There are three major players in mirrorless systems field in the minds of enthusiasts. They are Fuji, Olympus and Sony (in alphabetical order, I should point out). I don’t include Leica because, strictly speaking, the M is not a mirrorless camera in the new meaning of the term. As a rangefinder it is unique. But the three Japanese manufacturers are ploughing their furrows with three different sensor sizes, Four Thirds, APS-C and full frame. Sony, of the three, is the only company with a presence in both APS-C and full-frame, but it is the full-frame A7 models that are currently tickling the fancy.
So which of these three systems is best? Steve Huff has pronounced Olympus the winner, followed by Sony and Fuji in last place with the wooden spoon. You can make up your own minds on this from his article. He has a lot of facts and many photographs to back up his conclusion and he makes some compelling arguments.
I feel some of his comments on Fuji are a little unfair, although I agree with him that the Sony A7 is a more solid, better-made camera. The Olympus is the one system I have not had the chance to try, but I hope to remedy that soon. Micro Four Thirds, as a system, has a lot going for it, not least in the extent and quality of its lenses from several different manufacturers.
This is definitely a bonus for the Olympus EM-1 as tested by Steve. The Sony has the benefit of the full-frame sensor with much greater opportunity to use narrow depth of field; and in terms of image quality is superb. But the Fuji, despite Steve’s apparent dislike, is part of a very mature system with a comprehensive range of first-rate lenses. As a system, it beats the Sony which, apart from possessing a couple of good primes (but more coming this month), is lacking overall. However, I know many experienced photographers, such as my colleague Bill Palmer, who are messianic in their adherence to the Fuji X Series and I shall be interested to hear their reactions to Steve Huff’s verdict.
what about Samsung. The NX1 beats several of these.
Yes, you might well ask. I’ve not seen Samsung mentioned much on Steve’s site and I haven’t personally taken a lot of interest up to now. Your message prompts me to look into the products more closely.
Such unequal tests or rather self indulgent claims do rather worry me, not least as Mike makes a point of Huff really should have taken the greater system into account. Personally, and despite my admittedly finding it somewhat interesting, I do not think it fair in this context for him to compare two far smaller sensor size cameras against a fairly top end camera with a full frame.
My point here being ‘[Little might be good’, but as yet I think most of us would acknowledge bigger(Sensor) is still bigger, and if we also get into arguing about our individual personal colour? Well likewise this too has not been dealt with within Steve’s test in any scientific way and certainly my own likes or dislikes would have been different.
Anyway it was a quite interesting, but which to have been more valuable should at least have also included a equivalent 4/3 Panasonic and which in value terms was much more about how long is a piece of string, or put another way as he indeed says is just his opinion.
Me? well I just hope no goes out and buys or changes any of these three superb systems just on Steve Huffs say so. Don Morley