yes, i see what you're saying. i guess it depends on what you're shooting! i'm usually trying to stop motion, not shoot static scenes, so i guess that's why i don't particularly notice its absence.
but yes i can see if you're shooting static subjects how that would make a difference to you.
in my particular case this is my "when i don't want to bring my DSLR" camera so flexibility isn't really a concern. god help me if i have to buy another set of lenses. if i want to be flexible i can use my canon gear.
the only reason for the comparison was to see if the OM-D would prove to be a better camera for this purpose for me, the primary concern being overall image quality and build quality. it sounds like the olympus is better as far as the latter is concerned, but not necessarily the former. so making the move would be kind of a lateral for me... not a lot of point to it, especially considering that i really like the fuji overall (with the exception of some aforementioned "quirks").
The OM-D is ill suited for your criteria. I wouldn't say the build quality is necessarily better on the OM-D although it does have weather sealing.
If you shoot the OM-D with the 7-14, 9-18, Oly 12 f2, PL25 or PL45, the "IQ" will be better than the X100 at ISOs up to 800. Beyond that the X100 has better files.
IQ is about the total look, not just how much you can boost shadows in Lightroom.
If you take into account color accuracy, white balance accuracy, pixel level detail, and overall resolution the OM-D sensor is superior. Where the X100 can win is in slightly better dynamic range and less shadow/sky noise. The dynamic range though is surprisingly good on the OM-D.
The PL25 and PL45 are especially much nicer lenses than the X100. However, there is still no good AF 35mm equiv lenses on the OM-D.
Even more importantly though, there's a Significant difference between 4:3 and 3:2. I would look at that before any IQ comparison.
FlyPenFly wrote:
The PL25 and PL45 are especially much nicer lenses than the X100. However, there is still no good AF 35mm equiv lenses on the OM-D.
Even more importantly though, there's a Significant difference between 4:3 and 3:2. I would look at that before any IQ comparison.
The PL25 works out to a 50mm, and the PL45 to a 90mm. Compare that to a 35mm equiv, and you have vastly different looks and uses.
"Even more importantly", are you saying that the difference between a 90mm and 35mm lens (or 50mm and 35mm) is of less importance than the difference between 4:3 and 3:2?
I think the OP and I are in exactly the same spot. I've got a D700 and full kit of lenses that I love and will continue to build on.
If I am going to be buying lenses, it will be for that system. For me, the X100 is all about simplicity, and learning to master a camera and it's quirks and working to create great imagery with one focal length. It's either for you or it isn't. Sounds like it's for the OP.
FlyPenFly wrote:
DTOB: Well from your first sentence, it's obvious to see why its an illogical comparison.
Agreed, which is why I thought it was odd that you would make that comparison.
goosemang wrote:
and what i mean there is where you actually compose 1:1 in the viewfinder...
I don't know quite what you mean by the above, but yes, when using a 1:1 macro lens like the PanaLeica 45mm f/2.8, you can do 1:1 that is reflected exactly in the EVF. Remember that 1:1 on a Micro 4/3 sensor is a very small object...equivalent object in frame of 2:1 on full frame (fills the frame with an object 17.3mm wide).
najibs wrote:
You do realize that the OM-D can switch aspect ratio from 4:3 to 3:2 in the menu, right?
Well, you can, but it just crops off parts of the top and bottom of the image. Nothing to be gained by switching aspect ratio unless you shoot JPEG, and then just to ease cropping later. The GH2 and GH1 have multi-aspect sensors, where changing the aspect ratio actually changed the area captured (so you gained more sensor area on the horizontal and lost int on the vertical). The OM-D just has a 4:3 aspect sensor, though.
DTOB wrote:
Agreed, which is why I thought it was odd that you would make that comparison.
I think you can still compare the rendering of say a 35mm and 50mm lens in terms of looks beyond just the focal length especially if its not a bokeh comparison.
However, I don't think it's logical to compare an ILC with a fixed lens camera unless you're comparing a specific lens/body combo to a fixed lens solution.
goosemang wrote:
i mean 1:1 aspect ratio - square images
i'm wondering if you set the camera to 1:1 in the menu if you actually see in 1:1 in the viewfinder, or if it just crops it after you take an image
Yes, it will crop in the viewfinder as well. Note on that...if shooting RAW with a non 4:3 aspect ratio will not affect the RAW file at all. The crop will be applied if using Olympus software, but it's ignored by things like Lightroom. Of course, JPEGs will be appropriately cropped.
Jman13 wrote:
Yes, it will crop in the viewfinder as well.
this is very interesting. one thing i've always wanted with my DSLR was the ability to see in different aspect ratios in the viewfinder. this is kind of a big deal, and i hadn't even considered it
