image courtesy: cameralabs
1) In their GF6 review, cameralabs compared the IQ of the [shoplink 14918]GF6[/shoplink], [shoplink 13828]X-M1[/shoplink] and [shoplink 13800]E-P5[/shoplink]. Check it out here.
2) The Chinese site pcpop posted its X-M1 review and on page 5 they compared the trinity, X-PRO1 vs X-E1 vs X-M1 here (tranlsation). “Fuji X-M1 picture quality than the previous two cameras better number. When using ISO800-6400, we can very clearly see the X-M1 richer detail, noise situation is a little less than the first two and the color more vivid. Therefore, we conclude that both the degree of detail or color reduction, Fuji X-M1 has improved to some extent. Although Fuji X-M1 is more biased in favor of the entry-level users, but this does not prevent this machine’s high performance and high quality.”
image courtesy: popco
29 Responses
PEN E-P5 looked best to me. Not sure the lens on the Fuji makes for a fair comparison.
As always Oly files “look” sharp but if you closely inspect, they have sharpening artifacts and look worse in 100% view. They show faulty sharpness.
The crops at cameralabs _are_ at 100% and those of the P5 look better to me than those of the M1.
For me it’s still a worthless test though. I’m only interested in RAW, and comparing two different cameras without using the same RAW converter (Lightroom please) is not very useful to me. Not to mention that the shots in the church have a completely different white balance due to the change in lighting.
+1
The OOC JPEGs look better from the E-P5 at 100% (those crops are 100% crops). Even though the Fuji is using a quite better lens than the E-P5.
The RAW crops (posted above) are very different because of the default super high sharpening on LR for the Fuji files. Just look at the sky in the Fuji files and see the sharpening artifacts. Still, the E-P5 has more detail (with worse lens and less sharpening). Look at the grass: there are some yellow flowers that can be seen on the E-P5 (and GF6) crops; but they are absent in the Fuji shots.
Can’t wait for this Fuji sensor without an X-Trans color filter array to see what it really is capable of. Soon we’ll know.
The M1 RAW files were _not_ processed with LightRoom:
“At the time of testing the Fujifilm X-M1 RAW format wasn’t supported by Adobe Photoshop Camera RAW 8.1.0.43, so I processed the X-M1’s RAF raw file in the supplied Raw File Converter application.”
Umm, first link is all RAW … Fuji looks horrible, grass is poor in first crop, sky is poor in second. E-P5 looks best, not just sharpness.
Fuji released the M1 based on a 2 year old sensor, and it shows.
E-P5 files simply have sharpened the bajeezes out of them.
But yeah, yellow flowers disappearing is due to x-trans. Great tech for low-noise, bad for fine detail, sharpened or not. RAW could possibly get it out with proper processing, but it takes effort.
The Chinese site is pcpop.com, not popco.
thanks
E-P5 is the best for me too. Lens used was on all cases the kit lens (the cheap and plastic 14-42 on GF6 and E-P5 and Fujinon 16-50 on X-M1)
I’m not sure how people are getting different results for XE-1 and XPRO – I’ve read countless articles saying identical sensor/identical images. Can someone explain!?
TT
If the X-E1 is tested with the latest firmware, I beg there would be no difference compared to X-M1.
Firmware does nothing to the default JPG processing. It’s not unlikely, in fact it’s likely that they make a consumer oriented camera more vivid and contrasty by default.
Bingo.
Forgive my lack of knowledge, as a user of x e 1 if it were possible to mimic the settings of the x m1 in the menu of the x e 1 would it not give the exact same results more or less ?point being you want the greater control of the earlier x cameras to tailor the look to your eye! I just question sometimes the value of a lot of the comparison tests
Click on RAW comparison and Fuji is sharpest. Don’t know why Fuji JPEG are so soft.
Sharpening is overrated and Fuji knows it. 😀
Fuji X cams are known to “cheat” with ISO values. In other words, ISO of Fuji X corresponds to something lower on most of the other cameras. This happens especially with high ISO. Here you can see it even at ISO200: GF6 and E-P5 need shutter speed of 1/1250 for proper exposure whereas X-M1 needs 1/900—about 0.3 EV difference.
“The lower values from ISO 200 to 1600 are too weak by about two third exposure levels (EV) on average. The two highest values ​​(ISO 3200 and 6400), however, deviate by one full exposure value (EV).”
http://www.martin-doppelbauer.de/foto/fujixe1/index.html
To me the 100% crops of the ISO200 show clearly that E-P5 has the sharpest and most detailed images at that ISO. See especially the first crop of the house on the hill top.
It’s weird to see Gordon (who I always regarded unbiased in his reviews) to state:
“The Fujifilm X-M1’s bigger sensor, in my view, produces slightly better, more detailed crops than both the Lumix GF6 and PEN E-P5.”
Excuse me, but biggest cheater in ISO is Olympus OM-D EM-5, and I think E-P5 too. According DXO Mark tests, ISO 200 in Olympus is actual ISO 100 – full stop difference!. All camera makers cheats with ISO, Sony NEX overestimates ISO by 1/3-1/2 stop, Panasonic and Samsung less than 1/3 stop (that’s why everybody says they are “bad” at high ISO).
Crops from Olympus images does looks sharper though, but in real life shots it could be bad things – sometimes overly sharp image gives “flat” look and feel. I prefer less sharp, but more “3D” Fuji image rendering.
This whole “cheating” on ISO meme needs to die in fire. There is NO objective definition of ISO:
“Photographers have the idea that ISO (whether analog or digital) is a fundamental physical measurement, a way of describing the “photon capture efficiency” of a film or sensor. It’s not. Ultimately, what it’s really about is what exposure will produce the best-looking photograph for a particular subject luminance, according to the collective judgment of viewers.”
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/09/why-iso-isnt-iso.html
Fuji’s not cheating, or lying, or fudging. They’re making a subjective decision about how they want to bias the output form the sensor they’re using – just like every other manufacturer does.
Given that ISO stands for “International Standards Organization” it seems odd that there is no objective definition… ISO 12232:2006 sounds pretty objective to me.
Of course one cannot see a sensor separate from a lens. A simple lens (few elements, good coatings) may have near perfect light transmission (ie T/4.0 when aperture is at F/4) whereas another lens may transmit less light (perhaps being T/4.5 at F/4).This will affect the required sensor sensitivity if you want to keep the shutter speed the same.
Funny, you disprove your own point. The standard you mentioned includes five methods to determine exposure index, and that too only for sRGB JPEG output not using multi-zone metering. For anything else, the sensitivity to ISO mapping is arbitrarily selected vide the REI technique.
From the article you linked:
“The Recommended Exposure Index (REI) technique, new in the 2006 version of the standard, allows the manufacturer to specify a camera model’s EI choices arbitrarily. The choices are based solely on the manufacturer’s opinion of what EI values produce well-exposed sRGB images at the various sensor sensitivity settings. This is the only technique available under the standard for output formats that are not in the sRGB color space. This is also the only technique available under the standard when multi-zone metering (also called pattern metering) is used.”
Don’t worry, they ALL will work just fine!
Oh alright, that’s a relief 😛
The XM-1 has a slightly improved jpeg engine, that’s all. The X1 pro & Xe shots are slightly underexposed too in comparison with the M1.
Nah, contrast and saturation just makes it look like that.
I think that Fuji has adjusted the default jpg settings a bit. I noticed a change in the default saturation between X-E1 and X100S, where X-E1 needs saturation +1 and X100S is fine with default settings to my taste. Possibly the X-M1 has also a bit higher default saturation (assuming that the default jpg settings introduced with the X100S were used also in X-M1), which could explain the differences.
While I have made my own comparisons and find xtrans does indeed capture overall more detail and tonality/less noise than omd/pen5 – I think the results at CameraLab put both in a mix of win/lose situation with the pen5 looking a notch better.
The ly nee to use Capture alone or Iridient. I also what version of silky pix they used since fuji just put a new version with better xtrans support.