EM5 MK2 vs Fuji X100T

<p>Hello folks, <br>

Decisions, decisions....EM5-MkII or the Fuji X100T? <br>

I know the differences with the interchangeable lenses, stabilisation, etc......but still a decision eludes me.<br>

I use a Nikon D700 now, but that's becoming too big, and most of my shooting is for travel, street or bushwalking in the mountains, forests, hills. You can see why the D700 is too big and heavy ! Either of the EM5 MkII or the X100T will be MUCH smaller and lighter than the D700. So, I'm not quibbling about the size differences here. <br>

Most of my shooting happens around the 24mm to 50mm end. <br>

Which would you get and why? I just want to get this right, because it will be my first camera since the D700 which I bought 6 years ago !<br>

Thank you !</p>

 

<p>i'd get the x100t if you already have an ILC. the EM5 only makes sense if you decide to get a bunch of lenses for it, in which case you are introducing redundancy, possibly, with lenses you already have. i have an x100 as well as an MILC system from Fuji and Nikon DSLRs, and you cant go wrong with the form factor for candids and portability. the moment you stick anything bigger than a pancake on an EM5 you start to lose compactness. if your shooting range averages 35mm, the x100t sounds like a perfect fit. i also would be wary to invest in m4/3 unless i knew i wanted to dive deep into the system, because Fujis and Sony FX have much larger sensors. </p>

<p>Hold both in your hand. See which one fits better.<br /><br />That is really important.<br /><br />I ended up going Olympus, but ymmv.<br /><br />Also look at the Panasonic µ43 stuff, too. Awesome stuff. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Most of my shooting happens around the 24mm to 50mm end.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe it's me, but for me 24, 35 and 50 are three distinct different focal lengths. The fuji does only one of those three. How much will you miss 24 and 50? I'd use EXIF data of your current photos to see how often you shoot wider than 35mm, and if that is a serious percentage, and/or a good part of your keepers, then the Fuji would limit you a bit too much.<br>

Otherwise, agree completely with Peter. Whatever fits your hand and brain best. I'd probably end up with the Fuji, but I'd save myself some money and get the X100S instead.</p>

For hiking, you would not go wrong with the Olympus OMD brand. As to lenses for Olympus EM 5 II a high end machine, you can go with a low end fixed 20mm -equivalent 40mm on 35mm- and be compact to start off. But seems to me that one loses a lot without having the opportunity to add a lens or two or one of the 'chirpy' zooms. I am pleased with the EM-1, not perfect but really nice and not too big or heavy. Even with the vertical battery grip.

 

Wish I had more knowledge of Fuji but I know it is a contender with lots of fans. Must be offering something there. I would be limiting myself eventually with a ficxed focal length lens, even a really quality one like the XT 100 seem to offer...been there done that....Obviously it is a personal decision and a playsession in a store aint a gonna do it, Ace. Truly like I mean not a definitive answer but yes a venture to give you a feeling of like or not like the layout I agree on that part..

 

I like the rugged body of the Olympus top tier and their build and serious options. Plus second or third generation offerings all... Latest and uptodatest. And the micro four thirds lenses are not any to sniff at. I mean none of them even the cheaprest...Of course, you can with no pain add a Fuji fixed lenser I guess and it won't cost you the mortgage either.

 

it is a decision point. Finger biter, nah I think not... Several on this forum shoot different brands and mounts and APS-C and micro four thirds and are happy as clams like Sanford Edelstein our regular here. Now If you will sorely grieve missing the 2:3 shooting format, seems that is your direction....Fuji san! I am in a rut and love my 3 to 4 ratio. Former square tell the truth.

 

If money is not a constraint, then look to the offered and available and planned soon lens options.

 

Am thinking maybe the Olympus/Panasonic twins are ahead 'by a nose' on choices there--is that not so?

 

So good luck. I know you will prevail after reading the customer reviews. Also how about customer service. I am not sure how Fuji san is represented where you reside. Important under the table agenda item..

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe it's me, but for me 24, 35 and 50 are three distinct different focal lengths. The fuji does only one of those three. How much will you miss 24 and 50? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>on paper, you are of course correct that 24, 35, and 50 are different focal lengths. however, as an x100 user, i can tell you that in practice it ends up being a slightly different situation: 35mm IMO is perfect for walkaround use, and the difference is often just a few steps forward of backwards. i never say, oh i wish i had a 24 or i wish i had a 50, i just get used to "seeing" in 35mm. also, you end up taking shots you otherwise wouldnt have bothered with because of the camera's compact size and non-intrusive footprint. having a camera which fits in a jacket pocket is pretty much the definition of going light. there are times i just dont want to take the mirrorless ILC set-up or shlep another bag. i think the answer also depends on photographic style: the fuji lends itself quite well to candids, travel and street photography. its perhaps better at skin tones than nature tones but that's a matter of preference. also the leaf shutter gives you a 1/2000 x sync which is super-handy for daytime fill flash. and you can get some subject isolation wide open with the f/2 lens which is hard to do on m4/3. it also has tele and wide adapters available so you can make it a 28 or a 50 if you want.</p>

<p>not knocking the E-M5 at all as that's a super full-featured camera and the stabilization is top-notch -- if you shoot a lot of video or handheld macro, that would be a better option. but its hard to compare the two directly as we dont know what lenses the OP is considering with the m 4/3 option. obviously, if you invest enough into lenses, you can turn an EM5 into a complete system with ultrawide, tele, and many prime options, and configure it based on your immediate shooting needs. a 17/1.8 would be only a little longer than an x100 series body, so you can turn an EM5 into a small-footprint camera. but if your budget only allows for the kit lens, then you're not using that body to its full capacity. the Oly is also weather-sealed, but the gotcha is only with certain lenses and none of the fast primes. the Fuji will also be a bit less noisy at high ISOs because of the larger sensor.</p>

<p>a more practical thing is that i would absolutely handle both cameras first before purchasing, like Peter says. the EM5's buttons are reportedly a bit small if you have big hands and some say they are too smushy. OTOH you have to love dials (as well as be ok with a fixed-focal) to dig the Fuji. the main difference between the S and T models is a more refined menu system and better AF -- which can make a difference in street shooting. </p>

<p>YMMV, but if i could only have one camera, an X100t comes pretty close to the ultimate, because the size means you never have to leave it at home, and it's pretty capable for a compact. that said, for a compact daily-carry body, the ricoh GR is like 1/2 as expensive, almost as good (albeit with a 28mm, not 35mm lens), and even more pocketable. if you dont print big or tend to shoot at base ISO, i would also think about a Sony RX100 IV which has a fast zoom in a small package, as well as the Panasonic LX100, which has a non-interchangeable, fast zoom and a m4/3 sensor. sorry to give you more options when you'd reduced it to two, but i thought i'd be remiss in not mentioning other options which might fit your criteria. </p>