Upload & Sell: On
| p.97 #11 · Fujifilm X-mount Image Thread |
I did say I just picked up the X-E1 My comments were thinking that the high ISO performance of the X-E1 would be better than the OM-D in terms of IQ...I haven't had the body long enough to form an opinion of the AF accuracy in poor conditions. Your answer saved me the trouble. Thanks.
Yeah, it's a mixed bag. The high ISO performance of the X-E1 is superior to the OM-D (about a stop), though often times, the OM-D's IBIS makes up that stop easily, especially for longer lenses. I love the skin tones of the Fuji, and the general gradation of tones, which are really deep and rich. I also love how incredibly clean the files are at base ISO. I own three lenses for the Fuji right now...the 60/2.4, which is very good, with great bokeh, sharp and good macro. It's not quite as good optically as the Oly 60/2.8 Macro or 75/1.8, but few lenses for any system are; the 35/1.4, which is not as sharp as the PanaLeica 25/1.4, but has such a gorgeous rendering that I don't care. Beautiful falloff to blur with that lens, and I just love the images I get out of it; and the 14mm f/2.8, which is the best ultra-wide lens I've ever used. (I have not used the Zeiss 21/2.8) It's phenomenally sharp to the extreme corners, and has great contrast and color. I carry these three for a lot of day shooting.
However, if I need to capture quick action, or need fast response, or even just a wider capability kit, I grab the OM-D. Image quality is still excellent, and the lenses are so darn good. I have been shooting with my OM-D a lot these past few days, mostly with the 25/1.4, 45/1.8 and 75/1.8, but some with the 14/2.5 and 60/2.8, and I've just been getting such great results. I also absolutely LOVE the Panny 35-100/2.8, so it's going to be hard to replace the OM-D plus the 35-100 for me any time soon.