Fujifilm X100VI vs OM Systems OM-3: A Real-World Comparison of Two Modern Retro Classics

Last updated January 12th 2026:

This article is based on real-world testing. I’ve used the Fujifilm X100VI since its release, and the OM System OM-3 was tested extensively throughout August — including on my latest trip to Moalboal in the Philippines.

I know some people will say “why compare a fixed-lens camera to an interchangeable-lens body?” I heard the same thing years ago when I compared the Olympus Pen F with the Fujifilm X100T. And yes, on paper they’re not direct competitors.

But in practice, they share a lot: both are beautifully designed, retro-styled cameras. Both are small, lightweight, and perfect for anyone who wants something better than a phone without carrying a full-frame kit. For travel, family, or everyday shooting, that makes them natural alternatives. If you want my thoughts after shooting another year with the Fuji X100VI I wrote an article on my experience.

I use my Fujifilm X100VI constantly — it’s one of my most-used cameras. But when I saw the OM System OM-3 with its compact design and the option to pair it with the updated 17mm f/1.8 II, my curiosity got the better of me. Could the OM-3 replicate the way I use the X100VI when paired with the OM Systems 17mm f/1. II lens — while also offering the flexibility of a fully featured interchangeable-lens system when I needed it and, is Micro Four Thirds still a viable system in 2025. I added a few essential accessories to the OM-3 just as I did to my X100VI.

I’ve been shooting with both Fujifilm and Olympus/OM System cameras for over a decade, dating back to the original OM-D E-M5 and Fuji X-Pro1. I know both systems inside out, and I genuinely like them for different reasons. In this article, I’ll walk you through how each performs as a travel, family, and everyday camera — and ultimately, help you decide which one fits your style best.

Design & Styling

Seeing as both of these cameras are — in the camera world at least, and in my eyes too — beautiful designs, which one do I actually prefer? Bear in mind this is, of course, subjective.

There’s no doubt that if you sit the X100VI and OM-3 next to each other, the OM-3 stands out as the more beautiful camera, with its silver finish (I have the black X100VI). I asked my family and a few strangers, and every single one picked the OM-3 as the better-looking model.

However, I don’t think it’s that simple. For me, both are elegant designs. The OM-3 is more overtly pretty, with its retro styling, silver finish, and color wheel reminiscent of old Olympus film cameras. The finish is absolutely first-rate. It has its SLR-style EVF in the middle of the camera, complete with the traditional viewfinder hump.

The Fujifilm X100VI is also a very nice-looking camera but goes with the rangefinder styling, with the viewfinder sitting inside the main camera body, off to the left. Some may prefer one over the other. For me, being left-eye dominant but able to shoot with either eye, it makes little difference. However, the viewfinder on the X100VI is 3.69 million dots versus 2.36 million on the OM-3. In reality, switching back and forth between the two, there are differences, but they’re marginal and not a deal breaker either way. What may be a deal breaker for some is that the X100VI also offers an optical viewfinder thanks to its hybrid design. I use the EVF 99% of the time so it’s not a deciding factor for me.

I definitely appreciate the beauty of the OM-3, but I’m quite drawn to the more subtle design of the X100VI. I guess as a slightly introverted person, the X100VI in black suits me well. I can’t call a winner here, as both look incredible.

If you’re already considering picking one up, here are the latest prices:

The thing that struck me with the OM-3 is the quality of the controls and dials. Every dial turns with exactly the right amount of resistance to feel solid and purposeful, yet not so much so that it’s difficult to operate. All the buttons are raised just enough to find them when operating the camera without having to look. The shutter button feels perfect, with just the right amount of pressure needed for a half-press to focus and then a full press to take the photo.

The only minor negatives for me would be the on/off switch being on the left-hand side of the body (Olympus and OM Systems have always done this, and I still don’t know why), and the record button on top of the camera being tiny and awkward to find. No problem for us stills shooters, except I’ve re-programmed mine to turn eye AF on and off. The front color wheel dial is also a little stiff to turn, which means that for me, it’s a two-finger job. Rather than being able to quickly change it with my right hand while holding the camera, I have to do so with my left hand reaching around the body.

I also noticed that the camera strap attachment point is slightly in the way when I’m gripping the camera, although after a bit of messing around I found a position where it now sits comfortably between my index and middle fingers. There is a small thumb rest at the back of the body which helps with grip during longer shooting sessions, and the front is covered in a faux-leatherette material that gives a little purchase. Overall, considering there is very little to grip on to with the OM-3, it is surprisingly decent to hold — though it definitely benefits from an L-Grip being added.

Build quality, as I mentioned, looks to be top notch, with weather sealing that I would — and have — trusted in the worst the monsoon season can throw at me here in the Philippines. I’ve shot the EM1 Mark II and others from Olympus/OM in torrential rain here with them slung over my shoulder, and they haven’t so much as blinked. The OM-3, with its IPX53 rating, is better sealed than earlier Olympus models, so I have no worries in this regard.

Overall, I’m really pleased with the build quality of the OM-3. It feels like a tool, not a toy, and that’s important to me. In the hand it feels wider and slimmer than my X100VI, and very similar in weight when the 17mm f/1.8 II lens is attached.

The X100VI feels equally well built but takes a more minimalist approach. The rear of the camera looks more sparsely populated with buttons, even though it offers a joystick (not found on the OM-3). It also, of course, offers real dials for shutter speed and ISO, as well as an aperture ring on its lens, whereas the OM-3 uses the standard PASM dials for dialling in exposure settings. PASM is quicker in use, but Fuji’s dials offer a more fun experience.

The OM-3 offers a decent rear LCD screen which is fully articulating. One of the benefits of this is that it’s fully protected when closed. The X100VI’s screen is beautifully designed and sits flush with the body, yet offers a simple tilt up/down mechanism. The Fuji’s is better for shooting discreetly, the OM-3’s is more flexible.

Overall, design and handling is quite different between the two. Although the OM-3 looks just as retro as the Fuji, it is suited to faster-paced shooting — as we’ll also see later on. When I first picked up the OM-3, my initial instinct was that the X100VI is more comfortable and felt more natural in my hand. However, as I shot the OM-3 more and more in Moalboal, here in Cebu, I really started to like it. It’s still not quite as comfortable as the X100VI, which feels softer and more rounded. However, add an L-grip to them both and they start to feel very similar. I wrote a detailed article on the best accessories to add to your Fuji X100VI here.

Overall, I’d say the Fuji gives the experience of a retro camera with its looks and physical control dials, whereas the OM-3 simply gives the appearance of one.

Features & Image Quality

In my opinion, both Fujifilm and OM System have always produced some of the best SOOC JPEGs in the industry — but they go about it in very different ways.

Fujifilm leans into its film simulations, which offer a fantastic array of looks, many of them with a nostalgic vibe. There’s likely a film simulation to suit all tastes. Personally, I shoot in Classic Chrome most of the time. If you want to get your X100VI quickly set up for shooting then download my free setup guide as well as downloadable settings file to load straight on to your camera. It includes AF setup as well as custom functions and Fuji film recipes already added.

The OM-3 also produces great JPEGs, but they’re less about nostalgia and muted tones and more about vibrant, realistic colors. If you want things right in-camera and want lots of immediate choices, normally I’d say go Fuji. However, the OM-3’s color wheel gives you a huge amount of freedom to create your own looks if you’re willing to put in the time. It has a novel way of allowing you to do this through its color wheel for both color and monochrome profiles.

It’s the old Pen F vs X100 argument again: do you want Fujifilm’s immediately accessible film simulations (plus custom recipes widely shared online), or do you prefer the freedom of OM System’s more intuitive, Lightroom-style color wheel where you can see adjustments live in the viewfinder as you shoot?

High ISO Performance

APS-C vs Micro Four Thirds isn’t a huge gap these days, but yes — the X100VI performs slightly better once you get up to ISO 6400. It’s not just that there’s less noise; the Fuji’s noise pattern is more uniform and therefore more pleasing to the eye. The difference is small, around 1/3 to 1/2 a stop.

Personally, I like having Fujifilm film simulations available as Lightroom profiles for RAW files, but at the end of the day, they’re just color profiles. I can get results I like out of both cameras.

Lenses and Rendering

Comparing the Fuji’s fixed 23mm f/2 to the OM System 17mm f/1.8 II, both are sharp, but the Fuji is better corrected for chromatic aberrations. I’ve noticed more purple and green fringing with the 17mm f/1.8 II. That said, the OM-3 lets you switch lenses — and when I paired it with the 25mm f/1.2 Pro, the results surpassed the Fuji lens, though at the cost of size and weight.

Black & White Profiles

Fujifilm is rightly known for its beautiful Acros profile, one of my favorites for rich black and white with excellent tonality. The OM-3 also has fantastic black and white options via the color wheel, with three profiles as standard. Profile 2 is meant to replicate Tri-X, but I find it a bit too contrasty, so I’ve tweaked it and am still settling on my preferred look.

Computational Features vs Classic Tools

Where the OM-3 really shines compared to the X100VI is in features. It offers Live View, Live Bulb, and Live Composite, which make long exposure photography incredibly easy by giving you live feedback as the exposure builds. It also offers both tripod-based (80MP) and handheld (50MP) high-resolution modes. These not only increase detail but also reduce noise at higher ISOs while improving color fidelity. They don’t come without some issues though, for instance I have found that handheld high-res mode’s benefits in terms of detail are inconsistent.

On top of that, the OM-3 includes software-based ND and graduated ND filters. In my testing, they often do a great job of replicating long exposures and balancing high dynamic range scenes without bracketing. There are caveats (which I’ll cover in my full review), but overall, they’re impressive.

The Fujifilm X100VI doesn’t have these computational features, but it does have tricks the OM-3 can’t match. Its leaf shutter allows for extremely fast flash sync speeds, and when combined with the built-in flash, it makes fill flash in bright daylight easy. It also has a built-in four-stop physical ND filter that lets you shoot shallow depth-of-field portraits in bright light — something the OM-3’s software-based ND can’t replicate.

Autofocus

Now let me start this section by saying that, while the X100VI is not the fastest focusing camera in the world, for single shot, everyday photography I have found it to be perfectly fine. It’s way faster than the Ricoh GRIII for example. However, the difference between it and the OM-3 when trying to capture faster action is pretty significant. I attempted shots of Sofia running towards me on the beach that I honestly wouldn’t even attempt (and didn’t) with the X100VI. Out of several series of over 50 shots that I took, only a couple were out of focus. I repeated this test twice and the results were always the same. So if capturing your children speeding around while on vacation is important to you, then there is only one option here that I could hand on heart say will do the job. The OM-3 is significantly better in these kinds of scenarios.

Overall

Both cameras are fantastic tools. The OM-3 is more flexible, not just because of interchangeable lenses, but because its features let you leave your tripod and filters at home while still being able to shoot handheld 50MP high-resolution images. I’d trust its weather sealing above the X100VI’s, too. If you want flexibility, adaptability, and a camera that can cover an incredible range of shooting scenarios, the OM-3 is a superb choice — especially for Micro Four Thirds shooters who want a compact but versatile system.

The Fujifilm X100VI doesn’t have as many bells and whistles, and its AF performance isn’t as quick, but what it offers can’t quite be replicated by the OM-3. That’s the genuinely immersive shooting experience: the leaf shutter, built-in ND filter, rangefinder styling, simplicity, discretion (especially in black), and those superb film simulations. If you want beautiful results straight out of camera without having to tweak much, the X100VI delivers.

Frequently Asked Questions