F2 where it looks quite soft. Especially after reading the review at DSLRMagazine where they said the image quality at F2 was almost as good as at lower apertures:
http://www.dslrmagazine.com/pruebas/pruebas-tecnicas/x100-rendimiento.html
everyone want to see it compared to panasonic 20mm (especially at f2.0)
this test is pretty useless
Agree with everyone else: the point is that with the EP-2 I can SWITCH my lens to the extraordinarily sharp Panasonic 20mm/f1.7. The Fuji, for half again as much money, can’t do that. I betcha that with the Panny lens, the EP-2 beats the socks off the Fuji. It’s not much more than an overpriced bit of nostalgia, with a number of fatal flaws.
Yeah, the reviewers forgot that E-P2 is an interchangeable lens camera and X100 is not. Why not use the 20mm instead?
Ouch! That doesn’t look great for the X100. I really like the body and concept, but for an EP2 (I think the EPL1/2 has a weaker AA filter) to be as close to the X100 with that 17mm lens (and at f/2.8 the EP2 image is in some ways better than the X100) shows a bit of weakness on the part of the X100. Put on the 20/1.7, and I’d bet they’d be even closer. The X100 does seem to win the contrast contest, though.
The Fuji is absolutely dreadful at F2 – the Olympus is still reasonably sharp wide open.
The thing I like about 4/3rds is that the lenses tend to be more consistent across the aperture and focal range. I don’t understand why so many camera users obsess over the last drop of sharpness/detail when you can only get it at the lens’ ideal aperture – in real world use, you need the lens to work well across its entire working aperture range.
although, the comparison is not focusing on the same area. the X100 was focusing on the “7” of the bigger dial while the E-P2 was focusing on the smaller dial.
even so, the X100 doesnt look too sharp wide open, i had a hard time figuring out which it was focused on.
> The Fuji is absolutely dreadful at F2
Check again samples at DPReview. They had problem with their first F2 test shot. Updated one is pretty OK: corners are soft, but not distorted; center is quite sharp.
As stated above in other comments, an EPL2 + 20mm f1.7 would be a more relevant comparison because the EPL2 has a lighter AA filter and the f1.7 is a sharper lens. The price of this combination would be $350 cheaper than the Fuji at current street values, and still cheaper even with the EVF.
I just don’t understand why they didn’t make an appropriate comparison.
+1. Use the E-PL1/2, known to have a weaker AA filter and better IQ than the E-P1/2, along with the 20mm f1.7 and then let’s talk. Not a fair test as it stands, like testing the Olympus PEN system with one hand tied behind its back IMHOP.
maybe but i reckon at F8 these 2 are about the same – wide open goes to the oly and at F18 why bother on 4/3?
Personaly I prefure the Oly to the fuji in this test – might be diffrent at high ISO….
The F2 from fuji is like my old fast OM lenses on my EP1 – it gives a kinda soft ghosty image – poor show!
It’s an entirely fair comparison. The E-P2 is still marketed as the premium MFT camera, and the Zukio 17mm is the standard fixed lens. We’re talking about an out of box experience.
I’m guessing that the Fuji lens would still outperform the Panasonic 20mm, largely because the lens and sensor were designed to work together. Pixel peeping IQ isn’t the end of the story, though. MFT cameras have interchangeable lenses, which puts them into a more flexible category. I’m happy to give up some sharpness to have a range of glass covering 14mm to 1000mm on a compact camera.
+1 With the exception that I would like to see the Panny 20mm comparison before assuming the Fuji is better. It looks pretty ropey wide open here.
The EP2 is the premium m43 Olympus in price alone. The EPL1 and now EPL2 are significantly better than the EP2 in IQ and this reviewer would have known that.
As for your guess that the Fuji lens is better than the Panasonic 20mm, I’ll take that guess and raise you.
It should be said that the Fuji has a number of significant benefits over the m43 offerings including 5 fps and better high ISO performance, so it will have its place. Just don’t try to oversell it to the masses.
Well Chris, to me the E-P2 beats the sock of the X100 at F2.8 ISO100.
X100 gets the advantage at higher ISO and smaller apperture at F8 I guess the E-PL2 would be the same as the Fuji, The E-P2 is just a nig behind the X100, but it’s like a 100m sprint, only the foto finish shows the X100 to win.
For those who complain about the Olympus focusing speed (way overblown IMO: “Interestingly the Olympus was a much more decisive about what it was focusing on and snapped instantly into place, while the Fuji hunted around a bit.”
yeah, that’s interesting to know. i own an EP-1 for almost a year and really didnt have much trouble with focusing, aside from very low light of course.
[deleted] posted by mistake
What I am mostly impressed with is how much better the composition is with the 4/3rds. The rest is immaterial.
Interesting point. Not sure if the “rest is immaterial” but you’re right about the composition being better in 4/3.
The Fuji at F2.0 looks extremely soft/hazzy/ It’s difficult to locate where the image is focused, it’s so blurry/soft.
Compare the bumpy camera grip: The EP2 is very sharp compared to the x100.
And the smaller dial: Looks like x100 image was taken with a plastic lens.
Please help clarify if someone sees something different between X100 F2.0 vs EP2 F2.8?
–X100 is very soft at F2.0, almost like a plastic lens.
–X100 has a fast lens, but fast is not important if equals low quality blur.
X100’s lens officially is optimized for F4-F5.6, not F2.
Agreed. Not sure which bit of the Fuji f2.0 shot is actually even meant to be in focus. Phew. That’s a grand saved then…
They should have compared pictures with the same or similar DOF, that is for example X100 at f11 vs E-P2 at f8 (the choice of 17 is ok because it provides the same angle of view as the fuji’s lens). Otherwise you don’t know whether you are seeing shallow DOF or lack of sharpness due to other factors (processing, lens).
Why not take shots at the best f-number for every lens? The synthetic test has little bearing to the real life.
AFAIK the 20mm F1.7 is not fully corrected on any Olympus body ATM.
So, all your requests for other combinations of lens/body other than using a Panasonic body are simply as flawed as the original test itself! 🙁
35 mm vs 35 mm focal. I don’t see where is the problem.
All good points (mostly) but … so we’re ignoring the 6400 ISO shot there then? 🙂
The X100 will trounce the E-P2 at ISO800+.
The level of noise at 6400 they’re getting only happens to me if I underexpose 1 stop and push it up in post.
Images from tests always look worse than what I get from RAWs. Why is that?
Perception. The perception is X100 is high quality. Good marketing. But image quality and lens is low quality. How could Fuji drop the ball on f2.0 quality?(at least from these pictures)