Which mirrorless camera: Fuji XT1, Olympus OM-D EM1 or Sony A7?

Want low-light performance and "real" image quality. I have seen a lot of the images produced by the Sony A7 cameras and many of them seem to "smear" the images, creating a watercolour-like quality, which I really dislike. I love real film cameras for the reason that is looks real, colours are rich. As much as I like digital cameras for being efficient, I hate it when subjects look too digital - even though, especially in portrait, this can be flattering.

 

 

 

<p>I am looking for a good all-round camera to use for work (mostly macro product shots and indoor events). I would love a camera that can handle low-light but my budget doesn't stretch to the Sony A7S, unfortunately!<br>

Which of these 3 cameras should I go for? Fuji XT1, Olympus OM-D EM1 or Sony A7?<br>

My priorities are:<br>

<b>Good detail; subjects do not appear 'smeary', watercolour-like or too digital-looking when rendered<br /></b><br>

<b>Excellent low-light/night photography performance</b><br>

NB I don't need to print off the images for work or blow up to a large size - these are for featuring online only. I don't care too much about how the camera looks - I am just looking for the best fit for me<br>

Many thanks in advance!</p>

 

 

 

<p>Well it sounds like A Sony A7 would work well for you but...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I have seen a lot of the images produced by the Sony A7 cameras and many of them seem to "smear" the images, creating a watercolour-like quality, which I really dislike."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmmm. I don't... </p><div></div>

<p>Seem to be...</p><div></div>

<p>...getting that. Then, I'm not looking for "real" image quality. Just whatever comes out of the A7 is OK with me. But otherwise it might be a good choice to consider.</p><div></div>

Why would you even consider Sony A7 if its images that you had seen offend you? If images of Sony A7 are bad, then how could images of Fuji XT1 or Olympus OM-D EM1 cameras be any better in the light of requirement of images under low/poor lighting?

 

Somebody else could argue about reality of film vis a vis digital medium. Or, you could knock yourself out reading about that around these parts.

<p>All of those cameras can take good photos. I think you need to hold and try them and get to know the menu system a little to decide what is best.</p>

<p>But there is an enormous difference between what the full-frame Sony and the quarter frame µ43 offer, you have to know the pluses and minuses of each and match it to the way you shoot.</p>

<p>Can't add much to what Louis shows and Peter or Mr. parv. say, except that you might want to check on the type of lens that smears when used with the Sony. Some very wide angle ones of symmetrical formula might, but that is not all of them of course. If I may Dare to say, it is hard to beat the full frame quality of the Sonys and one has particularly high ISO capability.</p>

Maybe you were seeing low quality jpgs from the Sony? If you shoot raw or at least are careful with your jpg settings you

should get good images from it.

 

Really, any of the cameras you mention can get you a good image. The Olympus is the weakest of the three in low light,

but not by an insurmountable margin. But looking at only the sensor to the exclusion of other factors is so 2008. What

about the size and handling of the cameras? Which brand has the lenses you want?

<p>"Watercolor" images from an A7? Nonsense! Much of what you see on line is deliberately distorted in order to produce and "artistic" image. The A7 is exquisitely sharp with good color. It is a near match for a Leica M240, at least if you use the A7 with Leica (or Zeiss) lenses. The maximum ISO is 25600, and you can shoot at 12500 before the noise gets offensive. With the right glass and technique, the resolution is high enough to render fine textures realistically.</p>

<p>For the same price as last year's A7, you can get the updated A7ii, which is more ergonomic, faster, and has in-camera image stabilization which works with any lens, OSS or not. The Olympus has internal stabilization, but the sensor (4/3) is half the size.</p>

<p>The APS-C Fuji XT1 is not only a good camera, but has a boot full of top flight lenses. It has a lot of good reviews. The Sony A7ii was my choice because it is full-frame and works will all of my Leica M and Nikon SLR lenses, in aperture-priority mode with manual focus. The fully compatible Zeiss lenses for the A7 deliver Leica image quality, at 1/3rd the cost.</p>

<p>The attached image was hand-held with an A7ii at ISO 100, using a 90mm Summicron at f/2 and 1/200, ISO 100.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17941982-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="453" /></p>

<p>Here is some detail of the photo above.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17942095-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="600" /></p>

If you look at the photos posted in PN you will find that all of the cameras you listed can do a fine job for the size display you are talking about. And each model or brand his her advocates. So I find the question means you need to do some more research on your own. Your criteria of not digital looking is not one I am thinking counts anymore as opposed to film. Digital has equalled film so set that idea aside. The size of the sensor has been mentioned. That may count some but it counts less than your feel about the system offered by the three brands. I say all three are fine systems. What I chose has little bearing on what you choose. I threw my lot in with micro four thirds and it has not failed me. I am more interested in size and quality and even price of lens offerings. Camera bodies all deliver. So since you can't go wrong you can toss a coin or pull straws and make a decision. But save money for some useful accessories; see forums on lighting and tripods and bags. Let us now what tickles your fancy when you get done, Aloha, gs

<p>In all honesty, all three cameras will perform wonderfully for web-sized viewing, which is normally no more than ~5MP, though it's increasing to ~8MP now that Ultra HD is getting more popular. When downsampled in programs like Lightroom, most flaws should disappear and, assuming you apply output sharpening (can be done automatically in Lightroom), the images will be sharp and not "smeary" at all.<br>

Do you plan on setting the camera to save Raw files and then process them in a Raw converter, or do you want to use out of camera JPEG files? Go to Imaging Resource (or any other website that has downloadable sample images) and download some images at the file format you choose, then scale them down for the web and see which one you like best.</p>

<p>I haven't tried the cameras you are mentioning. - The Fujis I have are the bottom of their range by now, X-M&E1. </p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Excellent low-light/night photography performance</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>is IMHO split: While we surely appreciate high ISO low noise imaging performance, an indoors event benefits from AF performance and general responsivenes of the camera. - When people are involved its nice to capture the decissive moment instead of something else, that might be dictated by viewfinder lag or a half blind AF limping behind. So I suggest to check whatever any store has to dabble with behind a 3 f-stops ND filter since electronics malls are so comparably well lit. <br />Does your mentioned budged allow getting all these nice fast primes that AFs appreciate during event photography? - If not I'd look at alternatives to mirrorless. </p>

<p>Jochen is brushing close by the subject of my comment. But let me ask first, what sort of photos will you be using your new camera for? If mostly scenics and portraiture, then yeah, I'd recommend any of the Sony A7 flavors. <em>But!</em> If you're going to be doing any sort of action photography -- you know, where you're liable to set your camera to Continuous AF (or whatever the maker chooses to call it), please be advised that the A7 and A7r -- and probably the A7s and A7II as well -- are dreadful action performers. Their cyclic rate is very slow and the viewfinder/LCD screen turns black between frames. So it become impossible to follow-focus or to pan the camera, with any hope of keeping the subject centered between frames.</p>

<p>When a camera store sales guy pointed this out to me, the A7r went from being at the top of my list to being completely off of it. So did the A7, whose performance was almost the same. Now, I'm sure the clever folks at Sony are hard at work, solving this problem for future versions of their mirrorless FF cameras. But the way things stand right now, there's nothing that can even come close to the 10+ fps rate a NEX provides. So if your subjects include sports, auto racing, airshows, and the like, and you really want an FF mirrorless camera, then my advice is that you just be patient. The 'net is rife with rumors that both Sony and Canon will be announcing 50mp mirrorless cameras this year. One can only hope that their action performance will be sufficient to meet the needs of folks like me.</p>

<p>for event work and possibly product photography I find the increase DoF a bonus. being able to get all the subjects of a group shot in focus can be much easier with the smaller chip. I use a omd and a7 for event and find a place for each but If i were going for one system It would probably be the fuji. As far as images you can't go wrong it's more about usability and comfort level. </p>