 |
| Hopi House Gift Shop, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona Example of image quality from M4/3 format gear. (Click to enlarge greatly) Olympus E-M5, Panasonic 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 lens @ 29mm; ISO 200; 1/800th @ f/5.6; |
Why? Because nothing about it or the available raw converter software has changed. Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom still render the fine green foliage detail in the same, to me, unacceptable mushy manner. Being primarily a landscape, nature and travel photographer, green foliage is really prevalent in my work, therefore an important element that has to be rendered as well as possible. Green foliage details need to be crisp and distinctive, not mushy and indistinctive. As I continue to read and research alternate raw converters, I still read where Iridient may be the only one that testers agree upon is the best. Iridient is Apple only. I have and will continue to use Windows based computers as does most of the world.
I was hoping, as the camera has now been for sale for a longer period of time and has started to mature with more and more people using it, that someone would come up with a program or technique that would be the "Ah Ha!" moment and find the solution to mushy fine foliage detail. Up until now I thought, through my reading, that Photo Ninja was a great alternative, but I have recently been reading some tests and the program's praise with X-Trans sensor files was not high. Looking at the tester's images, fine detail looked funny. There were halos surrounding the fine detail and that was not even the green foliage detail. So, I'm convinced, that as good a camera and lenses that Fujifilm has produced, the X-Trans sensor architecture has thrown off the software manufacturers and they have not been able to find the right rendering formula to fully exploit the quality of what is contained in the image file.
A couple of other reasons that I'm hesitant to reacquire an X-T1 are that the histogram displayed in the EVF is lacking in quality when compared to the Olympus E-M1 or E-M5. I use the histogram as my lightmeter as the histogram gives a photographer invaluable information. The X-T1's histogram is too small. Also, exposure bracketing is limited to just three exposures, one stop apart. For a camera of this high quality and targeted to an audience of enthusiasts and professionals, that is unacceptable. One other reason is in body image stabilization (IBIS). I have come to really appreciate as well as rely on Olympus' IBIS in their E-M1 and E-M5 cameras. It is amazing and I really don't want to be without it in the future. So, the X-T1 still has a few strikes against it, in my opinion, at this time. You may disagree and that is okay. We all get to decide what is important to each of us. The things I have mentioned in this post are important to me. They may not be important to you. In any case, it is a very fine camera and the lenses are exemplary.
Thinking about what I just wrote, I then push that desire to purchase an X-T1 back down and shoe that bug away. SRGAS—successfully resisting gear acquisition syndrome! Something like that, anyway.
But why do I continue to want to go to a mirrorless system that has an APS-C sized sensor when I have been happily using a top notch M4/3 system? I've gone back and looked at images I have produced over the past 26 months with my M4/3 cameras and I continue to be very pleased with them. Nothing lacking. Detail, sharpness, contrast, color, saturation, electronic noise levels, etc. are all very satisfactory–and I'm really, really picky about my images.
(An example of the image quality available in the M4/3 format is the image at the top of this post. It is sharp, detailed, has good shadow detail, saturated, color correct and lacks any noticeable digital noise. And, the lens used was not one of the best M4/3 lenses out there. On a scale of 1-10, I would say the lens is a 7. But the proof is in the image itself.)
So, why do I flirt with the thoughts of buying an X-T1? I have determined it is purely psychological. Indeed! I have said publicly and previously have written on this blog that the Olympus E-M1 is the camera I wish all my other cameras over the past 44+ years would have been. It does everything I want a camera to do and it does it well. So why do I have occasional doubts? Read on.
Everywhere on the Internet we find and read comments that M4/3 cannot be adequate and cannot compete with APS-C and full frame sensors because of its size. That being said, I know that is not true. I have demonstrated it over and over again in the past two years by producing large prints in which there were no visible differences between the formats. (Note: those images were produced using the normal photographic conditions I encounter in my photography and pusing the envelope using under extreme, high ISO conditions, where even APS-C sensors may falter against the likes of a D800E, 5D Mark III or Sony A7r. But I don't photograph under extreme conditions so ISOs above 1600 or 3200 don't concern me even though my experience using ISO 6400 with M4/3 has been satisfactory) Additionally, the stock photography agency with which I have a contract, employs very picky editors to ferret out images that don't meet their clients' standards, and they are happy with the quality and size of the M4/3 images.
In the mean time, the psychological effect of reading these negative comments across the Internet (and I don't even know the credentials of who is writing them so why am I paying attention?) I have had to go back and reinforce to myself that M4/3 (mirrorless 4/3 I prefer to call the format, not micro 4/3) is perfectly suited to my needs as well as more and more professional photographers' needs. The quality is there, both in gear and image quality.
Now, I'm not saying that M4/3 will stand up under all conditions and match cameras with APS-C and full frame sensors. We know that is not correct. We know that digital SLRs with phase detect autofocus mechanisms are still faster for speed and accuracy in tracking moving objects. If you don't believe that, put any M4/3 or any mirrorless camera up against a Nikon D4S. The Nikon will blow the socks off of it at 11 FPS. However, my Olympus E-M1 will focus as fast or faster and more accurately than most digital SLRs in non-tracking, single image, focusing mode. At extreme enlargement sizes, a bigger sensor will win a contest against a smaller sensor, if you ever have to make an enlargement that big. Most of us never will. At sizes we normally would make for hanging prints on our walls, you won't see any difference.
As good as the sensors in the current generation of cameras from Olympus and Panasonic are, the next generation will be even better. Just think where this format was 5 years ago and think of the improvements since then. I can't wait for the next generation of M4/3 sensors. They may have more pixels (even though 16 is really enough for almost all of us) and have more dynamic range. Also, I suspect they will have more and more phase detection sensors built right onto the imaging sensor to solve the tracking focus issue. Right now there are a few, and I predict that trend will continue. So, the cameras and their images will only get technically better and better
The selection of lenses for M4/3 format cameras is superb. They sheer number of lenses doesn't quite rival what Nikon and Canon have introduced over the past 60 or more years, but for a format that is still a fledgling, Olympus, Panasonic, Sigma, Zeiss, Rokinon and others have done remarkably well. I believe that some of the lenses for M4/3 format will stand up to and produce equal image quality as the best Canon's and Nikon's. I do. Only pick and buy the best ones. Cameras come and go, but once you buy the best lenses, you can keep them forever. They become your biggest photographic investment over time.
Professional photographers have to rely on their gear to get the job down, down well and done every time. If they didn't own gear that got the job done successfully, they would be looking for another line of work. While writing this, I started wondering which professional photographers have switched to, or use, M4/3 format cameras to produce their images. I know some use M4/3 for stills and others for the remarkable video abilities. After a 15 or 20 minute Internet search, here are some I found. Most seem to use M4/3 now exclusively, others use it for specific assignments. I don't think any of these individuals, who each have specialties in wedding, portrait, street, general, landscape, and various other types of photography, would use a format that was counter to them being successful! Would you? That would be foolish. See if you recognize some of their names.
John H. Wells
Thomas Leutard
Rick Garrity
Neil Buchan Grant
Rob Sheppard
Larry C. Price
Kirk Tuck
Kevin Raber
Michael Reichmann
Robin Wong
Ming Thein
Thom Hogen
Brooks Jensen
Giuilo Sciorio
Will Crockett
Derrick Story
David D. Busch
Jonathan Auch
Robin Whalley
Dave Surber
Bob Coates
Suzette Allen
Kristin Jensen
Amos Chapplle
Damian McGillicuddy
Ben Grunow
William Innes
Lindsay Dobson
Simon Stringer
Rob Knight
Paula Thomas
Anurag Sharma
Tom Nguyen
Tammy Lee Bradley
Christopher Frost
Sandro Tasso
Alex McClure
Nicholas Goodden
Jamie McDonald
Andy Rapkins
Zlatko Batistich
Dallas Dahms
Robin Schimko
Randall Todd
Edmond Terakopian
Stephano Moscardini
Erick Redcloud
Frederico CabreraYou probably recognize many of these individuals. Go and look them up and look at their work. It is as good as anyone's. If they weren't convinced that M4/3 cameras and lenses were of professional caliber and were capable of producing professional level images, they would buy something else.
In my mind, there are three keys to professional success using M4/3 camera gear. First, use it if it will solve your photography problems in the types of photography you do. In other words, if you are a sports photographer, you may have less than adequate success with M4/3 than with digital SLRs from the big two manufacturers. Second, you have to pick and choose the lenses you use wisely. Even with all of the choices at hand, as with any system, some lenses are much better than others. Use a less than "best" performing lens and you will probably not be happy with the results, if you are as picky as I am. Third, technique. You still have to use excellent technique when photographing. You can't get sloppy because you have an E-M5 or E-M1, which has 5-way image stabilization. Nor can you get sloppy with depth of field, even with smaller format lenses, which have inherently more potential for depth of field than APS-c or full frame. The same rules of being a good photographer apply using any format, so don't get sloppy in your technique.
One other note about using M4/3 cameras and lenses. Again this is a psychological thing. Photography seems to be fun again. I don't know why, but using the smaller, lighter cameras has reinvigorated me in how much I enjoy my photography. I have read and heard other photographers say the same. I'll have to think about why more, but initially I believe it is because I can now see the finished image in my viewfinder before I press the shutter button. That psychological reassurance is wonderful!
So for me, the bug has crawled back into his hole and is out of sight. I am still perfectly happy with M4/3 and I have recommitted myself to using it in much of my photography. My advice? You, too, can be very happy with M4/3 and produce images that will totally satisfy you.
Thanks for looking.
Dennis Mook
Many of my images can be found at www.dennismook.com. Please pay it a visit. I add new images regularly. Thank you.
All content on this blog is © 2014 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or image.
If you are still looking at conversion software, give Raw Therapee 4.1.41 a try. It is based on DCRAW and seems quite usable. Easy to use also.
ReplyDeleteCheers Eric Clayton (Fuji X-E1 user).
Eric, thanks for the heads up. I hadn't heard of Raw Therapee but I'll look into it.
DeleteIn my non-scientific, anecdotal trial of the E-P5 vs. the X-T1, I found the E-P5 (mostly, the same features and specs as the EM-1) produces far superior results and is more enjoyable to use: better auto-focus, no fringing or chromatic aberration, as high-quality lenses, easier to use controls, etc.
ReplyDeleteWhat's more, as you point out, I don't think there's another blend of commerce and technology that stimulates as much psychological hysteria as digital photography – except perhaps professional sports. Digital has put the tools of professional photography in the hands of individuals who might never have had neither the inclination nor the wherewithal to pursue it in analog format. Now, thanks to digital, everyone is an expert; there are millions of very good photographers out there...and, sadly...many bandwagons waiting to be leaped on. One of the most extraordinary is the Fuji bandwagon; it's a veritable Cape Canaveral, Kentucky Derby of a bandwagon. All the stars are aligned, how could anyone that reads photo blogs not be swept away?
I'm not saying you can't capture great images with Fuji gear; you can. Trouble is, that may not be reason enough to eBay all the gear you already have. I'm not the first to say: It's not the gear; it's the creative abilities of the individual using it.
I especially like the E-P5 because I like the VF-4. It gives me two hi-def angles of view with a flip. Many times, circumstances dictate a change of angle, either to be less invasive or because the angle is just better. The E-P5 was not a bandwagon item; it got run over by the Panasonic GX7 and the Fuji X-T1. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, I like it better than both of those, just like I like the Nikon V1. I don't care about the expert opinions. These cameras work for me, almost to the point that when I load the images into LR, the results appear to be better than what I know my level of ability to be. Have you ever felt that way about a camera? That the results are better than what they should be, given my ability?
Bandwagons are temporal. The next one is just around the corner. What's more, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, Canon, Nikon know it. Their marketeers are busy putting the finishing touches on the latest gear item they hope will inspire the next hysterical bandwagon craze.
JJ, thank you for your thoughts. Yes, I used to use a camera that I believed gave me better photographs than I thought possible. It was a Pentax 6X7. I used to say I couldn't take a bad picture with that camera. It was my companion for about 20 years. I'm not sure what it was, probably psychological with some forced change in technique thrown in, but it seemed that the camera allowed me to make much better images than any 35mm or even 4X5" camera that I had used before it.
DeleteLike you, I read what the "experts" and "reviewers" say, then I go out for myself and decide whether or not a specific camera or lens meets my needs for my particular types of photography.
Also, if you notice, the hyperbole on the Internet is out of control. Every image is described as gorgeous, every camera as the best and every lens as stellar. Kind of like listening to some young people with everything in his or her vernacular being described as AWESOME! That and "like" could be removed from the English language and it wouldn't hurt my feelings. I guess what I am trying to say is accuracy in descriptions of all types of things has largely gone by the wayside.
(.. here's the other half of my comments...)
ReplyDeleteAs I quickly mentioned, I used to own a Fuji X camera, 2 in fact, the X100 & X10. 2 of the earliest versions, but they were (and still are) very good. But, like most reviews and personal opinions stated, the Fuji's seem to output such nice JPEG files, you may find it hard to find a reason to shoot RAW. If I could rely on JPEGS, I would, but RAW files are still essential for both to keep as a digital negative to go back to and for my purposes the only requirement to submit complete assignments to the studio I work with.
Despite still being mostly set on keeping my E-M1 as my main workhorse and all around camera system, I still find myself checking reviews and seeing what's up and new with Fuji. Yes, I have major GAS and it will never go away, but I always try and keep my head on straight and stay focus to be sure I don't spend my hard earned money to frivolously on camera and gear that I really don't need.
That being said, I still notice and really appreciate the particular IQ that Fuji X cameras can produce. I really like the retro styling, but if I can remain honest to myself, the less retro and more fully functional and customizable features of the E-M1 (and similar models) is really the most efficient way to work and navigate exposure controls (amongst many other settings).
Regardless, I can easily see myself eventually getting another Fuji X Camera.. how will it play with my current MFT system?
A) If nothing significant changes in any upcoming Fuji X camera, I will definitely keep my MFT and have a Fuji be a backup or for fun as different shooting experience.
B)However, if there's a significant change and I feel a Fuji X camera is more fully fleshed out has just enough to be better overall performer for me, then I might make the switch fully.. will see what develops with the X-Pro2 this coming Photokina that's less than 2 months away... though, I foresee a lot of nice new Oly MFT lenses that would make a great addition to the limited, but efficient, set I currently own.
Thanks for this bit of personal insight.. as I said at the beginning, I can totally relate and it's great to have that reassurance I'm not the only one who can come to the same conclusion about MFT and just how great it is and can be... I am eagerly awaiting new tech developments for MFT.. I feel it's reached a small plateau at this point with 16MP that dominates nearly all MFT cameras currently... it will be interesting to see if they can push a bit more MP in as well as more & better phase detect AF... I feel the key (or co-development) in pushing the MFT potential is processing power... really maximize the power of the MFT sensor and push the details and DR to new limits.
maybe the first half of my comments got missed or I didn't do something right in the original post.. here is the first half of my comments, so you should read this first before my reply above.
DeleteGreat article and personal thoughts. It's totally relatable for me.
I've been struggling with whether or not to switch back to an APS-C with Fuji X-T1 as well, ever since it was announce and since then. Weighing the pros and cons, but ultimately when all the hype around the X-T1 has diminished for me and I see which camera system has the most to offer FOR ME, I always come back to the same conclusion and that's my Olympus E-M1 can practically do it all really well and I've no real complaints at all about it. Design, IQ, functionality, lenses, more bells & whistles than I will probably ever really use.. it's all there and then some.
Sure, a larger sensor has it's benefits, but when I look at the body of my work and what I've been doing, I don't find anything really missing of lacking, and I've never received complaints or suggestions to the studio where I send my files to that my MFT camera isn't cutting it or to upgrade.
That's the other thing, too, RAW conversions.. Iridient seems to be the best for Fuji RAF files, but 1 I don't have a Mac (did not know it was only for Mac until now) & 2, more importantly, the studio I send my raw files to use Lightroom, so I shouldn't expect them to use another RAW converter just for my Fuji RAW files, if I still had a Fuji camera. So, I stick with what has been working and what I know the people that pay me will have the best (or better) RAW files to work with and that would be Olympus ones.
Also, I do a lot of outdoor portraits and so the background will be full of green foliage for the most part, even more reason not to use a Fuji to submit my work because of the notoriously poor handling characteristics Lightroom performs with RAF files. So, I stick with my trusty E-M1 and Oly ORF files.
The power of post processing is really great these days and I think a few tweaks here and there will get it very close, if not better, in some cases, than any larger sensor camera. With a little noise reduction applied, it can easily quash any arguments about the MFT images being too noisy, for one, and I personally haven't found you loose that much detail, if any, if you are smart with your application of such post process enhancements.
(ok.. now, my 2nd half of comments should be read after this one.. which was actually somehow posted first)
Your story sounds almost identical to mine. And, like you, if something changes about the X -T1, I too, will probably go ahead and buy another one. But until a raw converter adequately converts the RAF files, I'll stick with my E-M1. As you said, there is nothing the image files are lacking.
DeleteThank you so much for your thoughtful comments.