It’s easy to guess that the new Fuji X PRO 1 has a better image quality than the new Olympus E-M5. Now the chinese testers at DCfever (Click here) are showing us for the first time how great the difference is. Just click on the image below to enlarge the ISO test:
Suprised? The X PRO 1 is way better. But this deoesn’t mean it is a better camera than the E-M5. The E-M5 is a lot cheaper and has many “mature” features like the super fast AF and 5 axis stabilization. You cna rpeorder the X PRO 1 (Click here) and the E-M5 (Click here) at Amazon.
54 Responses
How many generations before Fuji finally gets both the IQ and a performance camera in this style, I wonder. Quit baby stepping and just do it.
that aren`t real pictures. Do you realy study paintings like that?
nice work.
lg
Fujifilm X-Pro1?XF 35mm F1.4 R
Olympus OM-D E-M5?12-50mm f3.5-6.3 EZ
Haha !? It’s not really the same no ? And now with 45 mm 1.8 ? No comment…
This is a great test. I’d love to see another round later on with a better lens on the Olympus E-M5, such as the Oly 12mm f2.0. I think comparing the kit lens from Oly ($300) vs the “kit” lens from Fuji ($700) isn’t quite as fair.
X Pro 1 is way better, but it is also way too bulky.
I’ll take the E-M5 for all those reasons + it is Beautiful.
Arguably, the Oly shots were taken with the 12-50?!
What a ridiculous comparison.
Default NR, jpg
Fuji 35mm/1.4 vs. Oly f3.5-6.3 zoom
Pfffft. 😐
NR set at default is the biggest mistake made by them. Standard makes everything look too mushy. Low is the way to go if you need NR.
My take: I’d be okay with the E-M 5 up to EI 1600, or maybe EI 3200 with some raw-file tweaking. The X-Pro looks decent up to 6400. That’s a one-stop to two-stop advantage for the X-Pro.
Then again, by far my most-often-used focal length is a 90mm equivalent. The E-M’s choice there (the 45/1.8) is a full stop faster than the Fuji option (the 60/2.4.) That brings us back to a wash, or at most a 1-stop advantage for the Fuji.
Now factor in the E-M’s lens-selection, AF-speed, size and price advantages, and it looks as if I’ll still be going for the Olympus. Yeah, it would be tons of fun to own both, but since I can have only one or the other, I have to play the percentages.
(And if the 75/1.8 really does appear in early summer, as rumorized earlier today, it’s pretty much game, set and match…)
So they compared Fuji X-Pro + 18mm F2 to E-M5 + the not so sharp 12-50mm
Should have used Olympus 12mm f2… they wasted their time
Lol…
A fix lens vs a standard zoom… ridiculous…
They should compare it with the Sony Nex-7
I am looking forward for some smart review site starting to make ALL ISO/image quality reviews of mirorrless cameras with some top-notch Leica or Zeiss ZM glass. Or even better – use Leica R glass and then you can also put it on Canon, Sony and Nikon (with some tweaking). Donating this idea for free in hope for better and more consistent reviews 🙂
so this is best aps-c vs best m43 eh? results look reasonable. if fuji had not made the mistakes of lousy af and large body, they could have a killer camera. maybe next time…
So the Fuji performs about two full stops better there. Not really in the same league, but they aren’t spec-wise either. The Olympus does well for its smaller sensor. This is also largely why its AF is faster. See also an X100 vs X10 comparison… It’s all related and hard to have everything. Different cameras for different types of users.
Fuji is one stop better, which is realistic concerning sensor size. The ones that should be concerned are manufacturers of APS-C cameras – but only if Fuji makes smaller body and more lenses for this system.
The Olympus has IBIS which should mitigate the use of high ISO. Fuji has a great sensor, all they need now is a better wrapper. Pricing would go up too.
I believe we talk about two very different cameras: The Oly is a multi-purpose camera being the 3rd of 4th generation of m43 system. Designed to be small.
The Fuji is a niche camera, the 1st generation in a new system. Strong sides are very high IQ and an hybrid VF. The later being a unique functionality. Designed to be large enough to rely on buttons for control. To appreciate the hybrid VF you need to have experience from “OVF of RF type” The main asset is you have control of what happens outside the image frame. The OVF functionality on Fuji as well as Leica M9 has its oddities and you must learn to be able to utilise it the best way.
So when the Oly is an excellent camera for anybody, The Fuji is superb for certain kind of photography and certain photographers. For others it’s a waste of money. For me the Fuji is extremely interesting. My problem is that it will be the same as when I jumped the Oly E-P1 as soon as it was available. It was the first of its kind and it took some firmware updates to correct shortcomings…..
AF on Fuji? A small problem, have seen photos from indoor sports that was OK and very few mossed shots. It is probably a little better than the first Oly E-P1.
Comparing of ISO above? Seen too much of this – poor examples and not very relevant. Oly is quite good too and with some PP in f.i. Topaz, results are OK. I do 80% of photos at ISO 160 – 800 anyway. Tonal range is another thing and the Fuji at one test performed 2 steps better than Canon 5DMkII at ISO 200 – that is something…..
Unfairer Vergleich – Fuji-FB-objektive gegen Olympus Kit-Zoom ist wie Schwergewicht gegen Mittelgewicht im boxring oder wie man bei uns sagt: Vergleich Äpfel mit Birnen. Vergiß es !!!!
It’s fun to watch the m43 fanboys calling for an unfair comparison citing lens used, noise level was tested, use ANY lens and the noise level will be the same.
+1
EM5 does well for what it is, but noise is noise, and it has plenty of it.
> use ANY lens and the noise level will be the same.
People notice noise or presence of NR by loss of detail.
Thus, if lens is relatively soft – and (kit) zooms are obviously (much) softer than primes – then you really do not see the full picture.
Thus the test is invalid. Yes, it is a nice preview of the IQ, but as a meaningful test it is invalid.
They should have used the 43’s 2.0/50mm – then even AF speed would have been comparable between the two 😉
hey this is not fair, fuji is using a 18mm f2 lens which worth 600 USD. OMD should be using a 12mm in order for the test to be accuracy.
Look at the rest of the review, you can see lens quality issues there, but not relevant for the ISO noise test.
There quite a few cameras that do better than both.
I do not like the EM-5 mush at all. The heavy handed noise reduced files are really unpleasant to look at.
I don’t think you’re right. Not at this price level. Even not at x2 in the DSLR range. The only EVIL out there that could – not on the iso front, but on the pure IQ – is the Leica M9. Something in you is disliking the X-Pro1 too much, I’m afraid. It’s like a Mercedes-freak that doesn’t like to drive a BMW.
These samples are jpegs and as such are not a true determination of the capabilities of either camera. The in camera software in the Olympus looks to be more aggressive and a real comparison really needs to use a common or at the least a prime lens of similar focal length on each…
Funny, just thinking if the test showed different favoring the OMD the legions of Bolys (olys boys) will have been in heaven.
No they cant let it pass, the X pro 1 is the devil, why not let people decide what camera they want?, some will like the omd other the x pro 1, and life will go on, until the next camera iterations.
Can we drop the whole “lens vs. lens” thing here? If there were a big difference in detail at base ISO in favor of the Fuji, then yeah it’d be unfair. But there’s not. So the lenses are irrelevant.
Overall, E-M5 makes me impressed a lot. Once in a blue moon, I shoot at high ISO. But the performance of E-M5 blows me away. I really like weather-sealed body, 5-AXIS IBIS, super fast S-AF, C-AF, and 3D tracking.
So you used the letters : E, M, I, S, O, A, X, B, F, C, D
Then, you might write a new post with the letters : G, H, J, K, L, N, P, Q,R, T, U, V, W, Y and Z.
?????
should compare the E-M5 against GX1 instead… just because both E-M5 and x pro 1 are released in the same time with the a retro design, it does not mean we need to compare them (E-M5 is ugly, IMO).
i think GX1 + 14-42mm X is gonna be a better combo
‘Mature features’? I call it overkilled. Oly was like…”man..gotta make some money, what do we have? Micro43 sensor? That’s it?ok.. Put it in that fully loaded shit we can come out with to crank up the price and don’t tell anyone about that old panasonic sensor we have inside”
And all micro43 fanboys rejoice!
If those E-M5’s features are overkilled, then how should we call XPRO1 features?
the test is not fair as the lens is different. prime lens on xp1 vs zoom lens on em5
I think the E-M5 is doing ok up to ISO 1600 in the comparison (based on a not very high resolution on the screen). Above that, the X-Pro1 is better. But — the X-Pro1 is probably the best in the class, so it will also be better than most other comparable cameras. Thus, this comparison doesn’t say that the E-M5 is bad. The decision will always be a compromize — the m43 system has an advantage when it comes to size, etc.
In a professional application, i.e., getting paid to shoot, the image quality of the X-Pro 1 would be the deal-maker. I would always want to deliver the best that today’s technology has to offer.
If I’m shooting for pleasure—and most of my shooting is for my pleasure—I would choose the E-M5 all day long. I would choose it for it’s size, flexibility, usability and affordability.
I can’t wait until my E-M5 ships!
The Fuji was tested with it’s prime, the E M5 with a kit lens.
The optics do make quite a difference. It would have been
better if the E M5 was tested with the 50mm macro Zuiko.
See Robin Wong’s OM-D blog. As it is this particular comparison
is flawed.
Surprise, surprise, an APS-C camera beats an m4/3 one at high ISO. Anyway, the EM-5 does well to about iso1600 then the X-Pro 1 takes it, which is to be expected. To me, the E-M5 is the better overall camera with a cheaper price to boot. The NEX-7 would be my second pick (would’ve been first if NEX had better lenses), then the Fuji. The hybrid EVF didn’t interest me at all when I tried the X100 and the X-Pro 1 seems chunky. Finally, the sluggish AF and the price are what ruined it, but that’s just me. X-Pro 1 is probably the best choice if absolute IQ without resorting to an FF DSLR is the main requirement.
@ronnbot
“X-Pro 1 is probably the best choice if absolute IQ without resorting to an FF DSLR is the main requirement”
Exactly.
Perhaps the Canon renderings will come to pass, looks like a larger OM-D in many respects.
I see about 1.5 stop ISO performance advantage in favor of Fuji.
Actually admin, that the X1-pro has better image quality could contribute to meaning it’s a better camera. Truth is better camera depends. If you need the image quality the price becomes irrelevant. If you are on a budget, and can’t afford the X1 pro, then the image quality becomes irrelevant.
It all depends. I think both are good cameras. I don’t get why people can’t accept the pros/cons for what they are, but have to somehow make the OMD-5 something it isn’t.
Why would I be surprised? One camera is twice the price and is sporting a high grade prime lens; the other is using a decent but hardly high grade kit zoom. It’s an apples and oranges comparison to me. I’m looking forward to shooting my E-M5 with some good prime lenses when it arrives. I’d love to own the Fuji too, but I have no lenses for it and the 35mm to start costs $700. The sensor sounds capable of amazing things, but on my budget, and with good optics, the E-M5 will do just fine. It’s really not necessary to insult each other because of different tastes in equipment.
The tester used the Olympus 12-50mm kit lens. After recieving it and taking just a few test photos with it, I sold it on eBay. It’s versatile, but optically it sucks. It’s not nearly as sharp as a good prime or the Panasonic 12-35mm zoom lens. So, people might think that the EM-5 resolves much less detail. This is not the case. In fact, with a decent lens, I think they are very close, despite the magic Fuji sensor. The Fuji has less noise at higher ISO’s and the colors are different. Don’t forget both lenses render the image different too. Personally, I think the Fuji colors look somewhat washed out as does the contrast. The EM-5 images pack more punch and need less or no work at all to make them ‘pop’. Even so, the overall image quality of the Fuji is a little better. It’s a more flexible RAW file and with the right PP you can make it look ver good. Now the X-E1 is here, the price of both systems is almost the same. The rices of the best lebses are not far apart either. Interesting, interesting.
What on earth are rices and lebses man? Are you high? Just kidding (you probably used an iPhone or something), I agree with most of your comments. There’s more noise in the EM-5’s images and of course the aspect ratio is different. I think this is important. Personally, I don’t like the old fashioned 3:2 aspect ratio. A photo often is either too wide (landscape) or too thin (portrait). I think 4:3 is a sweet spot. The EM-5 is a fantastic camera. Responsive, versatile and very configurable. The EVF is really good and many micro 4/3 lenses are awesome. Depending on the scene, I think ISO1600 often is very usable after a mild noise reduction in PP. If I could choose, I would skip the XPro 1. It’s bigger and slower. I don’t know, it’s just a quirky camera. The EM-5 never get’s in your way and does what it has to do, every time.