Olympus OM-D E-M10 vs Fuji X-M1

<p>I'm a relative beginner looking to buy a camera and after some research have decided upon 2 cameras that I like: the Olympus OM-D E-M10 and the Fujifilm X-M1. The Olympus is about $50 more on amazon than the Fuji and I was wondering what your thoughts on this might be. The thing I see in the Olympus over the Fuji is it has a viewfinder where the Fuji does not. Is this a big deal? What other things should I consider? How do things like image quality and lens compatibility factor into these cameras? Any other help or camera alternatives are appreciated.</p>

<p>The viewfinder could be a big deal depending on how you shoot. They are great to have when the sun is shining bright. The Fuji will have a bit more dynamic range and a stop, (maybe two) advantage in high ISO performance.</p>

<p>Both systems offer some fine lenses but the Olympus, M43 offerings tend to be more affordable and a larger lineup. The good news is both systems are just fine and you can't really make a bad choice here.</p>

<p>I considered both cameras last year. For me it came down to the IQ of the Fuji - although I got the X-A1 rather than X-M1 after comparing sample photos on dpreview. I mostly use it for stationary subjects. The tilting LCD is fine for that. And the in-camera JPEGs look great. Saves time in post. I archive the RAF raw files but seldom edit them.</p>

<p>But for the candid photographer the Olympus offers some advantages that I'd seriously consider if I didn't already have a Nikon V1 that I enjoy for candid snaps:</p>

<ul>

<li>Sensor based stabilization. Combined with focus peaking and adapters for manual focus lenses, the Olympus is better suited to handheld candid photography.</li>

<li>The touchscreen may be handy in some situations, such as with the camera on a tripod at eye level where the top plate is difficult to see without messing up the careful alignment.</li>

</ul>

<p>A couple of things dissuaded me from the Olympus.</p>

<ul>

<li>It lacks the weather sealing of the more expensive Olympus OM models.</li>

<li>The in-camera JPEGs looked great in terms of color, but tended to suffer from excessive luminance noise smoothing even at lower ISOs. I really wanted something to reduce the editing burden, but with the Olympus I'd prefer to edit from raw more often.</li>

</ul>

<p>Both Fuji and Olympus seem committed to offering some real alternatives to Canikon dSLRs. I doubt you'll go wrong with either.</p>

<p>Given a choice, I wouldn't buy a digital camera without a viewfinder. As to the Fuji, a new alternative has just been announced: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/previews/fujifilm-x-t10">http://www.dpreview.com/previews/fujifilm-x-t10 </a>which is supposed to be available in June.</p>

<p>Also let me suggest an alternative to the Olympus OM-D E-M10. Right now, the older version of the OM-D E-M5 is being offered for a incredible price at B&H. Not only does it have weather sealing, it also has a more sophisticated version of the Olympus sensor-based stabilization than the OM-D E-M10: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1129168-REG/olympus_v204040su030_om_d_e_m5_mirrorless_micro.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1129168-REG/olympus_v204040su030_om_d_e_m5_mirrorless_micro.html</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I agree that the critical difference between these is the viewfinder. I'm in the camp that I can't stand using a camera without one.<br>

I'd add that I find the touchscreen of the EM-10 very useful, and the wifi is far more useful than I expected.<br>

My guess is that for almost beginners (and maybe most photographers!) either camera would be good enough image quality in most cases. The rest is a matter of personal choice and what exceptions to 'most' are relevant to the individual.<br>

So @Colton: if at all possible, I suggest you try both of them. I haven't used the Fuji, but for me, the handling of the EM-10 (and other Olys) is what convinced me to try one.</p>

<p>I compared those two. It was TOUGH. I went with the Olympus because I wanted the viewfinder and understood the menu system well. I also found that with lenses it was a little smaller, which is everything to me. In the final analysis, I bought the one that fit best in my hands, mostly, since they can all take great photos.</p>

<p>One thing: Skip the EM-10 and buy a EM-5 while they're still available, with lens, for only 500 bucks. Unless you NEED Wi-fi, I think the EM-5 is a better camera. It's only cheap right now because the EM-5 MK II (over a thousand bucks) is just out.</p>

If you like the X-M1 but want a viewfinder, look for an X-E1. Hard to find new now that it's discontinued, but I saw that

Adorama has them used and demo with or without the 18-55 lens (which is a fantastic lens):

http://www.adorama.com/searchsite/default.aspx?searchinfo=X--e1&category=1000100 And Keh as well (which provides

a warranty on used gear): https://www.keh.com/search/list?s=X-e1&mfg[]=Fuji

<p>For me, and the primary reason I sold my X-T1 and got the OM-D E-M10, the sensor based image stabilization was the key difference. I have a lot of older manual focus lenses from various systems and using them stabilized was a big plus. You can pick lenses up for next to nothing if you use a system with no native digital mount - meaning Minolta MD, Konica AR, M42, Olympus OM, Yashica/Contax, and Canon FD. My initial entry into the micro four thirds was with the E-PL1 which lacks a viewfinder and that is huge if you use the camera outdoors in full sunlight. </p>

<p>One other thing in favor of Olympus is that some of their "good" glass is amazingly cheap. The 40-150mm f4-5.6 lens sells for way under $200 and is probably the best value (quality versus cost) in a lens made today by anyone (although Canon's 10-18mm lens is another diamond in the rough, and Nikon's 35mm f1.8 lens is simply superb for its price point) and is very lightweight.</p>

<p>In the current market, if I wanted sensor stabilization in a mirrorless for legacy lens compatibility I think I'd save up for the Sony. With the 2x crop factor on the Olypmus, you'd need a 24mm or maybe 28mm just to get a normal prime, and almost everything turns into a telephoto. I remember getting some brilliant stuff shooting an Olympus in available light with a Minolta 45mm f/2, but a good lens that's equivalent to an f/4 short tele isn't exactly a holy grail or anything, and the smaller sensors are pretty bad at high ISO so the stabilization was needed for shooting in available light where with a larger sensor camera I'd just use a stop more ISO. That's why I ended up giving up on M4/3.</p>

<p>it makes little sense to get an E-M10 with its more full-featured big brother, the E-M5, at current fire sale prices, unless you really really want a touchscreen.</p>

<p>regarding Fuji and Olympus, Fuji has two distinct advantages: larger sensor (which translates to better high-ISO performance) and a better kit lens in the 18-55 OIS. in terms of lenses being smaller for Olympus, that's pretty subjective since Fuji has 18mm and 27mm pancakes, and the 18-55 is pretty tiny too. i would take a long look at available lenses for both systems and figure out a strategy based on what you think you'll be using. if you never go farther than a kit lens, i would get a fuji body with the 18-55 or get the panasonic LX100 which has a fixed, fast 24-70 lens. what makes this tough is, Olympus does have some good lenses, as does Fuji, but they aren't always equivalent: the 12/2 oly and the 16/1.4 Fuji both gives you 24mm equivalent, but the Fuji gains a stop over the already light-challenged Olympus. in-body stabilization is much more useful with telephoto lenses like the Oly 75/1.8, but once you start adding longer lenses, you quickly give up the size advantage of mirrorless bodies over DSLRs. that said, the 75/1.8 is still smaller than a 150mm/2.8 lens, or would be, if such a lens existed.</p>

<p>IMO the basic conundrum with m4/3 is that the 2x crop factor lends itself more easily to longer lenses, but can be disadvantageous on the wider end of the spectrum. a 100-300 becomes a 200-600mm at something like 5.6, which is great if you take long-range surveillance photos in daylight shooting conditions. but if the whole idea of a mirrorless camera is to have a smaller footprint and form factor, long lenses work against that. Patrick makes a good point about legacy glass, but ideally, you'd want a sony A7 so you could use that glass at its native focal lengths. also, you have to be ok with manual focusing in those situations. </p>

<p>Eric, actually, the EM-5 DOES have a touch screen.</p>

<p>You are spot on in your assessment, imho, though.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Eric, actually, the EM-5 DOES have a touch screen.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>ok, well, good to know. with the E-M5 you get a slightly bigger body but also way better build quality, including weather-sealing, over the EM-10. for a $50 price differential, that's a no-brainer. one potential problem with that, though, is that the average-to-mediocre 12-60 kit lens is also weather-sealed, but all the good Oly fast primes--which IMO would be a must have with an m4/3 sensor--aren't weather-sealed. Fuji also has this problem with the weather-sealed XT1 and unsealed fast primes, but the need for fast apertures is less pronounced IMO with APS-C.</p>

<p>as far as viewfinder/no viewfinder goes, they are definitely good to have in brightly-lit situations. i have the XE1 and it's difficult to see the LCD in midday light. the VF is tiny, but could make a difference in getting that shot or not. also the XE1 has better JPEG rendering than the XE2, XT1, and XT10. if you don't need fast AF for action, the XE1 is capable of outstanding images. XE1's are going for $350 in LN- condition on KEH, but almost $600 with 18-55 (which underscores how good that lens is; that's only a little less than i paid in 2014 for a new kit.)</p>

<p>i also forgot that there are 150/2.8 lenses like the Sigma 150 macro, which are correspondingly huge as noted.</p><div></div>

<p>In the case of the Olympus E-M5 versus the E-M10, it must be pointed out that the newer E-M10 has CA/chromatic aberration correction while the older E-M5 does NOT (see dpreview's review of the E-M10)! Right there, this means the E-M10 will tend to generate cleaner looking jpegs than it's older sibling.</p>

<p>The incamera CA correction was the tie breaker for me in choosing between the E-M5 and E-M10 (both of which are available for $500 with kit lens from B&H). The ONLY superior points for the E-M5 is weather sealing and a slightly better IBIS. Otherwise the newer E-M10 trumps the older E-M5--or so says dpreview.com.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The ONLY superior points for the E-M5 is weather sealing and a slightly better IBIS.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>better overall build quality too. and weather-sealing and 5-axis IBIS aren't insignificant features. but i agree, CA correction is a point in the m10's favor if you're a jpeg shooter. curious that this wasn't corrected with a firmware update tho.</p>

<p>My advice is to consider a body with viewfinder, but most important Lenses.<br /> I think E-M10 kit is more than enough to begin.<br /> I would consider also Panasonic Gx7 kit, or even GM5</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I own Fujis (bought an X-M1 + 2 zooms kit on a lark, added used X-E1 & flash). - Light, great JPGs, sufficient kit-zoom IQ (= images look OK on a 4K screen. I mean the entire image. Pixelpeeping should be avoided with them or you'll see what you didn't pay for.) Horrible AF performance (in DSLR terms) for indoor shots + a bit of VF lag. - I just ordered cheap Chinese adapters for my manual FED / Zorki, Leica & Pentax lenses.<br>

I think the X-E1 is the better camera in general. I am not eager to use long lenses on the X-M1; it feels too awkward, but I like the tiltable LCD as a WLF substitute for the shorter ones, since I am too tall. <br>

As an action camera the MFT stuff must be the better choice. - Fuji suffer from unstabilized primes + no in camera OIS. Their high ISO noise looks nastier than my Leica's too... I can't comment on Fuji's better lenses. - AFAIK the X-M1 is not sold with the awesome 18 - 55mm but only with the cheaper 16 - 50mm. - The other lenses earn good reviews but aren't inexpensive. - Since I am not putting much trust into the Fuji as a low light camera I'd be happier with compact affordable primes instead of their rather fast and due to that bulky ones, which are probably needed to keep AF working and VF lag bearable indoors. From what I read adapting lenses to Fuji isn't the smartest idea ever. The cameras do a lot of internal correction for Fuji's own glass but nothing for 3rd party lenses and the x-trans sensors aren't well supported by external raw converters yet? - I might be off. Anyhow: Fuji is my only platform on which I can compare & explore all my heritage clutter.<br>

MFT seems to offer at least a choice between a slower more affordable Olympus lens and a fast Panasonic Leica alternative for the popular focal lengths. <br>

I didn't research MFT IQ seriously. - To me it seems to have a lot of potential for a (confessedly wealthy) casual available light desperado. If you are asking: "which will take better static vacation pics with its kit zoom?" I'd guess MFT should be good enough but Fuji unlikely to be beatable.<br>

Lens compatibility: mechanically you can adapt almost anything on a small MILC. - "What makes sense?" is the bigger question. Film ultra wides tended to be very big and don't shine brightly as wides on small sensors. Any film standard / macro / shorter telephoto lens is quite likely to work nice on a MILC. - Related questions: Do you mind the bulk? Would you need the speed of AF? - Convenience of a zoom? - Fuji OIS lens vs. adapted heritage & tripod?...<br>

Side notze: There is no used market for Fuji lenses yet. While MFT has been around long enough to place 3 kit zooms (each 60 Euro) into my local dealer's window. - Kit zoom replacement at hand encourages action & nasty environment photography in my opinion. <br>

In a nutshell: Fuji seem more like a one trick pony / MFT more like a DSLR system's little brother to me. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Fuji seem more like a one trick pony / MFT more like a DSLR system's little brother to me</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that's funny; my research led to the opposite conclusion. if you take away the in-body IBIS, you have a system which is inherently weaker in low-light and at wide angle, and requires lenses which take away from one strength (compactness) to meet the other (expanded zoom range w/ 2x crop factor). meanwhile, Fuji is building on a lineage as a film manufacturer and lensmaker which precedes Olympus' existence as a company. <br>

<br>

not only that, but Fuji X seems to have more legs than M4/3 as a format. Read Ming Thein's <a href="http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/05/21/review-olympus-e-m5-mark-ii/">expert review</a> of the E-M5II and he makes a lot of good points about M4/3 appearing much more promising in 2012 than the reality in 2015. Personally, i dont feel the Fuji system's strength is in entry-level bodies like the XM1 at all, but the XE1 is a very good camera in most performance metrics, with AF being unsuitable for fast action standing as a major knock but not a dealbreaker (if you care, they addressed this in the XE2); the combination of metal build and compact size is a real winner in my book. Fuji appears to have built up a committed base who have genuine excitement over the release of new lenses, and they've catered to that base by putting out firmware updates to older cameras. Since Nikon has underdeveloped its DX lens selection, Fuji becomes the natural run-off for leakers. not sure how a system which has released the right combination of bodies and lenses could be a "one-trick pony"? what's the one trick? Fuji's primes are as good as anyone not named Otus, and they have 2.8 zooms, which the Sony A7 series can't even boast. they have a camera lineup which makes sense in terms of delineiation of features/price points, and the shared sensors and batteries means it's easy to mix and match in two-body systems. i dont see them going away any time soon.<br>

<br>

OTOH, there are questions, even with the recent infusion of Sony cash, as to whether Olympus' camera division will even be here 5 years from now, and its possible Sony made that investment so they could pillage IBIS for their own cameras. one problem with m4/3 is that you need to invest in the best lenses to get the best performance, but you're paying near-full frame prices for a small sensor system. APS-C is positioned well in-between full-frame and 1" sensors on cameras like the RX100 -- a subcategory which didnt exist in 2012.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Kit zoom replacement at hand encourages action & nasty environment photography in my opinion. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

well, so does weather-sealing and a metal build. but no one has compared any of the m4/3 kit zooms to the Fuji 18-55 OIS and found them to be equal in performance. </p>