I have been following the threads debating pros and cons of each system. My G3 may soon be under a new owner (My daughter) along with its 14-42 kit lens, leaving me with the GF2 and MFT lenses. I am considering upgrading to the EM5, considering how much I like the outputs from the G3 despite of its age. But the new Fuji XE has also caught my attention due to its relatively simple, retro design reminiscent of old photographic gears, in addition to its larger APS-C sensor. I photograph mostly my children's and wife's portraits, landscape on weekends' hikes, and once in a while family events like birthdays and holidays. I recently also suffered shoulder injury so have found myself increasingly using more and more of the MFT cameras due to weight concern, especially during travels and hikings. I have a few questions especially for owners who are familiar with these systems:
1) I shoot only RAW and process using LR4. Is the problem perceived with the RAW files from Fuji significant enough when processing with LR4? I think this may be a deal breaker for me if I will not able to process the RAW file to its fullest potential in LR4.
2) I am thinking about getting MF Leica mount Voitlander lens ie 35mm F1.4 to be used with the Fuji XE eventually. Anyone here is having problem with properly focusing a manual lens on Fuji. I know it does not have focus peaking, and I have a somewhat declining vision health.
3) From reading all these thread I am assuming from the standpoint of IQ from both Fuji and OMD EM5 that it is a wash? How about from the RAW format comparison?
Thanks guys for any feedback you can provide.

1. In my opinion, yes, it is significant enough, unless you are only shooting portraits.
2. Didn't try manual on Fuji, but it's likely to be easier on the XE-1 with the hi-res EVF than the XP1
3. Due to the watercolor/color bleeding issues with the Fuji, I couldn't call it a wash. In addition, due to the speed of the OM-D, I think you are more likely to capture the moment as intended in the first place.

Hi Joe
I appreciate your reply. My impression from your feedback is that you would recommend the OMD?

I'd pick up the OM-D. Come back to Fuji if Adobe RAW can ever resolve the now well documented water color issues.

I owned both the OMD and the XP1, and greatly preferred the OMD. I was drawn to the XP1 because of the appearance of a "simpler" kind of photography, but in reality, that's not the case. Besides the sensor issues, the AF was slow (although improved with latest firmware), auto-iso was dumb, parallax, while handled smartly, was still inferior to TTL.

With the OMD, it just worked. The camera stays out of the way so you can take photos. Only 2 things worth mentioning is poor continuous AF, as with most all mirrorless, and some folks, myself included, prefer it with the optional grip.

canonfan93 wrote:
I have been following the threads debating pros and cons of each system. My G3 may soon be under a new owner (My daughter) along with its 14-42 kit lens, leaving me with the GF2 and MFT lenses. I am considering upgrading to the EM5, considering how much I like the outputs from the G3 despite of its age. But the new Fuji XE has also caught my attention due to its relatively simple, retro design reminiscent of old photographic gears, in addition to its larger APS-C sensor. I photograph mostly my children's and wife's portraits, landscape on weekends' hikes, and once in a while family events like birthdays and holidays. I recently also suffered shoulder injury so have found myself increasingly using more and more of the MFT cameras due to weight concern, especially during travels and hikings. I have a few questions especially for owners who are familiar with these systems:
1) I shoot only RAW and process using LR4. Is the problem perceived with the RAW files from Fuji significant enough when processing with LR4? I think this may be a deal breaker for me if I will not able to process the RAW file to its fullest potential in LR4.
2) I am thinking about getting MF Leica mount Voitlander lens ie 35mm F1.4 to be used with the Fuji XE eventually. Anyone here is having problem with properly focusing a manual lens on Fuji. I know it does not have focus peaking, and I have a somewhat declining vision health.
3) From reading all these thread I am assuming from the standpoint of IQ from both Fuji and OMD EM5 that it is a wash? How about from the RAW format comparison?
Thanks guys for any feedback you can provide.

If you're thinking about the CV 35/1.4, then I personally can't imagine picking either of those cameras over the NEX-6 or NEX-7, FWIW. Peaking is a manual focus difference maker in non-static shooting environments with manual lenses. Plus, you'll have a smaller camera body than the OM-D, with a smaller crop factor.

FlyPenFly,
Thanks for your reply. You and Joe cleared up my question regarding LR4 and Fuji X.

Joseph Marney wrote:
With the OMD, it just worked. The camera stays out of the way so you can take photos. Only 2 things worth mentioning is poor continuous AF, as with most all mirrorless, and some folks, myself included, prefer it with the optional grip.

Thanks again Joe, for the valuable insight especially from someone like you who owns both mirrorless system.

douglasf13 wrote:
If you're thinking about the CV 35/1.4, then I personally can't imagine picking either of those cameras over the NEX-6 or NEX-7, FWIW. Peaking is a manual focus difference maker in non-static shooting environments with manual lenses. Plus, you'll have a smaller camera body than the OM-D, with a smaller crop factor.


Thanks Douglas. I guess I have not given strong consideration toward Sony Nex simply because I am not sure its rather futuristic camera body would work for me. Now I must confess I have not handled one in real life. Have you had the chance to compare it to either the OMD or Fuji in term of handling?

I would second Douglas' comment. If you're planning on using a manual focus lens, why wouldn't you consider one of the NEXs?

To me, the primary advantage of the OM-D is the great selection of native AF lenses. Taking into account the detail smearing of the Fuji's, I'm not sure what the compelling reason is to buy into that system until they fix that issue.

canonfan93 wrote:
Have you had the chance to compare it to either the OMD or Fuji in term of handling?

FWIW, I've handled OMD, the Fuji X-pro1, the NEX 5N and the NEX 7. The one that felt like the most natural to me is the NEX 7. I also have a 5N, but it's not nearly as comfortable to use for me. I have medium sized hands.

Thanks Jeff. I will look into the NEX 7 as well as the upcoming NEX 6. I am considering buying into the manual CV lenses as my last investment into lenses (or may be I am kidding myself ). I am hoping these reportedly well built lenses will last a long time, especially with no AF motor breaking down.

As much as I've been drawn to XE and X Pro 1, I could never go back to a camera that doesn't have a tilting screen. Love it!!!! I could care less about touch screen, but tilting screens are fantastic to work with. Having a OMD, I have been interested in the upcoming NEX-6 though.

canonfan93 wrote:
I have been following the threads debating pros and cons of each system. My G3 may soon be under a new owner (My daughter) along with its 14-42 kit lens, leaving me with the GF2 and MFT lenses. I am considering upgrading to the EM5, considering how much I like the outputs from the G3 despite of its age. But the new Fuji XE has also caught my attention due to its relatively simple, retro design reminiscent of old photographic gears, in addition to its larger APS-C sensor. I photograph mostly my children's and wife's portraits, landscape on weekends' hikes, and once in a while family events like birthdays and holidays. I recently also suffered shoulder injury so have found myself increasingly using more and more of the MFT cameras due to weight concern, especially during travels and hikings. I have a few questions especially for owners who are familiar with these systems:
1) I shoot only RAW and process using LR4. Is the problem perceived with the RAW files from Fuji significant enough when processing with LR4? I think this may be a deal breaker for me if I will not able to process the RAW file to its fullest potential in LR4.
2) I am thinking about getting MF Leica mount Voitlander lens ie 35mm F1.4 to be used with the Fuji XE eventually. Anyone here is having problem with properly focusing a manual lens on Fuji. I know it does not have focus peaking, and I have a somewhat declining vision health.
3) From reading all these thread I am assuming from the standpoint of IQ from both Fuji and OMD EM5 that it is a wash? How about from the RAW format comparison?
Thanks guys for any feedback you can provide.
My suggestion would be to try both cameras. The problem with reading all of the posts from well intentioned people on the internet is that their perception becomes your reality. For me, having both cameras to use at the same time made it much easier to decide which one to keep. Some things just can't be described effectively in an internet forum.

I have an xpro1, a nex 5n, and a gh1 so I can't speak for the OM-D, but here are my perceptions of each system:

Mft- best lens lineup currently available. It's a mature system, and now that olympus has teamed up with sony, they've addressed one of the things that's held them back for years - overall sensor performance. You're still not going to get as much dynamic range or high iso performance, but at least they're now on board with the best sensor maker available.

Nex- Nothing to complain about in terms of output. Their cameras deliver great files, but feel like toys to me. The 5n feels like a total joke of a camera compared to the xpro1, but again, the output is outstanding. They've been behind the curve when it comes to lenses, both in terms of options and quality but they're getting better. Peaking is a nice feature, but doesn't always work as well as I expected (admittedly I haven't played with the settings too much).

Fuji- the newest system of the three and it shows. They still have some kinks to work out (although things like autofocus have already been improved significantly). The xpro1 feels like a camera made by photographers and that's one of the reasons I really like using it. With an added thumbs up grip, the camera is an ergonomic dream, IMO. Large enough to feel solid in hand, and small enough that you don't mind taking it anywhere. High iso ability is easily the best of the three and rivals many full frame cameras. The watercolor issue is a concern, but I think too big of a deal is made out of it. Unless you're printing large or pixel peeping, you'd never even know it was there and even then you sometimes have to search to find it. They have a great road map full of fast primes that will really fill out in the next year.

Really, all three systems have great things to offer. It just depends on what's most important to you. Definitely try to get your hands on them first if you can. Likely, one camera will emerge for one reason or another.

I compared the OM-D, NEX-7, and Fuji systems in the past few weeks.
If you want to use "non-system" lenses, then the NEX seems like a no brainer. It seems to be the most popular body here at FM for alt lens users. I was attracted to the NEX-7 for that reason - focus peaking alone would do it for me. And it's the best sensor around.
Having said that I finally settled on the OM-D, because I prefer the small MFT lenses to the NEX lenses and larger alt lenses (which I have many). Portability for travel really decided it for me - the OM-D just seemed like the best solution.

Just go to a store that has them and try them. Most people who are considering one system or another can figure it out as soon as they get them in their hand. One usually looks and feels more right for each individual and only you can figure which one that is for yourself.

I'm also undecided about this. The OM-D and Fuji X cameras also have my attention.
Both systems seem to have many fans.
The OM-D is so snappy, sturdy, in body stabilisation, tilting touchscreen, the EVF is ok,... but has a smaller sensor so less control over DOF.
Despite the watercolor issue I generally prefer the results I'm seeing from the Fujis. A cleaner image, even at base ISO. Appealing colors. Most of the results I see from the OM-D look more flat.
It's only because the OM-D seems such a fun camera to use that I keep considering it.

You're right Rob. Unfortunately, where I live there are only 2 specialty camera stores. One does not carry Fuji or Olympus, and the other one is little far away from my home. So I have been relying heavily on others' perception to help me with the right decision.

Thanks Flashinm for the insights. I am still mostly debating between Fuji and OMD, although NEX would likely be a strong consideration if I want to go MF only. As I have stated in the earlier post, there are only 2 camera stores where I live (as far as I know). One does not carry the cameras I am looking for, and the other too far away.

Thanks Eric. As I have already experienced MFT through the Lumix G3, going with the OMD is probably the least troubled way with the smallest chance for any unpleasant surprise. Yet I will have another month to make up my mind. I had always been obsessed with my Canon DSLR, until one day when my curiosity about MFT got a hold of me. I have since been surprised of how much that relatively small MFT sensor in the G3 and GF2 has impressed me.