Fuji XT4 vs X Pro 3

If you are new to Fujifilm or simply looking to upgrade to the latest and greatest that Fuji has to offer you have probably looked for comparisons of the Fuji XT4 vs X Pro 3 but how do you choose between them. What are the main differences and more importantly what are they like to use?

I’m fortunate enough to own both of these top of the range APS-C models from Fujifilm and have used them both extensively. I bought mine from Amazon as I like their returns policy and customer service.

I love them both for very different reasons which I shall go through after explaining the more obvious differences in this Fuji XT4 vs X Pro 3 article. If you want a more detailed review of the Fuji XT4 then click here or watch my Fuji XT4 video review on youtube. You can also see the video version of this Fuji XT4 vs X Pro 3 article here

One thing that I should mention straight off the bat is that if you are a videographer then you can skip the rest of the article and just purchase the Fujifilm X-T4 as it is much more suited to video work due to its larger battery, fully articulating screen and better video specs including 4k 60 and 10 bit internal recording as well as IBIS.

For those of you who are primarily stills shooters then the choice is somewhat more difficult.

The Fuji X-T4 is like a sports saloon car, it can go fast and do virtually everything that a 2 seater convertible can do but with a bit less style and of course you can’t put the roof down on a sunny day (the roof in this case being the X-Pro 3’s hybrid viewfinder).

So let’s start with what the Fuji XT4 and X Pro 3 have in common:

26.1MP X-Trans IV CMOS APS-C sensor

X-Processor 4

weather resistance

maximum continuous shooting speed of 30fps (with crop) or 20fps when using the e-shutter

hybrid autofocus system with contrast and phase detection (max. 425 points)

dual SD card slot (UHS-II compatible)

Both cameras are using the same 26mp X-Trans IV sensor which results in identical image quality. They are both powered by the latest X-Processor 4 and offer the same hybrid AF system and in use they appear to be pretty much equally as fast. Neither are laggy when switching between menus items or indeed switching the camera on. The X-T4 may have a very slight edge in face detect AF due to the latest algorithm being employed but in the real world they are pretty much neck and neck.

Both are weather resistant and I have no issue using either of them in less than perfect weather. The feel in the hand offers very similar build quality but in a different way. The XT4 feels more dense and solid and it should as it weighs 609g vs the X-Pro 3 at 497g.

They are so similar in size that it is not even worth writing down the measurements. However when you pick them up they feel worlds apart.

The XT4 feels very solid, weighty and like a workhorse with its enlarged grip (compared to the XT3). It is a very nice design and I must admit that I do like the look of the camera. However the X-Pro 3 feels different to other cameras due to its range finder esque styling, beautifully machined and subtle finish. I should say that I have the standard black version not one of the Dura coated models.

The X-Pro 3 is probably the most beautiful camera that I have ever owned and that includes models such as the X100T (in silver) and a Silver Pen F, both of which are among the best looking digital cameras ever created. Pictures on the internet don’t do it justice. They really don’t.

In use there is no denying that the XT4 makes more sense for most people. It offers an individual ISO dial rather than the slightly fiddly design on the X-Pro 3 where you have to lift the shutter speed dial and twist it to your desired ISO speed. This also feels like a weak point that may be prone to break in the future but to be fair it hasn’t yet.

The XT4 also continues to use the D-Pad which offers up extra Fn buttons that can be programmed to your liking. I can happily accept cameras from Fuji with or without the D-Pad but if given the choice I would retain it.

That X-Pro 3 LCD Screen

The other main physical difference which may or may not affect you depending on your shooting style is the XT4’s fully articulating LCD screen vs the highly contentious inward facing screen on the X-Pro3. The Screen on the X-Pro 3 faces inward and only opens downward. This Is supposed to encourage you to use the viewfinder and avoid constantly chimping your images giving a pure and authentic photographic experience. Okay, I made that last bit up but I think that is the general idea.

The screen on the X-Pro3 while not conventional is actually not a dealbreaker for me unlike for some. It actually works well in practise and as I use the camera purely for stills, particularly, street, candid portraits and documentary photography it offers the only function I would ever want in those scenarios which is the ability to shoot from the hip on the street in order to be discreet. Plus if I want to review my photos I can easily do so via the EVF.

The rear of the screen has a second display which is permanently on and shows the current film simulation with what looks like the label of old Fujifilm film emulsions. Maybe it’s a bit cheesy but I quite like it. The display can also be changed to show your current shooting setting.

As much as I like the X-Pro 3’s rather novel LCD screen there’s no denying that for most, it is not as useful as the fully articulating one found on the XT4. If I was solely a street shooter or just taking travel/documentary type stills then my opinion would be different but as I shoot a lot of landscapes as well as some video too, the fully articulating screen offers more flexibility. I can reverse it to check framing when creating video and it offers a variety of positions should I be shooting at high or low angles as well as in portrait orientation. It also closes with the LCD screen facing inward which means it is protected and you can ignore it altogether should you wish.

In the end which screen you prefer will depend on what type of photographer you are and how you shoot. I imagine that someone coming from using their mobile phone for photography would find the X-Pro 3’s screen quite limiting. However I very rarely use the LCD screen on any camera to compose my photos so being forced to use the viewfinder simply is not an issue for me.

Prime or Zoom?

I choose whichever one will serve me best for whatever I plan to shoot on that occasion. If I’m heading out for landscapes I grab the XT4 along with the 10-24mm and 55-200mm lenses. If I am going on vacation with the family and just want a camera with me for candid shots of them and anything else encountered then I usually put the X-Pro3 with the 23mm 1.4 or 35mm f/2 in a small bag along with the 56mm 1.2, a spare battery and a powerbank. IMO the X-Pro 3 suits prime lenses and the XT4 works better with the zooms. Both of course can work well with either.

Fuji XT4 vs X Pro 3 EVF/OVF

The EVF on both models is virtually the same although the XT4 offers a little more magnification at 0.75x vs 0.66x and aa much larger viewfinder eye cup which helps to shield the viewfinder when shooting in bright sunlight. . In use the differences are hardly noticeable. Even though I am left eye dominant I am fortunate to be able to use either eye. The range finder style viewfinder on the left of the X-Pro 3 does have some advantages when shooting people as you are not quite so hidden behind the camera. This allows me to feel more connected with my subjects and be more aware of what is happening outside of the field of view of the viewfinder.

The hybrid viewfinder on the X-Pro 3 offers all the benefits of an EVF as well as providing an OVF. Using the lever on the front of the camera you can very quickly change between the two. You can also superimpose a small electronic image onto the OVF which can aid in focusing.

The design is excellent and although I have preferred EVF’s for sometime now the OVF can come in very useful when shooting on the street. For instance, it would allow you to perfectly time someone walking into frame and capture them in exactly the right position in your image due to the lack of any delay.

IBIS

Of course, the XT4 now has IBIS which can be useful when wanting to keep your ISO as low as possible as it allows you to shoot at shutter speeds not otherwise possible. If you shoot mostly people then the benefits of IBIS are probably not all that important as you will usually be using a faster shutter speed. It does allow for a little bit more creative control by enabling you to add motion to your images, for instance blurring the motion of subjects while retaining perfect sharpness of the surrounding scene.

If you are a travel/ landscape photographer and would rather not bring along your tripod then the IBIS in the XT4 is at its most useful. Allowing you to keep the ISO as low as possible to ensure the best possible image quality. I have found that with the Fuji 10-24mm lens I can consistantly handhold shots at the wide end down to 0.5 seconds. As useful as this is, if I am going out to do landscape photography then my tripod will be coming with me and so the IBIS becomes redundant. It is useful for grabbing quick shots which would otherwise require bumping up the ISO so it does add a level of flexibility that the X-Pro 3 lacks.

Staying Power

The XT4 also uses the larger capacity NP-W235 battery which offers significantly more shots than the NP-W236s used in the X-Pro 3. I get about 900 shots from the former and around 500 from the latter. Both cameras can be charged via USB-C so I usually only carry one spare for each and then recharge from a power bank. So although the new battery in the XT4 is definitely welcome it is perhaps not quite the deal breaker it would have been had neither of the cameras been capable of charging over USB-C.

The NP-W235 battery in the XT4 is much better.

When out and about shooting street and documentary photography I have noticed that I get a better reaction to the X-Pro 3 than the XT4. The design is minimalistic with no obvious Fuji logo on the front of the X-Pro3 and the classic range finder esque styling seems to be viewed as less threatening. I guess it looks more like an old film camera, a novelty if you will and so people pay it less attention or they enquire in a positive way about what camera it is. Yes you will get asked if it is a film camera quite a lot. Either way the reaction or lack of definitely makes me feel a little more confident and comfortable pointing it at strangers on the street.

Fuji XT4 vs X Pro 3 Conclusion

In the end the choice will come down to what type of photographer you are as much as the specs.

As an owner of both models my opinion is that for pure stills, perhaps with a focus on candid/street/documentary photography the sheer pleasure of owning and using such a unique camera would have me gravitate towards the X-Pro3 even though it is less flexible, less fully featured and actually more expensive than the XT4. For this type of photography I prefer using prime lenses and that is where the X-Pro 3 makes sense and shines. Attach the 23mm, 35mm or 50mm f/2 prime lens on the X-Pro 3 and you have a discreet, lightweight, weather sealed and very capable camera that (without sounding too poncy) epitomises the joy of photography, at least for me. It is a pleasure to use and it doesn’t hurt that it is as beautiful as it is capable.

With all that said, for 90% of photographers the XT4 is probably going to make more sense. It is cheaper, more capable, more comfortable to hold for long periods has better battery life and works better with Fuji’s zoom lenses (especially the red badge lenses) thanks to the larger grip and the option of a battery grip.

Add in the IBIS, fully articulating screen and better video options and it is one of the most well rounded mirrorless cameras available in any format and despite my love of the X-Pro 3, it is the one I would choose if I had to pick only one camera. However it doesn’t make me feel the way that the X-Pro 3 does and there is definitely something to be said for that.

Which one would you choose? I’d love to hear in the comments below.

My latest article on the Sony A7IV can be found here

Fujifilm XT4 Review in 2021

Fujilm XT4 Review in 2021

The Fujifilm XT4 was released in April 2020. In that time many other cameras have been released by various manufacturers. So I wanted to review the Fujifilm XT4 in 2021 to see how it performs. If you want to see how the Fuji XT4 compares with the X-Pro 3 then take a look at this article

If you would prefer to see a quick video on why you should buy the Fuji XT4 then you may want to check out my latest video instead. Alternatively you can see my Fuji XT4 video review which is now up on Youtube

The Fujifilm XT4 that I am reviewing is my own. I purchased it in October 2020 as it featured several important upgrades over the XT3 that convinced me that the XT series could finally be my main camera system. So here I am in 2021 reviewing the Fujifilm XT4. I now own the Fuji XT5 and have starting adding content about that camera here

The XT4 is Fujifilm’s top of the range X series camera. It uses the same 26mp X-Trans sensor as the previous generation of X series bodies. Having experience with the XT3 I already knew that the image quality that can be achieved with this sensor is excellent both in terms of resolution, dynamic range and high ISO performance. I will include sample images below just in case you are unaware of how this sensor performs.

100% crop of above image shows very little noise in the shadows

For me, the image quality that I would get was a known quantity and one that I knew I was happy with. However, the upgrades that made me look more closely at the XT4 were more on the handling side of things.

As I spend a lot of time out shooting with my family in tow, I often find that I don’t carry a tripod on these types of trips. Having been a long-time user of Olympus cameras and their excellent IBIS (in body image stabilisation) the inclusion of IBIS in the XT4 was a very welcome addition. So how well does the IBIS work? I wrote an OM System OM1 review too

With the Fuji 10-24mm f/4 lens attached the IBIS in the XT4 works alongside the OIS in the lens to give a claimed 6 stops of image stabilisation.

I took a series of images to see just how effective the IBIS was. Normally I can get sharp hand held images on the 10mm end of this lens shooting at 1/20^th second. If the shutter speed drops any lower then my keeper rate goes down. 1/15 of a second and below and it becomes a bit hit and miss.

With the IBIS turned on I found that I could consistently get sharp handheld photos at 1/3

to ½ a second. This is with excellent technique. If I shoot in a more casual manner, then I cannot achieve sharp images with slower shutter speeds than 1/5 second.

So, the XT4 IBIS in combination with the OIS in the 10-24mm lens is giving me approximately 4 stops of stabilisation at the wide end.

I repeated this experiment using the Fuji 55-200mm lens and found that I could consistently get sharp handheld images at the 200mm end at 1/10 second whereas normally I would have to be shooting at 1/320 giving me around 5 stops of stabilisation. This is pretty much in line with what Fuji says the XT4 IBIS will give you alone and about a stop under the 6 stops they claim the combined IBIS and OIS of the lens will give.

Overall the IBIS is not quite as effective as that found on the Olympus EM1 III where I could regularly handhold wide angel images at 1-2 seconds but I’m still happy with it when you take into account the larger APS-C sensor found in the XT4 giving you better ISO performance. It allows me to just about get down to speeds where I can add an element of motion to water which is the main reason I would be shooting at those shutter speeds.

Build quality and handling

When I first opened the slick black packaging of the Fuji XT4 and held the camera in my hand I was very pleasantly surprised. My previous experience with the XT series ( I have owned the XT1 and XT2 and tested out the XT3) was that they are well made but always felt a little hollow. I was not a fan of this feeling as I like a camera to feel solid in my hand. I take my gear all over the World and I want it to feel as if it can stand up to some serious work.

The XT4 immediately felt better and much more solid. Yes, it weighs a little more at 607g vs 539g for the XT3 but it feels much better built, does not have that hollow feeling and the grip has been enlarged which makes it much more comfortable in the hand. It is now 2mm wider and 5mm deeper than the XT3 at 135 x93x 64mm. The size now seems just about a perfect compromise between feeling solid, well-built and comfortable in the hand without being too bulky or heavy. Please do not change this Fuji as I think you nailed it this time.

The shutter mechanism is now rated to 300k actuations compared with 150k on the XT3. This alone speaks to the improved build quality and gives me confidence that the XT4 will easily cope with professional use.

LCD Screen

One of the most significant (and controversial) changes comes in the form of a fully articulating rear LCD. I know that some Fuji fans prefer a standard or 3-way tilt screen as found on previous generations, but I find a fully articulating rear screen to be the most flexible solution. It allows you to tilt up and down as well as front facing when horizontal and it also allows you to flip it 90 degrees to the camera body when shooting in portrait orientation. Not to mention that you can conveniently close it so that the screen faces in towards the body and is protected from being scratched or damaged. I understand that for ‘from the hip’ street shooting it may be less balanced and subtle but I rarely do that so don’t miss that ability.

The fully articulating screen is great but note the mic prot cover which is fiddly in use.

While I love the screen, I do have one gripe with it. Well actually its not with the screen itself but with the cheap flappy port covers for the mic and remote sockets. They get in the way when you are setup for video and then want to flip the screen from rear facing to forward facing. I wish Fuji would have made them removable but they didn’t. Inexplicably they did decide to make the memory card door removable. Surely that is the wrong way around.

Battery

Lastly the other change that was especially important to me was the use of the new NP-W235 battery which lasts much longer than the older generation NP-W126s found in the older generation cameras. I can now shoot well over 500 shots on one battery and as I have the battery grip and two additional batteries this can easily see me through a long weekend landscape photography shoot. The camera itself can also be charged by USB-C which is great as I have a ton of power banks lying around so I can just bring one or two power banks on my trips and charge all my devices including the camera.

Something that I am not so fond of is that Fuji does not include a proper charger in the box. Only a cheap looking Phone style USB charger and USB-C cable is included so you must charge the batteries up while in the camera. Not great if you need to charge batteries while using the camera. The same can be said of the batter grip as there is no way to charge this separately. You must attach it to the camera and then charge all 3 batteries together. Again, not really the best solution as it would be nice to be able to charge the batteries in the grip while using the camera. It’s not a big deal though because the batteries now easily get me through a day’s shooting and I can simply plug everything in to a power bank at night to charge them.

There are a few other additions to the XT4 which may be of interest to you but are not that significant for my use. One is the addition of Classic Chrome film simulation. This is a beautiful filmic looking preset that I find works very well for side lit scenes and Caucasian skin. However, as I shoot a lot of my portraits in Asia it doesn’t work so well for Asian skin tones, so I only tend to use it when I’m back in Europe.

Classic Chrome (used for this shot) suits Asian skintone better than the new Classic Neg but I tend to use one of the Pro Neg film simulations the most.

100% crop of above image using the 56mm 1.2@ 1.2, 1/125, ISO 160

The Fujifilm XT4 now also allows for 240 fps HD video capture but I must admit I have not used it thus far being primarily a stills shooter. The video specs of the XT4 are excellent and varied, offering a lot of options for professional video capture which I will be exploring more later in the year if I can get back to the UK once this damned pandemic is dealt with. The Eterna profile along with very good 10 bit 4k video means that the Xt4 is more than good enough for my video needs.

Image Quality

Finally, as promised here are some image quality samples for those of you who are unfamiliar with what the 26mp X-Trans sensor can produce. The image quality is basically unchanged from the XT3 and X-Pro 3. I own an X-Pro 3 and get exactly the same images from it as I do the XT4.

The AF performance and in particular face and eye detection is slightly improved in the XT4.

So why would I (and you) choose the Fujifilm XT4 over rivals such as the Sony A7II (which I have also owned)?

For me there are 3 main reasons.

Firstly, and most importantly (for me) the handling, ergonomics and joy of using the XT4 is beyond the A7III. The XT4 feels like a ‘real’ camera with its manual dials for ISO, shutter speed and aperture. The Sony feels like a smart phone on steroids and as a bit of a techno dinosaur I prefer the more analogue feel of Fujis. If I enjoy using a camera and it makes me feel inspired then I generally get better images with it.

Secondly, I wanted a rugged but lightweight camera system (note I said system) and while the XT4 may not be much smaller than the A7III/Z6/EOS R etc, when you combine it with the vast array of Fuji lenses (particularly the Zooms) then the kit as a whole is still significantly smaller than a full frame kit. My go to lenses for travel are the trio of 10-24mm, 18-55mm, 55-200mm and the 35mm f/2. This all fits easily in my bag ( Lowepro Flipside 400AW) with room for a spare body, batteries, filters, laptop, hard drives, mics, Mavic 2 Pro drone + 3x batteries and more.

You can build out quite a small full frame mirrorless kit but I always found it limiting to only stick to the smaller cheaper lenses and having used Sony cameras with the GM series of lenses in the past I found them unbalanced and unwieldy on the A7 series bodes. I understand why many use them and would never discourage that but for me the Fuji system does what I want at a size and weight that I am happy with.

Finally, an important factor in any decision is price. The Fuji system has options from cheap to expensive but overall, the cost of building a comprehensive kit around Fuji is cheaper than that of full frame and IMO the difference in image quality between APS-C and full frame is not worth the additional cost. In fact, I skipped it altogether and also added a medium format camera to my kit for those occasions where I need it.

For an alternative view from a talented photographer check out Jonas Rask’s Fuji XT4 article

Olympus 25mm 1.8 Review

The Olympus 25mm f/1.8 is a premium fast aperture prime lens from Olympus. It is available in either silver or black. I have the black version and have been using it on my OMD EM1 ii.

Olympus 25mm 1.8 Review – Construction and Handling

The Olympus 25mm f1.8 is constructed using high quality plastics. It feels nicely built and not cheap like Canon’s nifty 50 lens. The lens makes for a very light and compact combination even on Olympus’ larger bodes such as the OMD EM1 ii.

I have been out this morning for a Sunday stroll with this combination and it feels so light and compact that I hardly even noticed that I was carrying the camera.

Thankfully Olympus supply this lens with a lens hood although I haven’t used it much but it is certainly right and nice that Olympus saw fit to include a lens hood with this lens.

In terms of construction it feels more solid and better made than the cheaper kit zooms but it is not up to the standards of the Olympus 75mm 1.8 or the pro grade lenses but then this lens is not in the same price category coming in at under £300 on Amazon UK.

From left to right Olympus 25mm 1.8, 25mm 1.2, 75mm 1.8

Autofocus performance of this lens is nothing short of excellent. It is incredibly quick to focus and silent too. It focuses instantaneously and is very accurate. Whether the scene is front lit, back-lit or when using it in low light the auto focus performance is a s good as any lens in the system. It is noticeably quicker to focus than the Panasonic 25mm 1.4 for instance and as quick as the Olympus 25mm 1.2 Pro. Both of which are more expensive.

Olympus 25mm 1.8 Review – Image Quality

The Olympus 25mm 1.8 doesn’t suffer from any noticeable distortion. It is also highly resistant to lens flare, even when pointing it directly at the Sun as I did this morning.

It doesn’t suffer with CA in high contrast situations and in fact having tested it over and over again I am very impressed with the performance of this lens in every aspect.

The lens also focuses incredibly closely at 25cm. Combine this with the f/1.8 aperture and you ave the ability to really throw the background out of focus to create some nice bokeh effects.

The Olympus 25mm 1.8 focuses incredibly close.

The lens is sharp wide open and doesn’t really show much improvement when stopped down further. Again the performance of this lens is excellent.

Olympus 25mm 1.8 Review – Conclusion

There are now a lot of choices in the Micro 4/3 system for this focal length. I currently have 3 25mm lenses, the Pana-Leica 25mm 1.4, Olympus 25mm 1.2 Pro (see my review here) and this lens. So which one should you choose?

The performance of all 3 lenses is stellar, however the price points vary so is it worth paying more for the other the lenses.

In terms of optical performance they are all excellent. Only the Panasonic lens suffering slightly with CA. All are sharp wide open. The Olympus 25mm 1.8 is the cheapest option and if you have an Olympus camera I would recommend it if you don’t need weather-sealing and the 1.8 aperture is sufficient for your needs. It is also the lightest of the 3 lenses and makes a great walk around package even with my OMD EM1 ii. It is also small enough to carry in a pocket and light enough to sling in your camera bag as a just in case you need it lens.

Of the 3 lenses I would say it offers the best price/performance ratio and is the one I would recommend to most people. It really is a fantastic little lens and its performance is so close to the 25mm 1.2 optically that unless you really need f/1.2 or weather-sealing then it is hard to justify the additional cost of the Pro lens.

On an Olympus camera I also prefer the handling and auto focus performance to the Pana Leica 1.4.

Olympus 25mm 1.2 Pro review

In this Olympus 25mm 1.2 Pro review I shall go through the pros and cons of this premium lens from Olympus and weigh up whether it is worth the extra cost over other 25mm options like the Olympus 25mm 1.8 and Pana Leica 25mm 1.4 lens.

I have had this lens for a couple of months now and mainly used it in Asia for portrait and travel photos on the Olympus OMD EM1 Mark ii and Panasonic GH5. If you want to see how those two cameras compare for stills photography then head on over to my comparison here

Olympus 25mm 1.2 Pro review – Specs and handling

Lens Specifications
Name	Olympus 25mm ƒ/1.2 Pro M.Zuiko Digital ED
Image Circle	Micro Four-Thirds
Type	Standard Prime
Focal Length	25mm
35mm Equivalent	50mm
Max Aperture	ƒ/1.2
Min Aperture	ƒ/16
Diaphragm Blades	9 (circular)
Lens Construction	19 elements in 14 groups, including 1 aspherical, 1 SED, 2 ED, 1 E-HR, and 3 HR elements
Diagonal Angle of View	47 degrees
Focus Details	High-speed Imager AF (MSC)
Front Element Rotation	No
Zoom System	n/a
Closest Focus	30cm / 11.8 in.
Magnification Ratio	0.11x / 1:9.1
Filter Size	62mm
Dimensions(Length x Diameter)	87mm x 70mm / 3.43 in. x 2.76 in.
Weight	410g / 14.5 oz
Notes	Splash and dust proof; Lens hood, lens caps and case included.

Obviously the stand out specs for this lens are the super fast 1.2 aperture along with the weather sealing.

The lens feels very well made, the same as all Olympus’ pro lenses. It is quite large by Micro 4/3 standards being around the same size as the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8. Pro. However it feels well balanced on the OMD EM1 ii and Panasonic GH5. I never felt that the size of the lens was an issue. In fact I prefer the size of this lens over something smaller like the 25mm 1.8 as it just matches up with the larger Micro 4/3 bodies better.

Construction is impressive as it feels solid and well made. The focus ring is buttery smooth and allows you to easily and accurately manual focus when necessary. The lens features a clutch mechanism which you simply pull back to engage manual focus or push forward to be back in auto focus again.

The only criticism I would have is that the focus clutch mechanism is a little too easy to move so sometimes when picking it up out of my bag I knock it into manual focus by accident.

The focus clutch is nice to have but just a little too easy to move on this lens.

I can vouch for the excellent weather sealing on this lens as it withstood many Asian downpours while attached to the EM1 ii and I never had any problems at all with it.

It auto focuses quickly and accurately on the Olympus OMD EM1 ii and GH5. It is incredibly quick to focus and combined with eye detect AF makes shooting portraits a breeze.

There isn’t really a huge amount more to say on the handling of this lens. It is impressive and if you don’t mind the size then you will not be disappointed.

Olympus 25mm 1.2 Pro review – Image quality

I bought this lens and was expecting great things from it as Olympus has made a big deal about the image quality and in particular the quality of the ‘feathered bokeh’. Is this all marketing hype or is this lens really something special and worthy of the price tag.

In terms of sharpness I am not particularly interested in MTF charts and DXo scores. They tell me very little. What really tells me if a lens is sharp is if it looks sharp to me when I examine my images in Lightroom.

I shot a lot of portraits with this lens and the test for me is always when looking at eyebrows and eyelashes. I want to see if they are clearly defined or not.

Lets take a look at some samples below:

25mm @f/1.2, 1/1000, ISO 200 unedited raw file

As you can see when shot wide open the Olympus 25mm 1.2 pro is incredibly sharp for a 1.2 lens. It renders the details of your subject beautifully and indeed offers some of the smoothest and creamiest bokeh I have seen. The bokeh is not busy or nervous at all and to my eye is very pleasing.

There is also a quality to the photos taken on this lens that you just do not find on many lenses. Your subject pops but because of the smooth transitions from in focus to out of focus the images feel very natural. In comparison to the Pana Leica 25mm 1.4 the images feel more organic and less digital. The Pana Leica is a lovely lens too and seems to offer more of a 3D pop to the images making your subjects look very 3 dimensional and thus stand out from the background. However I find the rendering of the Olympus more natural and pleasing. The Pana Leica’s bokeh is a little more busy.

Olympus 25mm 1.2 Pro @ f/1.2, 1/250, ISO 200

Pana-Leica 25mm 1.4 @1.4, 1/800, ISO 200

Pana Leica 25mm 1.4 shot on the GH5 @ 1.4, 1/160, ISO 500 I find the Pana Leica just as sharp but the bokeh is a little more busy

At f/1.2 the lens is already sharp and it gets a little sharper as you stop down to 1.4 -2. I would say the Pana Leica is perhaps a little sharper wide open but both are easily sharp enough for me.

Olympus 25mm 1.2 @ 1.2, 1/60, ISO 1600 SOOC Jpeg

The Olympus 25mm 1.2 Pro controls CA very well.

100% corner crop shows CA’s are very well controlled

I didn’t experience any issues with lens flare and I was often shooting in broad daylight with strong sunshine.

Olympus 25mm 1.2 Pro Review – Conclusion

So would i recommend the Olympus 25mm 1.2 Pro?

That is a resounding yes. It is my favourite lens and in my time in Asia with it I only took it off my EM1 ii once and I regretted it. I absolutely love this lens for the fast aperture and build quality but most of all for the superb image quality and beautiful rendering. It allows you to create images that you just cannot get with other 25mm lenses and it means that I can shoot those images in to the night while keeping my ISO to 1600 and below.

If you can afford it and like the focal length then I can highly recommend this amazing lens. You will not be disappointed.

Don’t forget to follow me on Instagram where I am regularly posting photos of my travels.

You might also like to check out Robin Wongs excellent review of this lens

Olympus OMD EM1 mark II vs Panasonic GH5 for Photography

In this article I am going to compare the Olympus OMD EM1 Mark II vs the Panasonic GH5. I own both of these top of the range Micro 4/3 cameras.

I have been using them for a few months now with a variety of different lenses and for different types of photography including landscapes, portraits and travel.

There are loads of comparisons on line that deal with the video side of things far better than I ever could as a primarily stills photographer. However despite the often stated presumption of using Olympus for stills and Panasonic for video I thought it would make an interesting comparison to see if this still holds true with these two flagship Micro 4/3 cameras.

So let’s get straight into the comparison by looking firstly at the specs and then on to ergonomics and handling.

Both have the latest 20mp Micro 4/3 sensors
Both shoot 4k video although the GH5 has many more options including super slow motion full HD at 180fps as well as higher bit rates.
The EM1 II has a 3 inch touch screen LCD and 2.36 million dot viewfinder
The GH5 has a larger 3.2 inch touch screen LCD and 3.6 million dot viewfinder
Both are weather sealed down to -10c
The Olympus can shoot at up to 60 fps with the electronic shutter and 15 FPS with the mechanical shutter
The GH5 shoots at 11 FPS
Both have in-body 5 axis image stabilisation
Both have a variety of shooting modes including time-lapse, HDR and focus bracketing

So let’s look a little bit beyond the specs and see what the cameras are actually like to handle.

Olympus OMD EM1 Mark II vs Panasonic GH5 – Handling

First up the Panasonic GH5 is 139x98x87mm and weighs 725g with the battery in. I might note it’s the same battery as the GH4 which is great if you already own some. Compare this with its predecessor the GH4 at 133x93x84mm and with a weight of 560g with battery and you can see that the GH5 has put on a considerable amount of weight and some heft too. Where I really notice this most is in the depth of the grip. It is very comfortable but I have to be honest and say I prefer the GH4’s grip.

The Olympus OMD EM1 mark II is slightly larger than its predecessor at 134x91x69mm and lighter too at 574g but still feels svelt in comparison to the GH5.

Both cameras feel great in the hand and are very comfortable to hold, even with larger lenses attached. However the GH5 is starting to feel quite large for a Micro 4/3 body. A lot of people (myself included) use this system for its light weight and portability.

I personally prefer the size and weight of the Olympus OMD EM1 Mark II. When I had both cameras on me in Asia recently I found myself gravitating towards the Olympus when given a choice. It was the one I naturally reached for out of the two. The reason is not just the size and weight but the fact that I also find the grip more comfortable. The grip on the GH5 is just a little too deep and results in your hand feeling the strain on extended use.

In terms of controls, both of these cameras are incredibly customisable. You can set them up virtually as you want. However one of the benefits of the larger body on the GH5 is more function buttons and more direct access buttons to things like ISO, white balance and exposure compensation. If you are used to the direct controls of a DSLR then the GH5 will feel more natural to you.

The Olympus takes a little more setting up initially but once you have set it up to your liking then you rarely have to delve in to the menu system during everyday shooting. The Panasonic just make sense and is very logical and intuitve in its control layout. I really can’t find fault with it. Picking it up for the first time everything was just where I would expect it to be and using it comes very naturally to me.

As for the menu systems themselves, the GH5’s menu is a little better set out and more intuitive to use thanks to a simple layout and straight forward logical ordering. The Olympus on the other hand does take a little getting used to with some odd naming of items such as noise reduction being called the noise filter etc. However once you are used to it then even the Olympus is quick and easy to navigate through. Top marks to Panasonic here though as I feel their menu system is one of the best available and having used loads of different cameras I find that everything is where I would expect it to be.

One new addition for the Panasonic GH5 is the AF joystick which has been added to the back of the camera. This allows direct access to change your AF point and it is a joy to use. Not only does it enable you to change your AF point more quickly but when clicked it also returns the AF point to home (default is centre point). Panasonic have implemented this brilliantly. There is also a switch which lets you quickly flick between AF-S, AF-C and manual focus.

The Olympus on the other hand relies on the D-Pad and while it is quick to use I do prefer the AF joystick of the GH5 and I’m sure most people would too.

Olympus OMD EM1 Mark II vs Panasonic GH5 – Image Stabilisation

One of the big new additions to the Panasonic GH5 over the Gh4 is in body image stabilisation. Traditionally this has always been one of the big advantages that Olympus had over Panasonic.

However now that Panasonic have added this to the GH5 it really is a great improvement. Not only does it allow you to handhold shots at much lower shutter speeds enabling you to use a lower ISO but I also find it results in a much higher keeper rate for virtually all photos that you take.

So how does the image stabilisation compare between these two models.

Olympus claims 5.5 stops of stabilisation on the EM1 Mark II and Panasonic claims 5 stops on the GH5.

In my testing I found that I could comfortably handhold the Olympus at shutter speeds as low as 1-2 seconds at 12mm and still consistently get tack sharp images. Some even claim shutter speeds as low as 10 seconds are possible but I think that is a bit hit and miss and requires propping yourself up against a wall or tree to try and minimise any movement in your body.

With the GH5 I was able to consistently get tack sharp images at 1/3 second at 12mm on the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro lens ( see my review of that lens here ). So while the Olympus does still hold an advantage in this area the Panasonic certainly puts up a respectable fight.

Olympus OMD EM1 Mark II vs Panasonci GH5 – Auto Focus, Burst rates and action

Both of these cameras are built for speed.

The Olympus boasts an incredible 60 fps burst rate (single AF only) and 18 FPS with C-AF with the electronic shutter . These drop down to 15 FPS (S-AF) and 10 FPS (C-AF) with the mechanical shutter.

The GH5 while not as fast still offers very reasonable rates of 12 FPS (S-AF) and 9FPS (C-AF). So if you actually ignore the headline grabbing rates of the Olympus and look at the most useful option which is C-AF with the mechanical shutter there is on 1 FPS difference between the two.

So how do these two cameras handle fast action.

I’m going to say straight up here that I am not a fast action shooter. I do portraits, landscapes and travel photography. However just in my simple testing having models walk through the scene I found that the Olympus AF system copes better and gives a higher keeper rate than the GH5. Although the GH5 has more focus points at 225 vs Olympus’ 121, the EM1 II uses a hybrid system of phase detect and contrast detect points that seem better able to keep up with movement.

Panasonic’s Depth from Defocus contrast detect system struggles a little bit more when it comes to C-AF and tracking auto focus.

Olympus also captures images at any of its high frame rates in full raw resolution. Pro capture is a feature which will pre record 14 images and constantly hold them in the buffer. Then if you start shooting you will be able to select from those pre-recorded images. It allows you to capture shots where maybe your trigger finger wasn’t quite fast enough.

Panasonic on the other hand offers 6k photo mode which allows you to continuosly record at 30fps and then extract 18mp still images from the recording but only in Jpeg format.

If I’m honest I find the implementation of Panasonic’s 6k photo mode more useful than Olympus’ due to one factor. With the Olympus you have to trawl through and delete any images that you don’t want. With the Panasonic you still have to look through all the images but you can simply select the ones that you want to keep. That saves me having to constantly delete multiple photos. However I rarely find myself using either of these options as I prefer a more considered and slower paced approach to photography but I understand birders, wildlife and sports photographers would appreciate them. Basically you can choose between the Raw files of the Olympus or the Jpegs of the Panasonic.

Standard focus performance from both is excellent

When it comes down to what I use most which is S-AF in single shot mode both cameras are brilliant in good light. They lock on quickly and are incredibly accurate. When the light drops slightly the Olympus is a tad better but there really is not much in it.

One thing I did notice while testing the Olympus 25mm 1.2 Pro on the GH5 was that a strongly back-lit scene could throw the GH5 off and it would hunt or in some cases fail to focus altogether.

When it comes to how I use these cameras I would take both of them over a DSLR any day of the week because they just focus much more accurately.

Let’s not forget that both offer face detection and eye detection which is so useful for portrait work. Both work well but I prefer Olympus’ implementation as it adds a square over the face and then a smaller one over whichever eye is in focus. Panasonic puts a square around the face but then has intersecting lines to show you which eye is in focus. It is not quite as intuitive as the EM1 II and on occasion the intersecting lines do not meet over an eye so I was unsure as to whether the eye was in focus or not.

Taken on the EM1 II using face detect and near side eye selection

Panasonic GH5 + 25mm f/1.4 shot using eye detect AF

Olympus OMD EM1 Mark II vs Panasonic GH5 – Image Quality

Both cameras are using the latest Micro 4/3 20mp sensors so they should be quite evenly matched. However there has always been a notion that you use Olympus for stills and Panasonic for video but does this still hold true with the latest generation of cameras.

In terms of IQ the two cameras are virtually identical, offering sharp detailed photos. The GH5 removes the AA filter but in practise I have not noticed this to offer any tangible benefit. Both cameras seem to resolve the same level of detail.

One area where there is a slight difference is that the Olympus offers an extended ISO setting of 64 compared to that of 100 with the GH5. This does allow the EM1 II to give incredibly clean results with none of the noise that used to be present at base ISO in clear skies. This is a big improvement for me personally with my landscape work.

Look how clean those shadows are at ISO 64 on the EM1 Mark II

In terms of high ISO performance the two cameras are very evenly matched offering very usable files even at 3200 ISO and even 6400 ISO if the photos are just for web use or small prints.

At up to 800 ISO images are very clean and retain detail. At 1600 ISO you can see a slight loss of detail but no noise. At 3200 ISO there is further loss of detail and some noise creeping in to the images. At 6400 ISO details become smeared and noise is quite visible.

One thing that I have seen is that the Panasonic GH5 seems to handle colour noise a little better than the Olympus EM1 II at higher ISO settings. At 3200 the Olympus sometimes shows some ugly colour noise in skin tones whereas the Panasonic doesn’t. This is in the Jpeg files but not present in the raw files so if you shoot raw then it is nothing to be concerned about. If you shoot jpeg it is worth being aware of.

The colours on the GH5 have been improved quite a lot and I particularly like their natural profile for almost all types of imagery. The L Mono setting also gives very nice high contrast black and white shots. The natural profile on the Olympus is still the one I go to for most images and of course you can tweak the black and white profile in both the highlights, shadows and mid-tones to get it exactly as you wish.

Dynamic range of the two cameras is essentially identical.

I’ll be adding some high ISO examples soon. Having just gone through all my photo from these two cameras I realised that I don’t have good test shots to share because I was using the Olympus 25mm 1.2 (see my review here )and Pana Leica 25mm 1.4 a lot of the time and that allowed me to keep my ISO to 1600 or below at all times while in Asia.

Olympus does have a trick up its sleeve to best the GH5 for stills imagery in the form of the Hi Res mode. This combines 8 images in camera using sensor shift technology to give one hi resolution image.

I have found that this worked better in the EM1 Mark II than on my old EM5 II. It deals with movement better. For instance it is usable for running water now. However movement in trees and grass etc can still leave issues in your images that means this mode is only really fully usable for things like product photography. Let’s hope Olympus can improve Hi Res mode further as it has so much potential.

To use Hi Res mode you have to have the camera locked down on a sturdy tripod. I use the Manfrotto 055 XPRO3 which is absolutely rock solid.

You also need to be using very sharp lenses to really take advantage of this and resolve all the detail.

Another area where the Olympus EM1 II has an advantage is in night photography. Live view, live boost and live composite really are very useful as they allow you to see the image on the LCD screen as it is being created. It gives you a live preview as the exposure is taking place so you know exactly when you have the correct exposure and can stop at the perfect time.

Olympus OMD EM1 Mark II vs Panasonic GH5 – Conclusion

So which camera is the better one for stills photography?

If you are not going to take advantage of Hi Res mode, Live view, Live bulb and Live composite then at £1699 compared with £1849 the GH5 is surely the logical choice with its better viewfinder, LCD and far better video features. It definitely offers the better value and can keep up with the Olympus EM1 Mark II for general photography use.

However having said all that I still prefer the Olympus EM1 II and here is why.

I prefer the handling of the Olympus. I use Micro 4/3 to keep the size and weight of my kit small and light. The Panasonic GH5 is just a little too large for my liking and I prefer the grip on the Olympus which is more comfortable to hold all day long.

The GH5 does have good ergonomics and I particularly like the AF joystick and direct access to ISO via a dedicated button but I am quite happy using the D-pad to move AF points on the EM1 II and I can assign almost any button on the EM1 II to give me quick access to ISO. In all honesty if I am shooting in situations where the ISO needs changing quickly then I will have either camera set to auto ISO and set a maximum ISO and minimum shutter. If I want to set the ISO manually such as when shooting landscapes then quick access is not so vital and a quick press of the OK button and I am in to Olympus’ Super Control panel.

I find the auto focus on the Olympus just a touch more reliable in low light and I prefer their implementation of face detect AF. These two things can and did make the difference between me getting a candid shot of my daughter and not.

Lastly and this is a very subjective thing but I find the Olympus OMD EM1 II to be a beautiful camera and the finish in my opinion feels higher quality and more refined. It just works so well. In fact I would say that ergonomically it is the best camera that I have ever used and in the end this factor more than specs make me want to pick it up and take it with me everywhere.

So which one should you chose?

My brain finds it hard to recommend the Olympus OMD EM1 Mark II vs Panasonic GH5 at this time but my heart would chose the Olympus each and every time. However I will be keeping both as they are two of the best cameras available right now and whichever one you choose I’m sure you will be delighted.

Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 Review

In this Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 review I will go through the pros and cons of this professional grade zoom lens after having used it for well over a year in my personal and professional work.

The Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 was the first in Olympus’ Pro series of lenses designed for Micro 4/3 cameras. It is a weatherproof (dust, splash and freeze proof) fixed aperture zoom lens offering the 35mm equivalent field of view of a 24-80mm lens. It has a fixed aperture of f/2.8 throughout the zoom range with a filter thread of 62mm.

Build Quality

The first thing you will notice when you pick up the 12-40mm is the build quality. Like all of the Olympus Pro range of lenses it is extremely well made. At 382 grams and featuring a metal construction it feels solid in the hand and inspires confidence in use. For me it fits perfectly on the Olympus E-M5 II with the HLD-8G grip attached or on the EM1 and Em1 II giving you a weather sealed combination.

There is also an additional function button on the lens which you can program to activate a variety of features by simply customising it in camera.

While it is a larger lens for Micro 4/3 in comparison to some of the tiny primes, it is not oversized and much smaller than something like the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8. You can carry it attached to your camera all day and not notice the weight.

Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 Review – Focus

This is going to be a very quick section because all there is to say is that focus is as fast as any lens on the system. It is instantaneous to focus and is deadly accurate. Absolutely no issues here.

The zoom ring is nicely damped and it features a manual focus clutch mechanism that allows you to easily swap between auto and manual focus simply by pulling the clutch back or pushing it forward. It uses focus by wire but don’t let that put you off as the focus ring is incredibly smooth and allows you to easily and finely adjust your focus.

Zoom markings are shown for 12, 14, 18, 25, 35, and 40mm. If you pull back on the focus ring you put the lens into manual focus mode and reveal a focus scale. The focus scale has markings at 1’, 2’, 5’, and .2m, .5m, and 1m, plus infinity. Close focus is 8” (0.2m), and the lens can produce a 1:3.3 magnification ratio at 40mm.

The Olympus 12-40mm zooms externally so it increases in length from 3.3″ -5″ when extended.

Size compared to the Olympus 25mm f/1.8 lens

Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 Review – Image Quality

The 12-40mm pro does suffer with some barrel distortion at the wide end if you shoot raw. The Jpegs are corrected in camera and the software does a good job in most cases. At 40mm there is a slight amount of pin cushion distortion. If you are shooting raw and have straight lines in your shots then you will need to correct in post.

The lens also shows some vignetting when wide open at f/2.8. This is easily corrected in post. I guess Olympus tried to keep this constant f/2.8 zoom as small as possible and that means the image circle only just covers the micro 4/3 sensor.

This lens handles chromatic aberration very well and I see very little sign of fringing even when shooting high contrast scenes. It also handles flare well.

The Olympus 12-40mm is sharp from 12mm all the way through to 40mm even wide open at f/2.8. At 12mm the corner performance is slightly softer than the centre but still way better than something like a Canon 17-40mm L. As mentioned the lens is bitingly sharp in the centre at f/2.8 and performance increases slightly when stopped down to f/4.

While f/2.8 on the Micro 4/3 format does not offer the same shallow depth of field as on 35mm sensors it is still capable of allowing your subject to be isolated from the background as shown in the above portrait. The bokeh from the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 at 40mm is enough for portrait work and the rendering is smooth and not overly busy. While it couldn’t be described as creamy it is not nervous and distracting and so works well. If you want a dedicated portrait lens then I suggest that you check out my Olympus 75mm f1.8 review or 45mm 1.8 review

Conclusion

Overall I would rate the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 as one of the best zooms I have used. It is very well-built and combined with my EM5II or an EM1 series body offers excellent weather-sealing and a very useful focal range.

In terms of image quality sharpness is outstanding throughout the zoom range enabling you to shoot it wide open at f/2.8 without concern. It can do everything from wide-angle landscapes to portraits and it does it all well. Yes other lenses may be better at specific roles but none offer the versatility and fixed bright aperture of this lens.

If you are trying to decide between this lens and the Panasonic 12-35mm (mark i or mark II) then it really comes down to a few factors as optically they are very similar. The Olympus is better at the wide end and offers a little more range at the long end. However the Panasonic is slightly sharper at 35m than the Olympus is at 40mm.

If you are shooting on a Panasonic body then perhaps you might prefer to go with the Panasonic lens to take advantage of Panasonic’s depth from defocus system and in the case of the mark ii lens their dual sync IS. The Panasonic lenses are both lighter than the Olympus.

However having owned all 3 lenses and as an owner of the Panasonic GH5 and Olympus EM5 II I decided that the build quality of the Olympus 12-40mm edged out the Panasonic and so I kept it over its rivals. When I say edged out, it is night and day. The Panasonic’s feel like a consumer grade lens with very good optics. The Olympus 12-40mm feels like a professional grade lens in every way.

During my testing, dual sync IS between the GH5 and 12-35mm ii made no noticeable improvement in the image stabilisation and didn’t allow me to handhold shots for any longer than when using the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 on the GH5.

If you are going to own just one lens for Micro 4/3 then this may very well be the best choice. Make sure to check out my Olympus 25mm 1.2 Pro review as well.

If you found this Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 review helpful then all I ask is that if you buy anything from Amazon that you use my links below. Your purchase doesn’t have to be photography related, it can be anything at all. I will earn a small commission if you use the links and it really helps me to keep this site going and create more content.

Micro 4/3 vs Aps-C Just for Fun Shootout

I’ve got a bunch of cameras at the moment so I thought it would be fun to do a quick Micro 4/3 vs APS-C shootout.

This post is just for fun, it is not meant to be scientific but will just give a quick idea of how the different sensor sizes look and perform in the real world.

I woke up this morning with the sun shining and thought it would be fun to compare the various cameras I’ve got at the moment.

So I used a Nikon D7200, a Fuji X100T and the Olympus Pen F. I shot the Nikon with the 18-140mm kit lens at 24mm and compared it against the Fuji X100T and the Pen F with the Olympus 17mm f/1.8. Then I swapped out the Nikon kit lens for the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 and compared it to the Olympus Pen F with the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 attached.

So here are the images below. Looking at quick samples like this can give an idea of how different camera brands render images, how much bokeh can you get with each format, what is the difference in IQ and which camera produces the photos you like best. All the first images were shot in Raw and converted to Jpeg in Lightroom with no adjustments.

I shot the cameras at the same apertures where possible because this is how I would shoot them in real life. I know that this is not giving you scientific equivalents in terms of depth of field etc but most people don’t think like that when they are taking photos. So here goes.

Micro 4/3 vs APS-C Raw shootout

Notice the flare in the Nikon D7200 shot which is washing out the colours. This was unavoidable in this light at this focal length. This is the fault of the lens not the camera.

The colours are a bit richer from the Fuji because it doesn’t suffer with the flare issue.

The Pen F and Olympus f/1.8 handle flare fine but the colours aren’t quite as rich as the Fuji. The Fuji also offers a little more subject isolation at this aperture due to the larger sensor. It’s pretty close though.

Below is the same shot taken in the Olympus Hi resolution mode. This gives a huge raw file of 80mb.

High Resolution shot from the Olympus + 17mm f/1.8

Now there are some serious issues with this image due to movement in the background but just look at the colours it produces. The colours are so rich compared to all the other three shots. If Olympus can find a way to get this high-resolution mode to work handheld as rumoured on the OM-D E-M1 II then it could be incredible for landscapes. As it is it is a pretty cool feature and I could see it being superb for architectural photography and fine art for static subjects.

Below is a comparison of the Nikon D7200 + 50mm f/1.4 wide open vs the Olympus Pen F + 45mm f/1.8 again wide open.

Here we can see that the D7200 produces a richer image with more saturation and contrast . Whats surprising is that while the depth of field is shallower on the Nikon d7200 + 50mm f/1.4 combination it isn’t that huge a difference that a normal person would really notice.

Here’s a few more samples that show the rendering of the various cameras.

I’ve just been looking at the photos at 100% zoomed in on Lightroom and for sharpness it is close between the Pen F and the Fuji X100T with the Nikon D7200 + 18-140mm coming in last. Remember that is comparing prime lenses vs a kit lens so you should take that in to account.

When I compare the Pen F + 17mm f/1.8 at 1.8 and the Nikon D7200 + 50mm f/1.4 at 1.4 the Pen F is sharper by quite some margin.

Below are crops to show this

Nikon D7200 + Nikon 50mm f/1.4 wide open Crop

Olympus Pen F + Olympus 45mm f/1.8 wide open Crop

What do you think? Let me know in the comments what you think of these results.

Micro 4/3 vs APS-C Jpeg Shootout

Ok so the raw shots above show what each sensor is capable of in combination with the lenses used but both Olympus and Fuji are renowned for producing some of the best out of camera Jpegs in the industry so below I’ll take a quick look at what the images look like shooting straight out of camera Jpegs.

Nikon D7200 + 18-140mm SOOC Jpeg Standard Colour

Olympus Pen F + 17mm @ f/1.8 SOOC Jpeg Natural Colour

And here are the same shots below but with each cameras more saturated profiles.

Nikon D7200 + 18-140mm SOOC Jpeg Vivid Colour

Olympus Pen F + 17mm f/1.8 SOOC Jpeg Vivid

So looking at the above photos we can see that again the Nikon 18-140mm lens couldn’t quite cope with the flare and so the colours are a little washed out. I actually like the 18-140mm lens but it can’t compete here with the prime lenses on the other two cameras. The colours look a little washed out and the greens are actually too yellow.

Now this is the first time I have done real side by side comparisons between the Jpegs engines of Olympus and Fuji. I have used many of their cameras before and always really liked the Jpeg output of both.

However when looking side by side I notice several things. Fuji Velvia looks over saturated and un-realistic.

For me it is very close between Fuji Provia and the Olympus Vivid profiles as to which one I prefer. I think they are both excellent and it will really depend on what your photographing as to which you prefer.

When I look at the two images side by side in Lightroom one thing is clear, the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 on the Pen F is sharper wide open than the 23mm lens on the Fuji X100T when wide open.

The Olympus on the right is sharper than the Fuji wide open.

I know that Fuji are known to be excellent for portraits so when I get the time I will add a few portrait comparisons as well as some black and white images too. So keep checking back and let me know in the comments which photos you prefer.

You can see my reviews of the cameras below by clicking the links

Olympus Pen F Review

Nikon D7200 Review

Fuji X100T Review

Please help me build this website so that I can keep reviewing gear. This site takes a lot of time to keep going and I can only do it with your help. If you want to buy anything from Amazon etc then please use my buying links. It wont cost you anything but I do get a small commission from Amazon. Thank you from me and my family to all of you who help

Nikon D7200 Review

The Nikon D7200 is considered as one of the best enthusiast DSLR’s on the market so after having used it for a few months alongside a Canon 80D I’m going to write up a quick review and give my thoughts on this Nikon DX APS-C DSLR.

Nikon D7200 key features

24.2MP CMOS sensor with no optical low-pass filter
Multi-CAM 3500DX II 51-point AF system, all sensitive to -3EV
2,016-pixel RGB metering sensor, used for 3D subject tracking in AF-C
ISO 100-25,600, with ISO 51,200 and 102,400 black and white modes
6 fps continuous shooting (7 fps in 1.3x crop mode) with increased buffer depth
1/8000 sec maximum shutter speed
3.2″, 1.2M dot RGBW LCD display
1080/60p video (1.3x crop only) with clean output over HDMI and Flat Picture Control
Dual SD card slots
Wi-Fi with NFC
Magnesium alloy weather-sealed body

I used to own a D7100 a couple of years ago and liked the camera a lot but had one major gripe that a camera with a 6 FPS shooting rate was basically crippled by a ridiculously small buffer effectively rendering it useless for fast action unless you were shooting jpegs.

You literally couldn’t even shoot a 1 second burst with the D7100 in Raw so I hoped that the increased buffer size would make the D7200 more useful in this respect.

Apart from the increased buffer size not a huge amount has changed on the D7200. The auto-focus has been improved slightly and there is the handy addition of both Wi-Fi and NFC. 1080 60p video has been added although only when shooting in a 1.3x crop.

For me this is not a video centric camera and as I don’t shoot much video I’m not really going to get in to the video side of things.

What I’m interested in with a DSLR like this is image quality, handling, useability and low light performance so that’s what I’m going to look at here.

Handling

Having shot the Canon 80D quite a lot lately and then more recently shooting the Nikon D7200 it reaffirms my preference for shooting Nikon DSLR bodies for 2 main reasons. The first being that the ergonomics just feel better. Secondly the sensor performance is still ahead in terms of dynamic range and ISO performance.

I prefer the slightly shallower grip of the D7200 over the 80D’s as it just feels more comfortable to hold over the course of a day.

The D7200 feels more natural in the hand and subtle things like the placement of the on/off switch being by the shutter release and therefore usable one handed and the placement of Nikon’s rear control dial feeling more natural than the Canon 80D’s thumb wheel when shooting in manual mode and wanting to quickly change aperture or shutter speed.

Nikon seems to understand how photographers work a little better than Canon.

Add to this that the D7200 has dual SD card slots, quick access to most shooting functions very good auto ISO implementation and it feels like a solid camera intended to get out of your way and let you shoot.

The one issue I do have with the D7200 is that when shooting in manual ISO you have to use the ISO button which is located to the left of the cameras screen. I would much rather have a dedicated button on the top right of the camera next to the exposure compensation button or at least be able to reassign one of the function buttons on the front of the camera to ISO which is not currently available.

I understand handling is a personal and subjective issue so if you prefer Canon that’s great but for me the Canons feel a little more uncomfortable and less user friendly. I used to shoot Canon on a 450d, 40d and the 5D mk ii was my main body for a long time and I never had any major gripes with them but then I used them purely in manual mode for slow and methodical shooting producing landscapes for galleries.

Since buying Nikons I found them to suit my style better.

Image Quality

The 24mp APS-C sensor in the Nikon D7200 performs very well even with the 18-140mm kit lens. The lack of AA filter allows for more detail in your shots and although it wont make or break a great image the added detail is welcome, especially when you pixel peep as I must admit I do sometimes. You can see individual eyelashes defined a little better than with Canon’s 80D which has an AA filter. I never found issues with moire so the added detail comes at no cost.

I may be in the minority here as many rave about the colours coming out of Canon’s cameras but I actually prefer the slightly more subdued look of Nikons Jpeg engine. However if I want to crank up the saturation contrast or sharpness you can easily do so in the picture settings menu or in post.

Overall the D7200 is still ahead of the Canon 80D for image quality both in terms of actual resolution and in particular the dynamic range offered by the sensor. When shooting high contrast scenes I noticed that the Canon would blow out highlights before the D7200.

High ISO performance is still a little better from the D7200 in comparison to the 80D although the gap has definitely been closed by the Canon in this area. For me the difference is now somewhere around 1/3 to 1/2 a stop in favour of the D7200.

ISO 3200 is very clean and for my personal tastes 6400 is the limit of what I would use.

It is all very well all these websites claiming that 6400 ISO and above is clean in good light but you generally use high ISO’s in poor light and even at ISO 5000 in poor light the images don’t always hold up to scrutiny on even modern cameras.

Auto Focus

I’ll keep this short and sweet. The Nikon D7200’s 3d tracking autofocus is better than the Canon 80D’s. It is faster to lock on, tracks moving subjects better and ultimately will give you a higher keeper rate even if it shoots at 1fps slower than the 80D.

If you want to see examples and a more detailed comparison check out the 80D review here

Conclusion

As I said this is just a quick review after actually buying and shooting these cameras over an extended period.

There are hundreds of Nikon D7200 reviews out there giving every minute detail so my aim here is to give a quick overview of the camera performance in the real world and let the image examples (full res files available on Flickr) do the talking.

If I was buying an enthusiast level DSLR at this price point the D7200 and 80D would be the two cameras I would be deciding between. In this case if you have no investment in either system then the Nikon D7200 is undoubtedly the better camera for stills photography.

It’s autofocus is better, the image quality is better thanks to a lack of AA filter and better dynamic range. It also has a slight lead in terms of high ISO performance. Handling is subjective but for me the Nikon wins in this area too.

If you shoot video in any serious way then the 80D would be better but that is the only area I would say it beats the D7200.

Final Thoughts

Having shot Fujifilm a lot over the past few years ( I still shoot the X100T) I’m particularly interested to see what they have done with the XT-2 so that will be my next move and of course putting it up against the Nikon D7200. [UPDATE] Check out my Fuji XT2 review

Since I have a young baby and lots of nieces and nephews I don’t want to miss any of those first time moments. I will be testing to see if the auto focus system can keep up with the D7200 for shooting erratically moving children as well as a whole host of other subjects. If they have cracked the auto focus (finally) and with the new 24mp X-Trans III sensor with the beautiful Fuji Jpegs that might be a replacement for my trusty Nikon D7200. The only issue I have is that the initial price seems a little high to me considering the D7200 can be bought with the 18-140mm for well under £1000. The Fuji is over 50% more at the time of release.