A used Fuji XT-1 or a used Olympus EM5 Original?

I am not after the latest and greatest and prefer to get used. I am looking for a smaller camera esp on travel when I am using public transportation and outside the whole day. Mostly walk about casual photography (maybe with family and friends who don't share the same hobby) and cityscapes and landscapes when I have some time to myself. Maybe a bit of night streets like alleyway. I travel mostly to Asia. I have a light travel tripod but only use that at vantage points and obviously not on a busy Tokyo street.

 

What might make Fuji appeal to me is for whatever reason the larger sensor and I enjoy the manual film bodies like the NIkon Fm2n and the Fuji has the dials on top of the camera.

 

1. The Fuji has a larger sensor but the Olympus has a in body stabilisation. What is your view on the different target market of each of these cameras?

 

2. I like to shoot with small primes so it is physically smaller. The Fuji primes don't have image stabilisation. So would the Olympus be better in this regard? The Fuji lens that appeals to me is the 23mm F2 or the 18mm F2.8 pancake.

 

3. For cityscapes and landscapes I have thought about the Fuji 10-24mm how big is that really? I know it might be heavier than the Nikon 18-35mm full frame len (!). Then there is the 14mm F2.8 instead.

 

4. How's the Fuji EVF under night scenes like sunset and twilight? Does it snow or pixelate? Can it be used for star photography at all? Just to know and set some boundaries. I heard the Olympus might focus faster and with its in body stabilisation maybe the Olympus would show less noise?

 

 

Cheers and many thanks.

From what I know about both cameras, the Fuji has better colour but the Olympus might be my pick overall. I know that the E-M5's shutter is very discrete. I'm not sure that lack of OIS or sensor shift is a deal-breaker, though they do help.

 

I love both systems, but the great thing about the OM-D system is that extreme telephotos are small enough to fit in a small camera bag. 'Full frame' sounds great until you start wanting lenses 300mm and over. If you like adapted lenses, a 135/2.8, which you can get for very little, can become your '270mm' lens. On the Fuji, that's still a useful '200mm' equivalent. Not bad either way, and on both systems you're excluding the edges of the image circle.

I would pick the XT-1 without thinking. It's much nicer than the EM5.

The "target market" is you. They're both really good cameras. U - pick em. You know the different specs, and people who own both of these cameras swear by them. Pick em up in your hand, look through the finders, check out lens choices and prices and decide. For me, I'd get the Fuji.

I have an XT-1, I can't find a reason not to recommend it. It's design is ingenious. Small enough, light enough, ergonomically comprehensive, excellent image quality, versatile in camera editing options. The XF18-55 2.8-4 lens might change your mind as a first purchase. I was a staunch anti-zoom person for 32 years. The 18-55 isn't perfect, but its more about what is good about it that makes this point worthwhile. The IQ from the lens is fantastic. It has image stabilization that actually works. For travel and harvesting majority shots, you must entertain the thought of the 18-55, then move on to the 23mm f2 which I also have for specific known cases. also and important, make sure you do a firmware update for the camera you get if not already done and a firmware update for the lens in case you decide on the 18-55.

Target markets for Fuji with primes: An attempt to fish in the Leica M pond / Light independent people like the Strobist blogger. / Bokeh lovers happy when DOF hits their subject's front eye and isolates it from the background sauce.

Fuji with zooms seems a light reasonable alternative to SLRs that don't need to do sports.

MFT: Folks who dislike bulk, want interchangeable lenses / huge kits don't need a gazillion of megapixels but like a bit of DOF once in a while.

If you want to shoot primes hand held, MFT might be the better deal. 2 f-stops sensor disadvantage reduced to one stop by equaling DOF minus 3 stops IBIS advantage might mean 2 stops advantage if sensors are equal - There should be review sites with sample pictures you can judge.

 

My Fujis are old: Anyhow referring to X-E1: The sensor has about 10 pixels per EVF pixel. So High ISO noise isn't an issue as long as you are seeing the full image for framing purposes. What annoys me is the dropped refresh rate in the dark which combined with the absent AF performance renders the older Fujis almost unusable way before they run out of high ISO.

I haven't bothered to look at the X-T1. Reviews state the X-T2 is a way more desirable camera due to UI improvements. Maybe I'll get one 2 generations later. I'm once bitten twice shy and reluctant to seriously invest into that 4th system. In the light of your "hidden cost" thread: Repurchasing essential focal lengths for another system is a big money dump... I have a Pentax 12 - 24mm which weighs 20g more than the Fuji performs impressively well and is wide enough for me to shoot something else than myself. I'll treat my Fujis as the "light point & wait cameras" they are, enjoy the great JPEGs that hold up well enough on a 4K screen, even with only inexpensive consumer zooms used and call it a day. For everything else, like indoors shooting or keeping myself busy around folks while not really knowing what to say, I'll stick to conventional alternatives: RFs & SLRs. Also give the panorama function of Fujis a try. - Do you really need an ultra wide with that feature at hand?

 

I was pondering MFT for a while but I'd love to have a more (decent!) SLR like continuous AF performance, since I have to cover one sports event per year. I also read the zooms might be a bit challenged (according to DxOMark) to provide the resolution I desire and as droolworthy as the 42.5mm Nocticron appears; I'd end spending 3000 Euro for a body with it.

 

To me mirrorless seems just starting to get there and

I am not after the latest and greatest

is better suited to the SLR / RF market. Keep in mind that family & friends get harder to replace the older we get but might still honing their reflexes. For that reasons it might be worth shooting them with something likely to nail focus quickly, no matter how bulky it is. - I guess one can be similarly obnoxiously perm- snapping with the tiniest phone or the biggest SLR?

To me mirrorless seems just starting to get there

Starting to get where? Yes it took these years for DSLRs to get where they are and they've been around longer than mirrorless, but next to the Fuji XT-2 for example, I'd be interested to know what can compete in IQ, size, weight, handling, AF at that price.

The Olympus is great on paper, but like all MFT bodies, it's hobbled by tne size of its sensor. Until there's a step change in sensor construction, it's just not big enough for lower light use, unless you are very tolerant of noise and missing details.

 

Max iso in practice is 800.

 

Fuji is a better bet in my view, although the x-t1 did have an issue with the black rubber peeling off.

@donbright : We aren't disagreeing, but the X-T2 is the current model and Raymond intends to jump on a previous one.

@donbright : We aren't disagreeing, but the X-T2 is the current model and Raymond intends to jump on a previous one.

I see, sorry.