p.1 #1 · Fuji X-T5 or OM-1 Mark II - Thinking Out Loud...
Not sure if I'm actually asking a question here so much as just thinking out loud and open to comments/suggestions...
I've used both for a short period. My summary thoughts for each with features that are most important to me (I think) and which appeal to me, listed in order of importance...
X-T5
Larger, higher megapixel sensor
Lens ecosystem (number of lenses)
Companies commitment to the format
Physical size of the camera/lenses
Film simulations
OM-1
Ergonomics
Lens options (sizes) and quality.
PASM operational format
Computational Photo features
My thoughts...
Comparing them, I've found that the lenses (those I've tried) in the OMDS world are sharper (clinically so) on the OM-1 than the XF lenses I've tried on the X-T5. I've tried only lenses that I would be likely to use on each system.
I do see a difference in resolution between the two sensors. But that, only if I view at 100%. For printing I wonder how much of a difference it might make.
So the thing I'm struggling with is, if I had the X-T5 I think I would miss the quality of the OMDS Pro lenses and certainly the Computational features.
If I had the OM-1 Mark II I think I would wonder whether or not I would be missing out on better quality photos due to sensor differences.
My shooting consists of travel, landscape, light astro (but likely to increase). No sports, wildlife (unless they're not moving), no birding. Basically only stuff that doesn't move.
So that's my dilemma. I'd appreciate some input.
Thanks.
p.1 #2 · Fuji X-T5 or OM-1 Mark II - Thinking Out Loud...
I would expect the larger senor to be important unless you print large images or crop substantially. even then if the Om lenses you have tried are sharper there is a good chance that even larger prints will look better with sharper images, I have test printed 11x14 images from an A7rV against the OM-3. At that size I see no appreciable difference.
p.1 #3 · Fuji X-T5 or OM-1 Mark II - Thinking Out Loud...
Lenses matter. Cameras are far less critical if you're not relying on AF or computational features to capture shots. Decide what lenses you're most interested in using. Get whatever camera works with those lenses.
p.1 #4 · Fuji X-T5 or OM-1 Mark II - Thinking Out Loud...
I find the OM much more ergonomic than any Fuji camera. But 40mp vs 20mp is nothing to sneeze at.
Still, if resolution is al that mattered, I’d go FF instead of either MFT or APSc.
Not sure that helps much, but then again I shoot with all formats and they all have their roles to play in my arsenal (though if I were to drop one, it would be APSc first).
p.1 #5 · Fuji X-T5 or OM-1 Mark II - Thinking Out Loud...
I was trying to avoid stepping on the third rail of sensor format. But since @johnvanr opened that can of worms, here you go...
A 60 megapixel Sony a7R IV with 35mm f/2 lens will definitely out-resolve either of the other cameras and it weighs exactly the same with equivalent lenses.
p.1 #6 · Fuji X-T5 or OM-1 Mark II - Thinking Out Loud...
johnvanr wrote:
I find the OM much more ergonomic than any Fuji camera. But 40mp vs 20mp is nothing to sneeze at.
Still, if resolution is al that mattered, I’d go FF instead of either MFT or APSc.
Not sure that helps much, but then again I shoot with all formats and they all have their roles to play in my arsenal (though if I were to drop one, it would be APSc first).
I'm not sure resolution matters that much that I would want to make the jump to FF. The lens sizes/weights would start to be an issue for me.
p.1 #7 · Fuji X-T5 or OM-1 Mark II - Thinking Out Loud...
jeffbuzz wrote:
I was trying to avoid stepping on the third rail of sensor format. But since @johnvanr@ opened that can of worms, here you go...
A 60 megapixel Sony a7R IV with 35mm f/2 lens will definitely out-resolve either of the other cameras and it weighs exactly the same with equivalent lenses.
Well, while a 35mm f/2 would be a prime lens that I would indeed find useful (17mm f/1.8 in OMDS and 23mm f/2 in Fuji) I would have as my basic configuration, a midrange zoom. Given that the weights are as follows...
They're not too far apart but I'm unfamiliar with the quality of that Sony lens. I know (from my own testing) that the OM-1 and X-T5 lenses I listed are comparable (at least to my eye) in IQ.
Also, though I've not researched it, I'm going to guess that a wide-angle zoom as well as a tele-photo zoom in the Sony FF system would be much larger/heavier than with the other two systems.
I think also that I'm not that much in need of even greater resolution such that I would consider FF.
p.1 #8 · Fuji X-T5 or OM-1 Mark II - Thinking Out Loud...
The graphic comparison is very misleading. Those choices have fairly equivalent depth of field but a 1.2 lens brings in far more light than the f2 regardless of sensor size Try that comparison with the Olympus 17 1.8. Are you looking to compare depth of field or the ability to operate with less light?
As for the choices they seem reasonable except for the Sony. The Sony 24-70 is a terrible lens that was never received well, However their 20-70, 24-105 and 24-70 2.8 lens are very good. My opinion obviously, but I doubt you will find many that find the original Sony 24-70 f4 to be acceptable. It was one of their very first zooms and the only original lens that was not really up to par.
p.1 #9 · Fuji X-T5 or OM-1 Mark II - Thinking Out Loud...
As to resolving images. The full frame has many advantages especially when you use a 61MP body. The question really is do thos advantages (and disadvantages) matter to you. I use both a new Olympus om-3 and a Sony A7RV. Both are great cameras.
p.1 #10 · Fuji X-T5 or OM-1 Mark II - Thinking Out Loud...
The OM-1 is light years ahead of the XT-5 at stabilization and weather sealing. As you mentioned the pro lens are light years better. The 12-100 F4 Pro on an OM-1 is an amazing combo that can go pretty much anywhere and do anything. Where you will see the difference is Fuji sims are awesome and moving subjects in low light as the M43 sensor is smaller.
If you are only shooting prime's i'd choose the Fuji over the OM-1.
I've owned an OM-1 in the past and it's the camera I would take anywhere if I didn't care about bulk or size. My problem, is I do care about bulk and size so I take my x100V instead and accept that I can't get the same shots as my 12-100.
p.1 #11 · Fuji X-T5 or OM-1 Mark II - Thinking Out Loud...
jmmaher wrote:
I would expect the larger senor to be important unless you print large images or crop substantially. even then if the Om lenses you have tried are sharper there is a good chance that even larger prints will look better with sharper images, I have test printed 11x14 images from an A7rV against the OM-3. At that size I see no appreciable difference.
My view is that the difference is less than people think, in a couple of ways.
First, about lenses. Fujifilm lenses are uniformly quite good, and some of them are outstanding. I think that picking one system over the other on the basis of lens optics is a mistake. (I’ve made and sold some rather large prints from Fujifilm files and they look great.)
Then there is the question of the different sensor formats, with Fujifilm being larger and currently up to 40MP. If you work carefully and frequently make prints of about 20” x 30” and perhaps even a bit larger you may see some advantage from the Fujifilm format. However, you aren’t going to see much if any meaningful difference at more modest sizes.
A few years back I had prints in an exhibit along with a few other photographer friends. One of them uses a variety of gear ranging from MFT up to FF. He had a print of a hummingbird that was spectacular that came from the MFT system, and I’m certain that no one looking at it would have noticed any issues relating to the smaller sensor. In other words, your “no appreciable difference” observation about prints is right on.
Try that comparison with the Olympus 17 1.8. Are you looking to compare depth of field or the ability to operate with less light?