Fujifilm X-T10 vs. Sony Alpha 6000 vs. Olympus OMD E-M10 - Which one to buy?

[Gary A.]

I echo jaomul ... I doubt if you'll be disappointed with any of those cameras.

The Fuji is more of a 'Manual Shooter's Camera' with design elements patterned after the old film SLR's. The Oly and Sony are more menu controlled. For someone relatively new to digital photography and with a limited budget, I think the Oly would be your best bet, a lot of cluck for the buck, tons of menu driven adjustments/choices, tons of new and used lenses, the 5 axis IBIS of the EM5/EM1 is absolutely wonderful (dunno about the 3 axis IBIS of the EM10).

That being said, I love the Fuji IQ, (closest to film, at least to my eye), of any digital camera I've used. The IQ differences are subtle, but there, and I have minimal reservation of shooting at ISO 3200 with the Fuji 16MP sensor. Fuji's kit lens is wonderful, the 55-200 is very very sharp (no experience with the 50-230). If you can swing the extra $$, I'd go for the Fuji (and the better build 55-200) ... otherwise the Oly. It is kinda a personal thing but I have never had any affection for Sony still cameras.

If you're around LA you can play with my Fuji and Oly cameras, bring a card and mess with the images/files later.

 

[otherprof]

Hi everyone,

I'm planning to buy a new mirrorless system camera. Additionally I'm going to buy the Kit Lens, an affordable Tele Lens and maybe one or two prime lenses later. I also want to adapt some old manual lenses. I could already limit my choice to three main options:

1. Fujifilm X-T10 +16-50 (or 18-55) + 50-230

2. Sony Alpha 6000 +16-50 + 50-210

3. Olympus OMD E-M10 + 14-42 + 40-150

I mainly shoot nature (some wildlife too) and landscape, sometimes cities/architecture and sports and I also take a lot of pictures while traveling, so my gear should not be to big and heavy.

So the Fuji has probably the best image quality and more important also the better Kit Lenses, especially compared to Sony. I like the viewfinder in the Olympus the best and I consider the one in the Sony the worst, I also don't like the position. The Sony has the best grip, but I prefer the menues, the controls and design/build quality in both, the Fuji and the Olympus. I really like filming, so a good video quality would be very nice. I think the Sony is the best here, isn't it. The Fuji lacks ISO 100 and 6400+ in Raw mode which is definitely a downside of this camera. On the other hand the Sony has no built-in Intervalometer which is disappointing because I like shooting star trails and timelapse videos from time to time.

I have got a few questions now:

I have seen that the Fuji raws are looking a bit soft and I read that the NR is active even in Raw mode. Is that true and is it noticeable in normal use?

Does one of these cameras feature Focus Trap?

Does the bigger sensor offer a noticeable advantage with manual lenses as these are originally made for bigger sensors?

Is the Sony 16-50 really that bad?

Which one is better? IBIS in the M10 or the OIS of Sony /Fuji lenses?

And finally...

Which one should I buy?

Thanks a lot for your help

I only have experience with the a6000 and the 16-50 kit lens. I love the co,,mbination, and find the lens quite good, but I shoot only jpegs, and I've heard the camera is superb at correcting lens issues when shooting jpegs, but not so good when shooting raw.

 

[FXA]

The Fuji X-Trans DR is excellent -- best in class for the sensor size. Here's Bill Claff's test results for the X-E2 which has the same sensor as the X-T10 (he hasn't done the X-T10 yet): Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

Go to the right side of the graph and add in the other cameras you're considering and the X-Trans should outperform them.

Joe

Wow that's pretty impressive. It's even as good as some Full Frame cameras. But I've seen that the X-E2 has a better Dynamic Range than the X-T1, although they use the same sensor. Is this just an inaccurate measurement or is there any other difference?

You listed almost everything in your list of what you shoot. You got landscape, cityscape, architecture, nature, wildlife, travel and even sports in there. You may need to prioritize that list some. Do you really shoot wildlife and does that mean for example birds in flight? Do you really shoot fast action sports? Yes? Then all of these cameras you're looking at here are 2nd rate starting with the glass. If you want to shoot BIF get the glass and camera those people are using -- your camera brand is Canon. You really want to shoot landscape, cityscape, travel and nature? Then AF speed is a non-issue. In that list of rules that come after rule #1 you find this rule: The jack of all trades is a master of none. There is no single best of everything camera.

Joe

I shoot sport and action time to time but it's certainly not the most important thing and I don't really need ultra fast AF

I echo jaomul ... I doubt if you'll be disappointed with any of those cameras.

The Fuji is more of a 'Manual Shooter's Camera' with design elements patterned after the old film SLR's. The Oly and Sony are more menu controlled. For someone relatively new to digital photography and with a limited budget, I think the Oly would be your best bet, a lot of cluck for the buck, tons of menu driven adjustments/choices, tons of new and used lenses, the 5 axis IBIS of the EM5/EM1 is absolutely wonderful (dunno about the 3 axis IBIS of the EM10).

That being said, I love the Fuji IQ, (closest to film, at least to my eye), of any digital camera I've used. The IQ differences are subtle, but there, and I have minimal reservation of shooting at ISO 3200 with the Fuji 16MP sensor. Fuji's kit lens is wonderful, the 55-200 is very very sharp (no experience with the 50-230). If you can swing the extra $$, I'd go for the Fuji (and the better build 55-200) ... otherwise the Oly. It is kinda a personal thing but I have never had any affection for Sony still cameras.

If you're around LA you can play with my Fuji and Oly cameras, bring a card and mess with the images/files later.

Although I did never use a film SLR I still like the X-T10 controls.

The 55-200 is a bit to expensive for me atm, maybe I'd upgrade later if I think I need it.

And I live a few thousand miles away from LA (in Germany) , so that would become quite difficult, but thanks anyway


Today I downloaded some sample RAW files from the dpreview image comparison tool and I noticed to things:

1. The Fuji images happen to be darker at same aperture, ISO and shutter speed. I had to adjust exposure by 0.3-1.0

2. The difference in terms of IQ are not as big as I expected. The Fuji is slightly better at noise and colors, while the Sony is quite a bit sharper.

But nevertheless I guess the Sony wouldn't be the right choice, mainly because it's bad kit lens, which will probably be my most used lens.

Does adapting old manual lense to the X-T10 make any sense if there are that good Kit Lenses available?

 

[Ysarex]

Today I downloaded some sample RAW files from the dpreview image comparison tool and I noticed to things:

1. The Fuji images happen to be darker at same aperture, ISO and shutter speed. I had to adjust exposure by 0.3-1.0

2. The difference in terms of IQ are not as big as I expected. The Fuji is slightly better at noise and colors, while the Sony is quite a bit sharper.

How are you evaluating raw files to make those determinations?

Joe

 

[FXA]

Today I downloaded some sample RAW files from the dpreview image comparison tool and I noticed to things:

1. The Fuji images happen to be darker at same aperture, ISO and shutter speed. I had to adjust exposure by 0.3-1.0

2. The difference in terms of IQ are not as big as I expected. The Fuji is slightly better at noise and colors, while the Sony is quite a bit sharper.

How are you evaluating raw files to make those determinations?

Joe

I used this tool: Image comparison: Digital Photography Review

Then I opened the RAWs in C1. I looked how much NR had to be applied and changed exposure to match the brightness.

 

[Ysarex]

Today I downloaded some sample RAW files from the dpreview image comparison tool and I noticed to things:

1. The Fuji images happen to be darker at same aperture, ISO and shutter speed. I had to adjust exposure by 0.3-1.0

2. The difference in terms of IQ are not as big as I expected. The Fuji is slightly better at noise and colors, while the Sony is quite a bit sharper.

How are you evaluating raw files to make those determinations?

Joe

I used this tool: Image comparison: Digital Photography Review

Then I opened the RAWs in C1. I looked how much NR had to be applied and changed exposure to match the brightness.

C1 does a pretty good job with X-Trans RAF files. If you really want to compare exposures however put them in RawDigger.

Joe

 

[FXA]

Today I downloaded some sample RAW files from the dpreview image comparison tool and I noticed to things:

1. The Fuji images happen to be darker at same aperture, ISO and shutter speed. I had to adjust exposure by 0.3-1.0

2. The difference in terms of IQ are not as big as I expected. The Fuji is slightly better at noise and colors, while the Sony is quite a bit sharper.

How are you evaluating raw files to make those determinations?

Joe

I used this tool: Image comparison: Digital Photography Review

Then I opened the RAWs in C1. I looked how much NR had to be applied and changed exposure to match the brightness.

C1 does a pretty good job with X-Trans RAF files. If you really want to compare exposures however put them in RawDigger.

Joe

I did it and it's the same. Sony image looks much brighter again. Raw Digger show UnExp 24.6/16.2/36.8/16.3 for Sony and 40.2/40.3/65.5 for Fuji

 

[FXA]

But that's mainly at ISO6400, below the differences are not too big.

Gesendet von meinem A0001 mit Tapatalk

 

[fmw]

I'm curious about the mirrorless cameras that look like SLR's. Is the attraction smaller size? Compatibility with the full manufacturer's lens lines? If neither of those things is true I'm wondering why someone wouldn't simply choose a DSLR instead. I'm not challenging. Just asking.

 

[FXA]

I'm curious about the mirrorless cameras that look like SLR's. Is the attraction smaller size? Compatibility with the full manufacturer's lens lines? If neither of those things is true I'm wondering why someone wouldn't simply choose a DSLR instead. I'm not challenging. Just asking.

The DSLRs in my price range are the D5500 and the 750D. IMO the only real advantages are the better and cheaper lenses and the better AF when using the viewfinder. On the other hand they are still bigger and heavier, they have got an OVF (I prefer EVF), worse Contrast AF(Nikon) and worse sensor performance (Canon).

 

[Ysarex]

But that's mainly at ISO6400, below the differences are not too big.

Gesendet von meinem A0001 mit Tapatalk

OK -- that makes more sense. Fuji's sensors (Sony) are ISO invariant and Fuji doesn't handle higher ISO in the conventional manner of boosting the sensor signal prior to ADC. At ISO 6400 I believe there is no sensor boost at all, in other words it's no different than if you just left the camera at ISO 3200.

I'm using an X-E2 and I never change the ISO on the camera. I have it locked down at base (200) and I use the camera as if the ISO dial just wasn't there -- less to think about and it makes no difference in the result since I only save raw files.

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

I'm curious about the mirrorless cameras that look like SLR's. Is the attraction smaller size? Compatibility with the full manufacturer's lens lines? If neither of those things is true I'm wondering why someone wouldn't simply choose a DSLR instead. I'm not challenging. Just asking.

I made the switch about three years ago and I upgraded from Canon FF (5DmkII) to a Fuji X-E2. I miss the OVF and do prefer it but other than that the change was an overall win for me. Size and weight were big factors but you can argue there are smaller DSLRs than the beast I had been using. Once I retired I had stopped using the Canon and was almost exclusively using my pocket compact. So I started shopping. I started shopping the way I have always shopped for cameras -- once the general category was settled on (120 roll, 35mm, DSLR, etc.) I started shopping for lenses. At first I was open to another DSLR just smaller and lighter than the Canon. Given how I use a camera the first lens on my shopping list was a lens in the 70+ degree angle of view range (24 to 21 on FF). I found the Fuji XF14mm f/2.8. That lens made me look harder at Fuji. I wasn't keen on the EVF, but oh what a lens. I was nervous about the X-Trans tech in the sensor, but oh what a lens. So as I shopped I kept coming back to that lens and when I looked at the rest of the Fuji lens line that clinched it.

Joe

 

[fmw]

Thanks for the response. The only Fuji I ever owned was an S3 that accepted Nikon lenses. I used it for internet photography and it served me quite well until higher resolution sensors became available. I replaced it with a lowly D80.

 

[fmw]

I'm curious about the mirrorless cameras that look like SLR's. Is the attraction smaller size? Compatibility with the full manufacturer's lens lines? If neither of those things is true I'm wondering why someone wouldn't simply choose a DSLR instead. I'm not challenging. Just asking.

The DSLRs in my price range are the D5500 and the 750D. IMO the only real advantages are the better and cheaper lenses and the better AF when using the viewfinder. On the other hand they are still bigger and heavier, they have got an OVF (I prefer EVF), worse Contrast AF(Nikon) and worse sensor performance (Canon).

So it appears smaller and lighter is the attraction. Then why not one of the even smaller mirrorless models that look like rangefinder cameras? Some of them are available with eye level electronic finders. Even my point and shoot has such a finder. It is smaller than a cell phone. The finder probably smaller than the ones in the mirrorless SLR type models but the monitor on the back should be about the same. If I were starting from scratch I would probably embrace the mirrorless concept but I have thousands of dollars worth of Nikkor lenses for the F mount so I would have to wait for a mirrorless that would accept them.

 

[table1349]

This will fix the weight problem.
http://www.50plusplusfit.com/images/howto_pics/two_arm_standing_extension.jpg
http://www.50plusplusfit.com/images/howto_pics/two_arm_curl.jpg