OM-D vs a6000 vs X Pro 1

[RaymondC]

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>Some of my acquaintances at the camera club have have full frame dSLRs but have now purchased these more portable cameras, the 2 I know have purchased the Olympus OM-D M10 with that F2.8 fast zoom lens might have been the 12-40mm. </p>

<p>So I have done some research on the lenses selection, size and weight. <br>

While a dSLR like a Nikon D600 + a wide angle F4'ish lens or a F3.5-4.5 (mine) + a 70-200mm F4 that comes up to about 2kg but a lot physically larger. </p>

<p>These other more portable setups are around 1kg and should be physically smaller?</p>

<p>Looking at these 3 brands - Olympus, Sony and Fuji. In layman terms is it the Olie have better selection in lenses. While the Sony is an APC sensor the lens selection isn't as varied, ditto the Fuji XF lenses and the Fuji might cost more? The Olie has for example a 75mm 1.8 which is a 2x on the M4/3 format and a Macro. </p>

<p> </p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>First up: all three of these are excellent systems and are, for most photographers, better choices than DSLRs. If you're using adapted lenses the story changes a bit, and the Fuji and Sony systems become a bit more desirable as full-frame wide-angles don't lose as much of their AOV on APS-C as they do on Micro 4/3.</p>

<p>But if your preference is with telephotos, adapted or not, the Olympus now becomes the more desirable system.</p>

<p>Personally I'd be happy with any of these. The Olympus has a very well dampened shutter. The A6000 might be the quickest at focusing. I'm not sure. The Sony may have about one stop more DR than the other two IIRC.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Olympus probably has the most lenses (combined with the Panasonic offerings - don't forget them).</p>

<p>But all probably have what you need (you need to make sure before buying of course).</p>

<p>imho, you have 3 cameras that can take as good a photo as you are capable of. For me, the most important distinction is how they feel in your hands, because even the weirdest UI (I went from Nikon's excellent UI to Olympus' very weird one when I migrated from DX to µ43) is something you will be able to learn and use. Olympus' is legendary for being obtuse, but after a couple days messing with it, I find it really easy to do everything I want to do. And it's the same on different cameras for the most part.</p>

<p>So... in short... I really wanted to like the Fuji (it was just funny in my hands), didn't like the Sony (too boxy and I didn't like the UI at all), and like the Olympus (I got an EPM-1 for super cheap and then a little later an OM-D M-5 - the latter is on some AMAZING clearance prices right now). I got the one that was most comfortable in my hands. I LOVE it.</p>

<p><em><strong>You need to hold them to decide.</strong></em></p>

<p>And... if you have some budget, look at the Sony A7 series. Some amazing prices for a huge sensor. Too big for me, but might work for you.</p>

[peter_gilbert4]

<p>Best image quality and fastest AF - Sony A6000<br>

Best lens selection and image stabilization - Olympus m4/3 (maybe just the top of the line body with the 5 axis IBIS?)<br>

Best lens quality and best compromise overall - Fuji XF</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the fuji image quality is pretty good, so i would at least tie them with sony. also fuji has better low-light ability than a6000 or any m4/3 body. the a6000 has better video than either olympus or fuji so that may be a factor to consider. i personally dont feel like small ML bodies are all that great with longish teles, since they're no longer so compact, but m4/3 does have the most thorough lens selection at this point. i probably wouldnt get an xpro1 at this point but if that fits your style of shooting, its a solid body.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

As far as top notch lens offerings I would not omit Panasonic Lumix as well as their solid camera offerings over a range of prices. Of course one can mix and match micro four thirds lens and cameras. Check out the feel factor if you can, but hard to go wrong on any you mentioned. APS-C and micro four thirds sensor sizes are not a big deal difference in results. So spin the roulette wheel and good luck.

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>APS-C and micro four thirds sensor sizes are not a big deal difference in results.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>except if you're shooting at high ISOs o_0. also you get about a stop less of shallow DoF from aps-c with m4/3.</p>

[J.W. Wall]

<p>I recently moved from a Canon 50D system to Olympus OM-D E-M10. Early days, but so far I'm loving it -- a lot less size and weight, better image quality, and much more flexibility in the system. And it does focus FAST. The 12-40mm f/2.8 is an excellent and versatile lens. Also have the 40-150mm and have handheld at 150mm at 1/2 second, as the in-body image stabilization makes every lens an IS lens. The E-M10 has some features from the E-M1 that are not found in the earlier E-M5, including the newer processing chip, and a better electronic viewfinder (though not quite that of the E-M1). </p>

[J.W. Wall]

<p>Sorry, accidental double post.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>except if you're shooting at high ISOs o_0. also you get about a stop less of shallow DoF from aps-c with m4/3.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>ABSOLUTELY! For me, I don't need to really shoot above ISO 3200, and so my OM-D works awesome for me (better than my 2 or 3 generations old D90, btw). So I got rid of my DX DSLR and lenses and went to µ43. WAY happier. (Miss Nikon's menus though...)</p>

<p>I suspect most folks, the way they actually USE their photos, won't have an issue deciding between APS-C and µ43. If you will have an issue, you already probably know it and aren't asking questions here, though.</p>

[Sanford]

<p>After a month with the Olympus EP2 my thoughts were "this interface is really starting to make sense". After a month with the Fuji XE1 it was "this is even worse than I thought"!</p>

[alan_bessler_sr]

<p>Just sold my em10 and 2 lenses and went back to Nikon gear D7100 and lenses,MFT might be lighter and maybe eaiser to carry around, but the tiny little sensor in it can't compete with APS-C or FF I'm sure most of you won't agree but that is what I saw when using MFT camera !</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Alan,<br /><br />I kinda agree. Fortunately, the stuff I print isn't so big, and the easier-to-carry thing trumped everything for me.</p>

[andylynn]

I also had MFT cameras for a while but swapped up to APSC mirrorless because the sensor size was too limiting, and still

didn't stop using DSLRs until there had been another generation of improvement to the mirrorlesses.

[sebastianmoran]

<p>After long use of Nikon, I took a mirrorless experiment. </p>

<p>For the past year, I've shifted pretty much to Sony mirrorless. I'm using the A6000 with Zeiss and Sony/Zeiss 55 f/1.8 and 24/2.8 prime lenses and the Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8. The results are terrific in image quality and high-ISO performance. AF is excellent. The whole rig is smaller and lighter. I like my Sony because I think it has the best "focus peaking" assistance for using manual focus lenses. Everything else is fine with the current cameras (which fixed the crazy menu system of prior bodies). </p>

<p>I think you'll find the image quality very high with all these systems. The camera market is so competitive now, and the review so easily available, I doubt any system could survive with inferior image quality. The battle is on features and handling, very possibly different users will prefer different systems. For example, I tried and did not get on well with the Fuji XE-2.</p>

<p>For fast moving subjects and long-lens nature photography the DSLR still rules, but for most work I'm using the mirrorless gear.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p >In my 35mm film days, I covered a lot of events with a fast slightly wide-angle lens (35mm f/1.4) and a fast slightly telephoto lens (85mm f/1.8). I duplicated that equipment with Olympus E-p1 and E-p3 micro 4/3 digital cameras and the 20mm f/1.7 Panasonic and 45mm f/1.8 Olympus lenses.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I was very pleased with the image quality I was able to produce with this equipment, however, I ran into the following problems:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >1. The manual focus was too slow and too difficult.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >2. The auto focus speed was too slow for fast moving subjects and the E-p1 auto focus accuracy was inconsistent.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >3. My two bodies were not dependable. They broke too many times for me to continue to use them with confidence.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I have decided to replace them with the Fuji X-pro1 and the 23mm f/1.4 and the 56mm f/1.2 lenses. Based on my research, I expect little improvement in focusing. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The X-pro1 is larger and heavier than my Olympus micro 4/3 but size and weight were never important factors for me.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Dependability, on the other hand, is very important to me. Hopefully, the X-pro1 will not repeatedly break while I am shooting wedding candids.</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><a href=" </div>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Manual focus with legacy lenses is actually very good with the Sony focus peaking. You have to try it; it's not worth trying to describe.</p>