Well the lens used was also pretty bad. That said the E-M1 probably does have more detail. The X-T2 does better with low light, that is the shame about MFT.
Why wow? The EMi MK II is more expensive. It got it's teeth knocked out in the AF and ISO tests though, which are very important to many, and this was using one of Fuji's weakest lenses.
Olympus: Better color, better awb, better details Fuji: Better autofocus, Better dof, better low light capabilities So, there is no winner here, just something different and both with compromises.
It looked like each camera had VERY clear strengths and weaknesses, but looked like the final score was pretty close to being even! I'm sure the F-Log would swing things back toward the Fuji, but I was still impressed at the Olympus's out of camera colors. As always, awesome comparison!
I had the Olympus, but returned it because of the poor autofocus which I found not that different from my Panasonic g85 (maybe even a bit worse). Many thanks to Matthieu and his beautiful better half - Heather - for another great camera comparison.
Wow, quite a few differences... Personally, I find the Fuji profiles a bit over the top (and certainly not what I remember from the original emulsions in the film days). EM1.2 looks more natural to my eye. Shots with the 12-100 Pro look absolutely impressive, and the stabilization works wonders too. So, an nod to the EM1.2. But boy does it suffer with the AF tests (unexpectedly, I might add!) and with the high ISOs... The XT2 wins there. Summing up: know what you need to do beforehand, and only then choose the camera. Hasn't it always been like this? Thanks for reporting Matthieu and Heather, very informative.
Personally I've been positively surprised by the E-M1 II video capabilities. Yes the X-T2 has a faster AF and better high ISO but I was surprised to see the good DR of the Oly especially in the highlights area. Both brands did a good step forward with video.
Mathieu Gasquet Agreed. The colouration of the X-T2 appears off - more greenish than it should be and not enough magenta (see Heather's portrait whilst holding the stuffed toy comparison). Plus I find Fuji makes all pictures seem flat and film-like rather than real-like. Otherwise, X-T2 much better for video due to AF and ISO and cheaper but without touchscreen, a proper articulating screen and IS.
Disclaimer: I'm not much of a video shooter, my focus is on stills. Been shooting Olympus OM-Ds from the first model (E-M5), and now a proud owner of two E-M1 Mk IIs. I'm very impressed by that camera, eagerly awaiting better third-party RAW support.
that good DR came at a price. in the beach scenes, it looked pushed a lot although it showed more detail in the shadows, there were a lot of chromatic aberatios and weridness around the highlights from recovering i think. fujis image looked more natural, although more contrast
Some shots might differ because of the lens uses (for example in the WB test, I used the 25mm Pro and the Fuji 35 1.4 at their fastest aperture and the Oly lens is sharper). But in other shots, I just found the E-M1 II to be a little bit sharper.
Interesting that Ming Thien invested in two E-M1.2 for his video work and not Fuji ...which was hugely updated with firmware 3.0 with more capabilities adapted from the E-M1X.
I'm a Canon & Fuji shooter but I really like the (I can't believe I have to type this ridiculous model #) Olympus OM-D E-M1 mark II. The price is just a third to high just like the new 5d mark4. Looks great for sports & wildlife & is beautiful little camera.
Nice comparison. Shooting portraits with the X-T2 in some circumstances, such as indoor or lowlight, i see the results are similar to your video in 1:12 which are greenish/greyish portraits .On the other hand ,the x-t1 provided much more natural results ,like the new olympus as well seen above.
Yes I got the same results for stills with the X-T2, even compared to the X-T1, the T2 has a greenish cast while the X-T1 has a more natural result. You can see some examples here: mirrorlesscomparison.com/fujifilm-vs-fujifilm/x-t1-vs-x-t2/#Colours-monochrome-profiles-andJPG-settings
The Olympus images were generally sharper and more detailed in normal shooting conditions. Some of that can be down to the lens, but I suspect the sensor also plays a part in this. It would be interesting to see a comparison of these two bodies using the same (high end) lens via adapters. As I have always considered high ISO performance to be a bit of a red herring for most photographers, the only place where the X-T2 was quantifiably better was in continuous auto-focus performance. Having said that, from a personally subjective standpoint, I thought that the X-T2 offered more pleasing colour reproduction in many of the samples. Overall, I thought that, in this video at least, the OM-D E-M! Mk II took the blue ribbon.
The strange thing is that when I look at the video stills comparison tool on dpreview the X-T2 is slightly sharper than the E-M1II when both are shooting 4K UHD.. in Cinema 4K the E-M1 II is just a bit sharper.. The Fujifilm 18-135mm isn't a very sharp lens (especially wide open), I guess that explains the difference shown in your comparison shots.. (with the comparison on dpreview they used the Fujifilm 56mm f/1.2 and Olympus 45mm f/1.8.. both shot at f/5.6).
The lenses definitely play a role here. Thinking about it I should have used perhaps the 35mm 1.4 at f/4 or f/5.6 instead of the zooms, but at the time I only had those in handy.
Mathieu - which camera had colors true to life (or was it a case of using the X-T2's jpeg profiles)? Many of the X-T2 pictures seem to have an amber cast compared to the Oly.
I often found the E-M1 II colours more balanced, especially in cloudy situation and with skin tones. For landscape, the X-T2 can brings the colours to life especially with the Vivid/Velvia profile but they can also be too saturated at times.
If I remember correctly, it was on low. I also did a 4-way comparison with NR and it does indeed get rid of some color noise but also soften the details a little. And even with the High level there is still more noise than the X-T2.
Thank you quite a few surprises there. E-M1 is a better video shooter than i thought but also slower focusing than i thought. E-M1 would have been the video dinner by far if it was not for ISO noise and slow autofocus. But it also has no sensor crop in 4K so i give it to Olympus in the end anyhow ;)
Very surprised how badly the em1 II did in the running auto focus test especially as it has phase detect. I did prefer the video quality from the Olympus over the Fuji.
Could you please write the settings that you used in Olympus for the CAF of the running person? It did a terrible job... Awesome comparison by the way!
C-AF, single point. I did the test twice. The one I included in the video is taken at 200mm equivalent, the other was done at 100mm equivalent and there the E-M1 II did a little bit better but Fuji was still faster.
Olympus said during an interview at DPreview that they already working to improve the AF via firmware. We'll have to wait and see how much better they can make improve it and how much time it will take for them to do that. But since the E-M1 II has phase detection AF and a very powerful software, I don't see why they couldn't bring it close to an X-T2/a6500 level.
Thank you very much for this comparison of this 2 cameras. For me for example the sharpness and the colors of the EM1-Mark II are more convincingly. What really makes me think is this bad continious AF with tracking or the slow change of sharpness of the Olympus. And there is also my question. Will you share this expieriences with Olympus and do they listen to experienced MFT Specialists lke you to change anything? Becaus for now this AF, i also saw your test in spain, where as soon as the object comes to close, is not working satisfying as it should be and so i could not decide now to buy this cam in this state of the art, especially the advertising of Oly has the main emphasis on the speed and also on the AF. Hoping for a reply from you. Thank you very much. Regards Marcel
Hi Marcel, yes the AF is slower in video mode (it does much better for stills though). I've ran the test multiple times to double check and the X-T2 was always faster. The E-M1 II does ok with shorter focal lengths. When you don't need super fast change, it can actually be pleasant to use (especially if you use touch AF during recording that gives smooth transitions). But if you need a 4K camera capable of perfect and blazing fast C-AF, the X-T2 is the answer :)
Mathieu Gasquet Merci beaucoup Mathieu. I hope that Olympus recoginze this handycap and will fix this soon in a next firmware update. Salutations de la Suisse. A un autre fois...
Does the X-T2 really look that bad? I mean the lenses are both probably stopped down quiet a bit, so I wouldn't say it's all the lens making the X-T2 looking so mushy.
I used the single point on both. I always make more than one side by side comparison for each category and double check the various settings. The X-T2 is faster, always. Personally I found the Fuji camera to be the fastest for video among mirrorless cameras (probably with the a6300/a6500 at the same level).
On the other hand, if you use the touch screen to change focus point while recording video on the E-M1 II, you get a nice and smooth transition that isn't too fast like on the X-T2 (and you can't use the touch screen on the Fuji either).
i was goint to get XT2 then em1 came out and now im getting em1 ii for Macro/wildlife. thanx for the comparison i didnt know em1 is sharper than xt2 !! if u could do a review on macro that will be great as there is no review on em1 ii macro on utube !
***** thanx i cant wait to get my hands on mine.i wish there was a review with 60mm macro on em1 ii . it should be great not to mention the in camera stacking/bracketing...
If only the X-T2 had a touchscreen. With its impressive photo and ok quality and good AF capabilities in both, it would've been a greater camera with touchscreen.
Great video! I've been shooting as much as I can (in the single digit Fahrenheit temps that resembe the Hoth System!) with both the XT2 and the EM1 ii and am getting very similar results with the stills. The XT2 clearly dominates CAF in video, but did you compare them in stills? Curious to see how they do against each other and given that it's too cold even to Ski, it might be a while for me, LOL! As for video they both are great, but I keep finding myself grabbing the EM1 simply because of its absurd IBIS system, but that video CAF on Fuji is amazing!
Yes I compared them also for stills and I am preparing a full article on my comparison site. The AF performance for stills is much closer. To me the X-T2 is overall sligthly better but with certain subjects you have to make sure to have the right settings or the hit rate can decrease significantly.
I am anxiously waiting for the full comparison between the two cameras. Do you have any ETA for it? Please include a low light AF and IQ comparison as well. Thanks
in stills it depends, not just on lens but also the raw developer. the two are closer in sharpness when running files through ACR and lightroom. Run the same files through iridient developer which has been optimised for xtrans and the performance Delta between the two is more significant with the Fuji performing like a really good full frame in terms of detail and sharpness.
Been checking that site almost everyday. Since I already own X-T2, I'm hoping that result it in favor of Fuji so that I am not tempted to buy Olympus :)
Geez, the Fuji isn't better than the Olympus, necessarily, even though it has APSC sensor. I particularly didn't see better dynamic range from the Fuji for the sunset shots. Both about the same price. Olympus has in image stabilization but Fuji has bigger sensor. The Olympus lens looks much better than the Fuji. Fuji has much better autofocus. Hard decision between the two, actually. . . What do you think? Which one is better to you?
They're not the same price, the Oly is more expensive on most sites, and the APSC shows it's power on the high ISO test, it would pull ahead just as clear on shallow DOF comparisons if primes were used. This test here used Fuji's weakest zoom.
+altar7 yes but in some shots it is also the lens fault: the 12-100 is sharper than the Fuji 18-135, or the 25mm Pro is sharper wide open than the XF 35mm wide open.
At 1:20 I notice but on almost every video I see the Fuji has a hard time getting detail once it is focused on something. It is like it is putting detail around the edge of what it is on instead of exactly on the subject? Does anyone else see this?
It could also be because I was using both lenses at the fastest aperture (25mm Pro at 1.2 and XF 35mm at 1.4) and the Oly lens is sharper in comparison to the Fuji lens.
In terms of sharpness would you say the fuji lens is letting it down? I have an Olympus EM-5 mk2 and contemplating changing to fuji for better ISO ability and image quality. The dpreview image quality comparison shows the fuji to be much sharper especially as the ISO increases.
The lens certainly plays a role. If you look at my latest 4K comparison against the a6500, there is a side by side sharpness shot were I used another lens and the result is much better.
Watching this on my 4K 50" Samsung TV... The Fujifilm looks a lot better. The EM1 II looks oversharpened and lacks depth of field due it being a smaller sensor and the dynamic range seems better on the fuji. I would use neither for video but the fuji is better of the two... Along with it being a better stills camera and cheaper than the EM1 II, its a no brainer for me.
strange comparison, when don't use other lens on XT2 when testing instead of the worse lens 18-135? even 18-55 provide much better image, not to say those prime lens
I see Olympus still has an epic fail on their hands with continuous auto focus. Every other category they were superior on though. There's no way you can get birds in flight reliably with the Oly focus tech. Fail again.
10 minute video, no IBIS or Sync IS (badlky tested here MAthieu!) more roling shutter. Lens of the Fuji is so bad this invalidates the test too, the Fuji almost surely can do a lot better there. In other tests I have seen (cinema5d?) these two cams were very closely matched alspo in noise but the AF from the Oly in Video is bad. Fuji does an excellent job!
The 18-135 is not a good lens. Maybe Fuji's worst, especially after 100mm. A pretty unfair comparison. Why not use the 55-140, a more "pro" lens from Fuji?
I agree that I should have used another lens for the 10s sharpness part, but everything else including FoV, colours, WB, autofocus and ISO are more than fair ;-)
oly 4k much sharper af goes to fuji shame on you olympus i like the fuji colour warmer and better iso no changed my mind about colour portrait of heather looks better on olympus and is ,rolling shutter better with olympus
Wow, the E-M1 was kicking the X-T2's butt right up until continuous autofocusing.
Well the lens used was also pretty bad. That said the E-M1 probably does have more detail. The X-T2 does better with low light, that is the shame about MFT.
AND UNTIL ISO.
agreed... the olympus 12-100 pro ($1600AUD) is literally twice the price of the fuji 18-135 ($840AUD) :P its no wonder that its a lot sharper :P
i don't get it. isn't the e-m1 the olympus flagship?
Why wow? The EMi MK II is more expensive. It got it's teeth knocked out in the AF and ISO tests though, which are very important to many, and this was using one of Fuji's weakest lenses.
Olympus: Better color, better awb, better details
Fuji: Better autofocus, Better dof, better low light capabilities
So, there is no winner here, just something different and both with compromises.
CrexTV the difference of sharpness is due to the lenses. the price of Omd 12-100 f4 pro is double of fuji 18-135 f3.5-5.6.
The 18-135 is the only terrible lens that Fuji makes.
Totally agree. The 18-135 is not a good lens. Maybe Fuji's worst. A pretty unequal comparison.
In this test environment, E-M1 II has better image & video, and X-T2 has way better video AF & high ISO.
Images difference mainly due to lenses difference.
"test environment" :DDDD it's normal environment. And yes olympush shows MUCH more details. But not so great like samsung nx500
It looked like each camera had VERY clear strengths and weaknesses, but looked like the final score was pretty close to being even! I'm sure the F-Log would swing things back toward the Fuji, but I was still impressed at the Olympus's out of camera colors. As always, awesome comparison!
Thanks!. It would be nice if Fuji could bring F-log to the internal recording via firmware update.
I had the Olympus, but returned it because of the poor autofocus which I found not that different from my Panasonic g85 (maybe even a bit worse). Many thanks to Matthieu and his beautiful better half - Heather - for another great camera comparison.
Your reviews are consistently some of the most helpful. Thank you!
thanks!
Thanks, interesting tests! This has made me more confident in my XT2's abilities
I really wanted to love the Olympus. But the high noise was one of the deal breakers. I went with xt2. Couldn't be happier.
Would love to see similar tests done using the same lens. Like the Rokinon 35mm 1.2 or something.
Wow, quite a few differences... Personally, I find the Fuji profiles a bit over the top (and certainly not what I remember from the original emulsions in the film days). EM1.2 looks more natural to my eye. Shots with the 12-100 Pro look absolutely impressive, and the stabilization works wonders too. So, an nod to the EM1.2. But boy does it suffer with the AF tests (unexpectedly, I might add!) and with the high ISOs... The XT2 wins there. Summing up: know what you need to do beforehand, and only then choose the camera. Hasn't it always been like this? Thanks for reporting Matthieu and Heather, very informative.
Personally I've been positively surprised by the E-M1 II video capabilities. Yes the X-T2 has a faster AF and better high ISO but I was surprised to see the good DR of the Oly especially in the highlights area. Both brands did a good step forward with video.
Mathieu Gasquet Agreed. The colouration of the X-T2 appears off - more greenish than it should be and not enough magenta (see Heather's portrait whilst holding the stuffed toy comparison). Plus I find Fuji makes all pictures seem flat and film-like rather than real-like.
Otherwise, X-T2 much better for video due to AF and ISO and cheaper but without touchscreen, a proper articulating screen and IS.
Disclaimer: I'm not much of a video shooter, my focus is on stills. Been shooting Olympus OM-Ds from the first model (E-M5), and now a proud owner of two E-M1 Mk IIs. I'm very impressed by that camera, eagerly awaiting better third-party RAW support.
that good DR came at a price. in the beach scenes, it looked pushed a lot although it showed more detail in the shadows, there were a lot of chromatic aberatios and weridness around the highlights from recovering i think. fujis image looked more natural, although more contrast
The Olympus seemed a lot sharper in general. Is it because of the camera body, or are the lens and noise-reduction the determining factors for that?
Some shots might differ because of the lens uses (for example in the WB test, I used the 25mm Pro and the Fuji 35 1.4 at their fastest aperture and the Oly lens is sharper). But in other shots, I just found the E-M1 II to be a little bit sharper.
Interesting that Ming Thien invested in two E-M1.2 for his video work and not Fuji ...which was hugely updated with firmware 3.0 with more capabilities adapted from the E-M1X.
I pick the e-m1 ii :)
Thanks for the very good video comparison! Please make a stills comparison too!
if you use f-log on the fuji it's the clear choice. Much better AF and ISO performance
I'm a Canon & Fuji shooter but I really like the (I can't believe I have to type this ridiculous model #) Olympus OM-D E-M1 mark II. The price is just a third to high just like the new 5d mark4. Looks great for sports & wildlife & is beautiful little camera.
Hahaha your comment about the model #
Im waiting for the GH5 to decide..
Nice comparison. Shooting portraits with the X-T2 in some circumstances, such as indoor or lowlight, i see the results are similar to your video in 1:12 which are greenish/greyish portraits .On the other hand ,the x-t1 provided much more natural results ,like the new olympus as well seen above.
Yes I got the same results for stills with the X-T2, even compared to the X-T1, the T2 has a greenish cast while the X-T1 has a more natural result. You can see some examples here:
mirrorlesscomparison.com/fujifilm-vs-fujifilm/x-t1-vs-x-t2/#Colours-monochrome-profiles-andJPG-settings
The Olympus images were generally sharper and more detailed in normal shooting conditions. Some of that can be down to the lens, but I suspect the sensor also plays a part in this. It would be interesting to see a comparison of these two bodies using the same (high end) lens via adapters. As I have always considered high ISO performance to be a bit of a red herring for most photographers, the only place where the X-T2 was quantifiably better was in continuous auto-focus performance. Having said that, from a personally subjective standpoint, I thought that the X-T2 offered more pleasing colour reproduction in many of the samples. Overall, I thought that, in this video at least, the OM-D E-M! Mk II took the blue ribbon.
The strange thing is that when I look at the video stills comparison tool on dpreview the X-T2 is slightly sharper than the E-M1II when both are shooting 4K UHD.. in Cinema 4K the E-M1 II is just a bit sharper.. The Fujifilm 18-135mm isn't a very sharp lens (especially wide open), I guess that explains the difference shown in your comparison shots.. (with the comparison on dpreview they used the Fujifilm 56mm f/1.2 and Olympus 45mm f/1.8.. both shot at f/5.6).
The lenses definitely play a role here. Thinking about it I should have used perhaps the 35mm 1.4 at f/4 or f/5.6 instead of the zooms, but at the time I only had those in handy.
very nice comparison. shared in my mirrorless facebook group
thanks!
Mathieu - which camera had colors true to life (or was it a case of using the X-T2's jpeg profiles)? Many of the X-T2 pictures seem to have an amber cast compared to the Oly.
I often found the E-M1 II colours more balanced, especially in cloudy situation and with skin tones. For landscape, the X-T2 can brings the colours to life especially with the Vivid/Velvia profile but they can also be too saturated at times.
Thanks for the great work! What was the noise filter value in the E M1 II for the High iso test?
If I remember correctly, it was on low. I also did a 4-way comparison with NR and it does indeed get rid of some color noise but also soften the details a little. And even with the High level there is still more noise than the X-T2.
Thank you quite a few surprises there. E-M1 is a better video shooter than i thought but also slower focusing than i thought. E-M1 would have been the video dinner by far if it was not for ISO noise and slow autofocus. But it also has no sensor crop in 4K so i give it to Olympus in the end anyhow ;)
Response and speed of the autofocus can be adjusted on the Olympus. The default setting is very slow and smooth
Thank you for the video. Looking forward to stills and AF comparison (BIF? :) ).
Very surprised how badly the em1 II did in the running auto focus test especially as it has phase detect. I did prefer the video quality from the Olympus over the Fuji.
The Fuji does really well with C-AF for video, probably the best ML camera I've used for that.
That is because Oly ahs decided to use its "stellar"" CDAF for video AF......
YOUR COMPARING VIDEOS ALWAYS SOOOOO USFUL. THANKS
Please can you do a comparative test with the Pentax kp from a photography perspective .
Could you please write the settings that you used in Olympus for the CAF of the running person? It did a terrible job... Awesome comparison by the way!
C-AF, single point. I did the test twice. The one I included in the video is taken at 200mm equivalent, the other was done at 100mm equivalent and there the E-M1 II did a little bit better but Fuji was still faster.
Hi, thanks for the review. Do you think the continuous autofocus can be possibly fixed with a new firmware? Thanks
Olympus said during an interview at DPreview that they already working to improve the AF via firmware. We'll have to wait and see how much better they can make improve it and how much time it will take for them to do that. But since the E-M1 II has phase detection AF and a very powerful software, I don't see why they couldn't bring it close to an X-T2/a6500 level.
Thank you very much for this comparison of this 2 cameras. For me for example the sharpness and the colors of the EM1-Mark II are more convincingly. What really makes me think is this bad continious AF with tracking or the slow change of sharpness of the Olympus. And there is also my question. Will you share this expieriences with Olympus and do they listen to experienced MFT Specialists lke you to change anything?
Becaus for now this AF, i also saw your test in spain, where as soon as the object comes to close, is not working satisfying as it should be and so i could not decide now to buy this cam in this state of the art, especially the advertising of Oly has the main emphasis on the speed and also on the AF.
Hoping for a reply from you. Thank you very much. Regards Marcel
Hi Marcel, yes the AF is slower in video mode (it does much better for stills though). I've ran the test multiple times to double check and the X-T2 was always faster.
The E-M1 II does ok with shorter focal lengths. When you don't need super fast change, it can actually be pleasant to use (especially if you use touch AF during recording that gives smooth transitions). But if you need a 4K camera capable of perfect and blazing fast C-AF, the X-T2 is the answer :)
Then who knows, they might be able to improve the performance in the future via firmware.
Mathieu Gasquet
Merci beaucoup Mathieu.
I hope that Olympus recoginze this handycap and will fix this soon in a next firmware update. Salutations de la Suisse. A un autre fois...
Does the X-T2 really look that bad? I mean the lenses are both probably stopped down quiet a bit, so I wouldn't say it's all the lens making the X-T2 looking so mushy.
im not sure how accurate the AF test is but from many other reviews the em1 ii has great AF !!
It is for stills but it is slower for video.
I used the single point on both. I always make more than one side by side comparison for each category and double check the various settings. The X-T2 is faster, always. Personally I found the Fuji camera to be the fastest for video among mirrorless cameras (probably with the a6300/a6500 at the same level).
On the other hand, if you use the touch screen to change focus point while recording video on the E-M1 II, you get a nice and smooth transition that isn't too fast like on the X-T2 (and you can't use the touch screen on the Fuji either).
i was goint to get XT2 then em1 came out and now im getting em1 ii for Macro/wildlife.
thanx for the comparison i didnt know em1 is sharper than xt2 !!
if u could do a review on macro that will be great as there is no review on em1 ii macro on utube !
***** thanx i cant wait to get my hands on mine.i wish there was a review with 60mm macro on em1 ii . it should be great not to mention the in camera stacking/bracketing...
If only the X-T2 had a touchscreen. With its impressive photo and ok quality and good AF capabilities in both, it would've been a greater camera with touchscreen.
What's really nice on the Oly is that you can use the touch screen to refocus while recording video, and it gives a nice and smooth transition.
I think the E-m1 needs a flatter picture profile. that would help a lot with video.
a real log profile would be nice for sure.
Great video! I've been shooting as much as I can (in the single digit Fahrenheit temps that resembe the Hoth System!) with both the XT2 and the EM1 ii and am getting very similar results with the stills. The XT2 clearly dominates CAF in video, but did you compare them in stills? Curious to see how they do against each other and given that it's too cold even to Ski, it might be a while for me, LOL! As for video they both are great, but I keep finding myself grabbing the EM1 simply because of its absurd IBIS system, but that video CAF on Fuji is amazing!
Yes I compared them also for stills and I am preparing a full article on my comparison site. The AF performance for stills is much closer. To me the X-T2 is overall sligthly better but with certain subjects you have to make sure to have the right settings or the hit rate can decrease significantly.
I am anxiously waiting for the full comparison between the two cameras. Do you have any ETA for it? Please include a low light AF and IQ comparison as well. Thanks
+Arsalan uljamil probably next week. Keep an eye on mirrorlesscomparison.com ;-)
in stills it depends, not just on lens but also the raw developer. the two are closer in sharpness when running files through ACR and lightroom. Run the same files through iridient developer which has been optimised for xtrans and the performance Delta between the two is more significant with the Fuji performing like a really good full frame in terms of detail and sharpness.
Been checking that site almost everyday. Since I already own X-T2, I'm hoping that result it in favor of Fuji so that I am not tempted to buy Olympus :)
Fuji is looking much better, oly has a very digital oversharpened look there, maybe it's better reducing sharpness? Or maybe with a mist filter
Geez, the Fuji isn't better than the Olympus, necessarily, even though it has APSC sensor. I particularly didn't see better dynamic range from the Fuji for the sunset shots. Both about the same price. Olympus has in image stabilization but Fuji has bigger sensor. The Olympus lens looks much better than the Fuji. Fuji has much better autofocus. Hard decision between the two, actually. . . What do you think? Which one is better to you?
They're not the same price, the Oly is more expensive on most sites, and the APSC shows it's power on the high ISO test, it would pull ahead just as clear on shallow DOF comparisons if primes were used. This test here used Fuji's weakest zoom.
The Olympus looked great other then in the autofocus test. Then it was really slow.
I think it's because of the cheap lenses
Is it me or the Olympus looks way sharper?
Other than that the AF of the XT2 looks amazing
+altar7 yes but in some shots it is also the lens fault: the 12-100 is sharper than the Fuji 18-135, or the 25mm Pro is sharper wide open than the XF 35mm wide open.
Ok, in that case the Fuji looks like a winner to me.
At 1:20 I notice but on almost every video I see the Fuji has a hard time getting detail once it is focused on something. It is like it is putting detail around the edge of what it is on instead of exactly on the subject? Does anyone else see this?
It could also be because I was using both lenses at the fastest aperture (25mm Pro at 1.2 and XF 35mm at 1.4) and the Oly lens is sharper in comparison to the Fuji lens.
In terms of sharpness would you say the fuji lens is letting it down? I have an Olympus EM-5 mk2 and contemplating changing to fuji for better ISO ability and image quality. The dpreview image quality comparison shows the fuji to be much sharper especially as the ISO increases.
The lens certainly plays a role. If you look at my latest 4K comparison against the a6500, there is a side by side sharpness shot were I used another lens and the result is much better.
Watching this on my 4K 50" Samsung TV... The Fujifilm looks a lot better. The EM1 II looks oversharpened and lacks depth of field due it being a smaller sensor and the dynamic range seems better on the fuji.
I would use neither for video but the fuji is better of the two... Along with it being a better stills camera and cheaper than the EM1 II, its a no brainer for me.
strange comparison, when don't use other lens on XT2 when testing instead of the worse lens 18-135? even 18-55 provide much better image, not to say those prime lens
I see Olympus still has an epic fail on their hands with continuous auto focus. Every other category they were superior on though. There's no way you can get birds in flight reliably with the Oly focus tech. Fail again.
That was video, not stills and even with that said he he had it set to only one focus point as the only test setting.
batterista I own one, autofocus behaves very differently in video than when taking stills.
Fuji - better focus and better noise for less money. Thanks.
10 minute video, no IBIS or Sync IS (badlky tested here MAthieu!) more roling shutter. Lens of the Fuji is so bad this invalidates the test too, the Fuji almost surely can do a lot better there. In other tests I have seen (cinema5d?) these two cams were very closely matched alspo in noise but the AF from the Oly in Video is bad. Fuji does an excellent job!
Should equip xt2 with 50-140 for a fair comparison. 18-135 is simply a cheap travel kit Len.
I do my best with what I have ;-)
Very surprised! Fuji is known for its color and it's got its butt kicked by Olympus.
The 18-135 is not a good lens. Maybe Fuji's worst, especially after 100mm. A pretty unfair comparison.
Why not use the 55-140, a more "pro" lens from Fuji?
I agree that I should have used another lens for the 10s sharpness part, but everything else including FoV, colours, WB, autofocus and ISO are more than fair ;-)
Xt2 laaaaargo
I'm starting to dislike how FUJI almost every profile has a warmer tone to it andnit makes some things look nasty.😪😪😪
Olympus are not for videos. so?
oly 4k much sharper af goes to fuji shame on you olympus i like the fuji colour warmer and better iso no changed my mind about colour portrait of heather looks better on olympus and is ,rolling shutter better with olympus