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



## FXA (May 30, 2016)

Hi everyone,

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have got a few questions now:

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

Does one of these cameras feature Focus Trap?

Does the bigger sensor offer a noticeable advantage with manual lenses as these are originally made for bigger sensors?

Is the Sony 16-50 really that bad?

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

And finally...

Which one should I buy?

Thanks a lot for your help


----------



## jaomul (May 30, 2016)

I have an Olympus EM5, which in some ways is similar to the EM10. It's nice, tidy has nice lenses, takes nice pictures, I like it. However it's not much good for tracking moving objects. I don't know much about video, olly does it, but it's not as praised as other makes.

If I was buying a single mirrorless system from scratch now (the olly is my second setup) I'd go for the bigger sensor. If action and video are in your wants which they are, I believe from all I have seen and read that the Sony is a better all-rounder


----------



## Ysarex (May 30, 2016)

FXA said:


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



Absolutely not true. The Fuji applies no NR to it's raw files. Fuji does have fairly agressive NR for high ISO JPEGs (above 1600). This does not apply to raw shooters in any way.



FXA said:


> Does one of these cameras feature Focus Trap?
> 
> Does the bigger sensor offer a noticeable advantage with manual lenses as these are originally made for bigger sensors?
> 
> Is the Sony 16-50 really that bad?



Some day in the future it's possible that someone in Sony's marketing department will wake up and realize that lenses are the most important components of a camera system and actually agree to let the engineering department design and build a few good ones -- it could happen.



FXA said:


> Which one is better? IBIS  in the M10 or the OIS of Sony /Fuji lenses?
> 
> And finally...
> 
> Which one should I buy?



Rule #1: Lenses take photographs, cameras hold film/sensors. When you're shopping always apply rule #1 first and then move down to the next rule.

Joe



FXA said:


> Thanks a lot for your help


----------



## chuasam (May 30, 2016)

if your budget can push it, get the EM5 Mk II because of the better weather resistance.
The cameras stated have difference price points.
The Fujifilm 18-55 is FAR superior to the 16-50
are you talking about the EM10 or EM10 MkII?


----------



## FXA (May 31, 2016)

chuasam said:


> if your budget can push it, get the EM5 Mk II because of the better weather resistance.
> The cameras stated have difference price points.
> The Fujifilm 18-55 is FAR superior to the 16-50
> are you talking about the EM10 or EM10 MkII?



I'm talking about the EM 10 MkI,  because I think the MkII is to expensive, while "only"  Is and Viewfinder were improved. I'm planning to buy the camera used and the price raises about hundred euros from E-M10 to Sony and from Fujifilm.

And do you mean the Fujifilm  18-55 is superior to their own 16-50 or to Sony's?


----------



## jaomul (May 31, 2016)

While certainly not the be all end all, this aticle may help your decision

2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-800


----------



## Gary A. (May 31, 2016)

I have never used any of the cameras which your are inquiring. But, I have some general remarks. If video is more important than stills, go for the Sony.

The Fuji tends to make higher end niche cameras. Their cameras and lenses are generally priced higher to a similar level camera(s). But, Fuji's build is high quality and their FX lenses are wonderful.

I have FF cameras (1Ds), APS-C cameras (Fuji XT1, XP2) and MFT cameras (EM5 & EM1). I found the Fuji to be a great compromise between the high IQ of FF and the small footprint of MFT.  The Fuji is my camera of choice and the Canons and Oly's are no longer used.  The EVF of the XT1 is huge with much better visual quality than my EM1.

Here is a review of the XT10 but at the end compares it to the Sony and Oly.
Fujifilm XT10 review | Cameralabs


----------



## FXA (May 31, 2016)

Gary A. said:


> I have never used any of the cameras which your are inquiring. But, I have some general remarks. If video is more important than stills, go for the Sony.
> 
> The Fuji tends to make higher end niche cameras. Their cameras and lenses are generally higher to similar cameras level. But, Fuji's build is high quality and their FX lenses are wonderful.
> 
> ...



Although I am also making some videos, stills are much more important. How good is the Fuji sensor in terms of RAW-highlight and shadow recovery, especially compared to your other cameras?


----------



## Ysarex (May 31, 2016)

FXA said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > I have never used any of the cameras which your are inquiring. But, I have some general remarks. If video is more important than stills, go for the Sony.
> ...



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

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

Joe


----------



## goooner (May 31, 2016)

Well it does help that the Fuji 'starts' at 200 doesn't it. It does flatten off at 1600 (800) though, which is quite impressive.


----------



## goodguy (May 31, 2016)

I disagree that IQ on Fuji is better then the Sony sensor, they are about par with the Sony having the advantage of more resolution. 16MP is enough if you don't crop you images but if you do (I always do) then the extra resolution is a nice bonus.
I like the Fuji for the much nicer design and the much better kit lenses.
I like the Sony for having more resolution and I believe better AF system.
Video Sony is better too.

Honestly if I would want a mirrorless and I don't have the option for FF sensor then I would like the Fuji x-Pro II with the 24MP sensor and improve AF system because of the better kit lens compared to the Sony
If I can choose a Sony without the kit lens then I would want a Sony system and get FF lenses so I can use them on A7 camera in the future.
Overall I think Sony offers a better system because the option to use the lenses on both the APS-C and FF cameras, its a nice option like Nikon and Canon (and now Pentax too) are offering.


----------



## FXA (May 31, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> The Fuji X-Trans DR is excellent -- best in class for the sensor size. Here's Bill Claff's test results for the X-E2 which has the same sensor as the X-T10 (he hasn't done the X-T10 yet): Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting
> 
> Go to the right side of the graph and add in the other cameras you're considering and the X-Trans should outperform them.
> 
> Joe


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


----------



## jaomul (May 31, 2016)

I suggest if making recommendations to keep in mind the op budget, which is approx price of a Sony A6000


----------



## jaomul (May 31, 2016)

Op, you'll probably find most cameras these days are excellent, look at what grabs you most about a certain model, you'll likely be very happy with that one


----------



## Ysarex (May 31, 2016)

FXA said:


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



I noticed that too about the E2 versus T1 and don't know what's going on there. Basically I trust and prefer Bill Claff's data over the other test options out there. X-Trans has a DR advantage over the other cameras in class and as you noted even out-performing some FF sensors because of the CFA. If you look at a sensor CFA of the Bayer variety you note that there are two green filters for every one red and blue pair. Green wasn't chosen randomly to do double duty there. Green is carrying the exposure weight and so 50% of the Bayer CFA filter area is green. The X-Trans sensor ups the green filter percentage by an additional 5.5% over Bayer sensors. I shot Canon FF before I *upgraded* to Fuji X which has better overall DR.

When I made the decision to switch and started shopping around I applied rule #1 (see above). I started shopping for lenses. I considered Sony and Oly but bottom line I bought the Fuji XF 14mm f/2.8 and everything else fell into place behind that. Fuji takes lens design and manufacture seriously and is building a camera system not just the next flashy set of camera features.

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

Joe


----------



## Gary A. (May 31, 2016)

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

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

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

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


----------



## otherprof (May 31, 2016)

FXA said:


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


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


----------



## FXA (Jun 2, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> FXA said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



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



Gary A. said:


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



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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 2, 2016)

FXA said:


> Today I downloaded some sample RAW files from the dpreview image comparison tool and I noticed to things:
> 
> 1. The Fuji images happen to be darker at same aperture,  ISO and shutter speed. I had to adjust exposure by 0.3-1.0
> 
> 2. The difference in terms of IQ are not as big as I expected. The Fuji is slightly better at noise and colors, while the Sony is quite a bit sharper.



How are you evaluating raw files to make those determinations?

Joe


----------



## FXA (Jun 2, 2016)

Ysarex said:


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


I used this tool: Image comparison: Digital Photography Review

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


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 2, 2016)

FXA said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > FXA said:
> ...



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

Joe


----------



## FXA (Jun 3, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> FXA said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...


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


----------



## FXA (Jun 5, 2016)

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

Gesendet von meinem A0001 mit Tapatalk


----------



## fmw (Jun 5, 2016)

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


----------



## FXA (Jun 5, 2016)

fmw said:


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


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


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 5, 2016)

FXA said:


> But that's mainly at ISO6400, below the differences are not too big.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem A0001 mit Tapatalk



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

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

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 5, 2016)

fmw said:


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



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

Joe


----------



## fmw (Jun 5, 2016)

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


----------



## fmw (Jun 5, 2016)

FXA said:


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



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


----------



## table1349 (Jun 5, 2016)

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


----------



## FXA (Jun 5, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


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





fmw said:


> FXA said:
> 
> 
> > fmw said:
> ...


I don't need least size possible. I just don't see why a DSLR would fit my needs better than a mirrorless camera.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 5, 2016)

FXA said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > This will fix the weight problem.
> ...


When people talk about weight being a issue, unless they have a physical infirmity, when the weights are in the single digit range it sounds more like an excuse than a reason.


----------



## sashbar (Jun 5, 2016)

fmw said:


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



Because with DSLRs you have either an uninspiring crop system where most modern lenses are nothing more than just capable plastic primes or slow boring zooms, or a bulky like a bus and heavy like hell full frame system that should be better left to pro photogs with a truck.

Or you buy a crop camera and use it with a full frame lense that was not made for it. Just check this forum and you will see how often beginners with crop bodies get this advice: "buy full frame lenses, it will make it easier for you to move to full frame later".

This is exactly how Nicanon marketing strategy works: beginners buy a crop camera and when the initial excitement fades away they realise that the "real" gear is full frame. The best lenses are full frame. The best cameras are full frame.

But what do you do if your shooting style is incompatible with a full frame system?

With FUJI X line you at least get the "real" APS-C gear: an excellent camera AND, most importantly, pro quality modern fast zooms and exciting primes that are second to none.

Or you buy a Leica.


----------



## fmw (Jun 5, 2016)

sashbar said:


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



I still have some Leicas but they aren't digital.  I guess I need to part with them some day.  I view them as industrial art as much as cameras.  I think one advantage of mirrorless is that they can produce wide angle lenses that don't require a retrofocus design.  That is what makes the Leica rangefinder wide angles so amazing.


----------



## sashbar (Jun 5, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> When people talk about weight being a issue, unless they have a physical infirmity, when the weights are in the single digit range it sounds more like an excuse than a reason.



Believe it or not,  but each and every time I go to the photo shop just to look at the stuff and grab some new, latest and greatest full frame camera, or just any large camera like D7200 with a zoom, I think "Oh, no! You must be kidding!". It just feels funny, really. I just can not justify carrying around that bulky box any more when there is a much smaller and lighter one of a similar quality. 

A pro photog just has to live with it, a weekend amateur who drives on a Sunday morning to the nearby river feels great with such a camera on a passenger seat, but there is nothing good not for a street shooter who takes his camera bag on his 1 hour + way to the office (bus+train+underground) at 6 am, then after work spends several hours on the streets shooting before heading back home. 

The difference is the one between carrying a large camera bag and a small messenger bag, between having 1 or 3 lenses, between carrying a camera on your neck like a brick, or just in your hand or in your pocket, between shooting with one hand or two hands etc. 

By the end of the day in most cases it is all about what you shoot, how you shoot, how often and how long, not about your physical condition.


----------



## sashbar (Jun 5, 2016)

fmw said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > fmw said:
> ...



Yes, short flange distance allows for a true lense design.
There are other small things, like AF - it may be slower but it has no AF mirror, so by definition has no back/forth issues and focuses dead on even with a wide open 1.2 or 1.0 lense.  EVF v OVF is also debatable. X-T1 has a huge EVF, larger than most full frame DSLRs, you see your exposure, no need for guessing - great for beginners, and at night when OVF is useless, an EVF illuminates the scene and it is clear as day.
I have never had a Leica lense, but FUJI X lenses are real deal, just ask Zeiss who tried to compete but had to stop manufacturing their X-mount lenses.  All they could produce was more expensive lenses with "sterile" feel compared to excellent FUJI glass.


----------

