Olympus 35rc vs Fuji X100

A question on the minds of everyone recently has been wether they should buy the Olympus 35rc or the Fuji X100, and I understand their dilemnas. As I have both, I think I can help these indecisive buyers out.

Both cameras resemble a similar form factor and use. They are both compact, metal bodied with black leather and have similar focal lengths. Operation for the two of them is similar too.



While the Olympus 35RC is smaller, it is not much so and both cameras are about the same weight.

In use:
Both cameras have dials for aperture and shutter, facilitating easy use of full manual mode. Both cameras have aperture dials around their lenses but the X100 has tabs to make operation easier. I find it difficult to move the aperture dial on the 35RC and it is impossible to do so without moving the focus ring so always refocus after you change aperture.

The focus ring on the 35RC is very light, it feels like it isn't even attached to anything. This makes it very easy to go from one end of the focus range to the other. The X100, however, has a terrible focus ring. It is connected to an electronic thingymajig and it takes several full turns for it to slugishly focus from near to far and it can not be easily controlled in small increments.

Focus speed on the 35RC and X100 are comparable as they are both quick in daylight with the X100 generally having a slight upper hand and both cameras are frustrating in low light. A short lesson on focussing with both cameras is to find a point of high contrast to focus on and then recompose.

The 35RC also has the uper hand in that it has a focus distance indicator so you can pre set your focus without looking through the viewfinder and this also helps in dim situations.

Both cameras feature corner viewfinders with real time views of the world which is a true asset. The X100 has a larger and brighter viewfinder and the framelines are parallax adjusted, depending on where you are focussed. The framelines on my 35RC are very dim and the rangefinder patch is almost non-existant but it is from 1972 and it will be interesting to see how the X100 runs in 2053. Woah, that seems a lot further in the future than 1972 seems in the past, but I digress.

Durability wise, I would be more ok with banging the 35RC against a building or taking it out on the water than the X100. It is made of a thicker steel and has a more solid, brick-like feel to it. The X100 is metal too but it is a lot thinner and there is far more plastic that makes cheap sounding noises when you push against it. I also don't trust electronics.

The 35RC's next win is that it can be used without batteries. Want to go trekking through Mongolia with no access to a wall plug for 3 months? Take a brick of film and the 35RC. Batteries are cheap for the X100 but they only last a few days in the camera. The 35RC keeps on truckin' without any batteries but if you need shutter priority, the batteries that it needs aren't too hard to come by (unless you live in New Zealand, sorry bro!)

The cameras both carry a similar lens: the Olympus 35RC has a zuiko 45mm f2.8 lens, while the Fuji X100 has a Fujinon 23mm f2 (which is 35mm in film terms). I don't find 45mm and 35mm all that different and both work well as an everyday focal length for anything from landscapes to portraits. The 35RC can stop down to f22 for longer exposures during the day, the X100 only goes to f16 but it has a built in 3 stop ND filter which is a life saver when you are trying to get your blur on in the middle of the day. I would say that the Fuji X100 has a "better" lens attached to it but the 35RC is spectacular in the right situations: stop down to f8 or f11, put it on a tripod and thread in a cable release and you have a serious camera in your hands. The X100 is capable of this too and I have been using it as my primary landscape and infrared camera but it is limited in its inherent digitalness in that it has 16mp and it will always have 16mp, the 35rc can take Velvia, Provia, Ilford Pan... and there are no limits to how you can scan the film as scanners are always getting better.

Olympus 35RC

Olympus 35RC

Olympus 35RC

Olympus 35RC

In regards to colours, the X100 stocks what it calls 'film simulation' modes. These are: Provia, Velvia and Astia. It also has black and white which would be Neopan or something similar. The Olympus 35RC also has film modes but these aint no simulations. I have shot Provia and Velvia on it but also Kodacolor, Kodak Gold, Portra, Ilford Pan, Ilford HP5, Ilford Delta and Kodak Tri-X and there are so many more films available. The one thing the X100 has up it's sleeve is that it can shoot Velvia at iso 6400 which I haven't been able to find in the stores...

Fuji X100

Fuji X100

Fuji X100

Fuji X100

Fuji X100

For people in a hurry, the X100 is a better choice. It has a 2ish second review time from shot to screen while the Olympus 35RC is roughly 7-10 days. Loading the X100 takes 5 seconds to pop a memory card in and out, it is a bit of a longer process on the 35RC.

Fuji X100

Overall I would say that both cameras are excellent choices but it is up to you as a photographer to decide what is more important to you- pixels or chemicals? Considering that you can buy 12 Olympus 35RCs for the price of 1 second hand Fuji X100 and load those 12 35RCs up with 12 different rolls of film and carry them around your neck and look like a complete baller, I think the decision has been made for you.

Fuji x100 infrared photography

There are some days where I struggle to feel motivated with my photography but when I go out with my little Fuji X100 and screw on my Infrared filter, that is not one of those days. 

For the uninitiated, infrared photography is special as it capture parts of the infrared spectrum of light, not the visible spectrum that our eyes see. It is like entering another world where trees glow, grass turns white and skies take on a whole new clarity.

Take the low light gathering attributes of an infrared filter and add in the built in ND filter of the fuji x100 and you have some seriously long exposure times in broad daylight.

I was messing around on the river in Aarhus and seeing what contrast I could get with the shadows and light. It seems that it is possible to capture reflected infrared light off foliage in direct sunlight but water and shade are the antithesis to that.

The skies that day weren't particularly special but the infrared filter brought out a unique clarity and depth to the blues and the clouds.

The original file from the image that I opened with just not turned into black and white. It is helpful to use the OFV or the EVF of the x100 to compose but neither will really give you the true feeling of what you will be able to come up with unless you are really experience. The first few times I tried infrared I was a little disappointed how orange my photos were no matter how much I fiddled with the white balance. I expected the image to come out at magazine quality with little effort.

I'm looking forward to the next sunny day with my pocket powerhouse: the Fuji X100.

Additional images:

Why I don't need to buy the Fuji xt1

It seems that there is the next best thing in technology announced every 6 months, usurp the previous generation and raging war with our pockets and landfills with planned obsolescence. This seems particularly prevalent for digital cameras. The Canon xxxd line gets updated every year without fail, even when there doesn't seem to be the technology to support an upgrade.

But with micro 4/3 I feel that the technologies being developed are racing ahead faster than ever: electronic viewfinders can always be bigger, sensors can always be tweaked and body shapes and ergonomics will always change.

When I bought my Olympus em-5, it had been out for 8 months already, long enough for there to be enough reviews out there on the web and my best mate Grant had already bought one so it was a well informed decision. I love that camera. It brings a smile to my face when I pick it up and I forget how small it is until I see it sitting somewhere next my phone or a book. My girlfriend doesn't want me to ever sell it, she wants to keep it as a family heirloom, we have had so many memorable experiences with it and it has captured these without a hitch. But the problem with having an internet connection is that when the next shiny new tool comes along, it's hard not to want it...

First is was the Fuji xe1.  Gorgeous image quality with external controls and an evf. But it wasn't weather sealed and I had only just bought my em5. I keep finding stellar deals on used xe1s online though so maybe in 6 months when the hit $300 I might have to try one... So I didn't buy an xe1.

Then it was the Olympus ep5. Sexy and uber cool but it required an external evf and it wasn't weather sealed but it had a 1/8000th shutter and a switch for 2 user settings which I really want. I would set both for manual mode and one for sunny and one for shady settings: no more fumbling with aperture and shutter speed trying to get a shot because I'm bow standing in the shade of a building. I didn't get one because it had too few upgrades and I would lose some of my coveted traits from my em5, namely weather sealing and the built in evf. So I didn't buy an ep5

A few months later came the Panasonic gx7. This seemed to be the camera that had everything from my em5 along with all the things that I wanted plus some improvements. I went into camera stores every week to hold one, to get a feel for it but I held off. Because in have an em5. The gx7 had a better evf, higher shutter speed, silent mode, better video, better ergonomics, WiFi and improved image quality. But it's not weather sealed and it only represents a slight upgrade. Not that I own any weather sealed lenses but I like to hold my em5 lens down in the rain so the camera acts as an umbrella for my lenses. It works, trust me. So I didn't buy a gx7.

The em5 was such a success it was bound to have a follow which was the em1 late last year. Everyone online seems to love this camera. Everyone. It has every upgrade possible that they have lying around at Olympus hq. Better evf, higher shutter, better weather sealing, better autofocus, better ergonomics, better buttons, user custom settings, improved image quality... A lot of improvements over the em5. But it has this big built in grip which I couldn't live with. I love using the add on grip on my em5 but it is so liberating to just use a little pancake with a bare em5 and no strap. It's tiny and discreet. So I didn't buy an em1.

Now we have the Sony a7. Full frame and full frame. It seems that it's only redeeming feature is the size of its sensor as everything else on the camera seems mediocre: poor auto focus, average button layout and it's hard to tell if the image quality is any better than my em5 as every photo I can find online is 90% bokeh... Oh and there are only 3 1/2 lenses available for it. So I didn't buy an a7.

But the camera that has gotten me really excited is the Fuji xt1. Fuji has taken all of their strengths as a camera manufacturer and built a stunner of a camera. I own an x100 and I love the external controls and file quality but they have one upped themselves buy adding an external iso knob! Now everything that needs to be changed can be done without turning the camera on. I dislike having to look at the evf on my em5 to figure out of I'm at the right shutter speed or iso. It takes a while to scroll from 1/2000th to 1/200th too. It is way easier to change settings with my x100 and the xt1 is even better with the iso knob. Below I have started a pro's and con's table for the xt1 against the em5:

Pros:
- way bigger evf. Usability is a huge part in photography and this evf looks amazing
- external iso, shutter and aperture, plus 2 more customisable dials.
- Fuji lenses, while expensive are sweet as.
- weather sealed to a higher standard.
- larger sensor with that awesome Fuji image quality.

Cons:
- no Olympus 75mm lens. This is my favourite lens and it is the main reason why I won't be leaving m4/3 any time soon.
- no cheap 45mm lens. Gotta have those cheap but good primes and Fuji lenses ain't cheap.
- no image stabilisation. Its something i have come to rely upon for video and low light shots.
- average video. Not that the em5 is amazing but it is still better.
- I already own an Olympus em5

So while the xt1 may be the best thing for camera since sliced bread, my Olympus em5 still can do more than I can get  out of it. That is to say that my photos would only benefit from upgrade in a small way. It's not like going from a 2001 dslr to the latest generation. The main thing that is making me hanker for the xt1 is the usability: the eternal controls and the huge evf. But I love my em5 and my Olympus and Panasonic lenses and it is still producing images that far exceed the quality of what I can pull out of it. Improving my editing technique and investing in some more cokin filters and getting out into unique places more is going to improve my photography much more than buying a new camera.


ndunning.com

Olympus OM-D EM-5 + Olympus 17mm f1.8 vs Fuji x100

Olympus OM-D EM-5 + Olympus 17mm f1.8 vs Fuji x100

There are many capable camera systems out there but for the best all round camera that wins in image quality, handling, speed and size, Grant and I chose the Olympus OM-D EM-5.

But the camera is only just the start and lenses are what help make the final image (unless you are a fan of images taken without lenses) which is another area that Micro 4/3 excels at.

On a regular trip, the car will be filled with: Panasonic 25mm f1.4, Panasonic 14mm f2.5, Olympus 45mm f1.8, Olympus 75mm f1.8, Panasonic 45-250mm and a slew of manual focus OM Zuiko lenses.

But there is one focal length missing in what is an otherwise stellar lineup: the 'normal' 35mm equivalent lens. There are times when the 14mm is too wide and there are other times where the 25mm is too tele. From the small amount of trial and experimentation with a 12-50mm kit lens we both found the 17mm (35mm for you oversized camera people) focal length to be the best field of view of easy and natural composition. This is a view that has been around for years so nothing new here.

The eternal dilemma with the 21st world is the internet and the shear amount of options available in anything you could possibly think of researching and the same can be said for Micro 4/3 lenses.

Between the assortment of companies that make these lenses there are the following offered:

Samyang 16mm f2.0

Olympus 17mm f2.8

Olympus 17mm f1.8

Jackar 17mm f1.8

Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95

Zeiss  ZM 18mm f4

Sigma 19mm f2.8

Panasonic 20mm f1.7

Grant started out with a Pansonic GF1 and the 20mm f1.7 so we knew how great that lens is but since we both own Panasonic 25mm f1.4 lenses then this lens doesn't really makes sense. The 3 other auto focus lenses are the Olympus lenses and the Sigma. The Sigma lenses get very good reviews and are super cheap but testing 19mm with the zoom lens we felt that it wasn't going to be a wide enough field of view for a one lens to rule them all situation. The Samyang is huge and was designed for Nikon and Canon DSLR so probably wouldn't fit the bill of something we would take every where and the Zeiss 18mm was f4 and rather expensive. The Voigtlander is something I would love to own but maybe another year when I can justify it.

So this left us with the Olympus 17mm f1.8 and 2.8. The 2.8 version has been around for a few years and is lauded as being basically crap and not even as good as a kit zoom, while the 1.8 version was just released and received mixed reviews so not the easiest decision to make when there aren't any copies of either in the local stores (thanks Nikon and Canon for not letting anyone know how great m43 is).

But then I started thinking about how we were both off overseas soon to do some travel and a second camera would be helpful. This was the same time that the Panasonic GX1 dropped to $199USD and we almost bought it but couldn't help thinking that whats the point of buying a camera that is so similar to our current cameras yet not quite as good?

Enter the Fuji x100.

For the same price to buy a new Olympus 17mm f1.8, you can buy a used Fuji x100.

Both offer a 35mm equivalent field of view.

Both are metal (one of the reasons why I own an OM-D and not a plastic Canon)

Both are fast (f1.8 and f2)

Both are sexy

But the major unknown was which one would produce better images and be more fun to use during the process?

Grant bought the Olympus 17mm f1.8 and I found a Fuji x100 on Ebay. Below are a series of comparisons and a conclusion that probable won't help many people out.

So on a sunny day we took both cameras to the Auckland Domain for lunch and tested them out. In all the images the Olympus is on the LEFT and the Fuji is on the RIGHT

 1/800th f5.6 iso 200 (focussed on the building)

What is immediately apparent that neither of us were prepared for is the difference in sensor format, the Olympus being 4:3 and the Fuji 3:2. Both lenses offer a 35mm equivalent field of view horizontally but vertically, the Olympus has more information. Just a side note but it makes the Olympus 17mm look wider than it actually is. 

I processed both images through ACR the same but missed out any sharpening so you can see if there is any difference in sharpness. There isn't. Shot both at f5.6, both lenses are sharp and contrasty with the Fuji having a tiny bit more dynamic range.

1/800th f5.6 iso 200 (focussed on the plaque)

This time we focussed on something close with something in the background. Both images are very good in my eyes and even when you view the plaques at 100% it is hard to tell the difference. The only thing that I could find was that the white lettering on the plaque in the Olympus image has a bit of Chromatic Aberration which I would normally just remove. The Fuji is also a little sharper with a bit more detail.

 1/1000th f1.8 iso 200             1/500th f2.0 iso 200

Playing with macro brings up a point of difference. The Fuji focusses MUCH closer than the Olympus can but at this close image and wide open the images have a hazy personality. This goes away when stopped down but this was a 'what does it look like if you stick you camera in a flower wide open' test. When the Fuji is pulled back to a distance that the Olympus can close focus at (30cm), the images look pretty similar with the Olympus being sharper and having more depth of field.

1/500th f2.0 iso 200

These two images were taken at about 50-60cm away from the flowers. What is noticeable is that the Olympus is still much sharper wide open at the close distances but the Fuji has different colours and a more ethereal image.

1/125th f2.8 iso 200 (focussed on the bench)

Stopping down both lenses a little bit brings the test on to fairer ground. We noticed that the Fuji colours were a bit nicer but that was before I processed them the same so if you shoot RAW then colours is only a minor concern (unless they are really shit).

This is another example of why I like 4:3 sensors over 3:2 sensors; there is more information to play with and the 4:3 aspect looks more succinct to my eyes. It also makes the Olympus lens look wider when maths tells us otherwise.

Another point to look for is that the Fuji background leaves are a bit nicer with more detail and better shadows/highlights while the Olympus image is sharper but it's shadows quickly turn darker. But then again I could have just bumped up the shadows more in ACR so the point is moot.

1/1250th f8 iso 200                 1/2000th f4 iso 200

One thing that I noticed the day I bought my Olympus OM-D is that the blues that come out of it are stunning. I love how saturated and punchy skies look and here is a good example. And you can also see how the Fuji brings better yellows and greens to the table. As always it is a tough game to call.

It would have been more fair if both of these images were taken at the same shutter speeds and aperture but it is what it is.

Conclusion

What started as a need for a walk around lens that would deliver the best image possible should end the same way. Here we have 2 very capable cameras that can deliver superb images. But wait a second, that Olympus OM-D, before it had a 17mm lens on it and now it has a 45mm? This is madness! No, that is just the benefit of interchangeable lens cameras which is why Fuji made the x-pro1 after the x100.

The size difference is pretty negligible with the Olympus OM-D being physically smaller but the Fuji X100 feels more compact with its small, built-in lens.

As a travel camera system the Olympus makes sense. It is an amazing camera to use that you can customize to your hearts content, it is tiny (like really tiny, so small that if it is sitting on the desk away from me I struggle to see how it gives me better images than any of my old Canon gear) and is a pleasure to use.

On the other hand, the Fuji has proper mechanical dials and the optical viewfinder is more fun than you would imagine. It also takes stellar images.

But, and this is a big subject but that depends on the person using it, when I want to switch from 17mm to 25mm or 14mm or 45mm or 75mm, I just swap the camera in my hand from Fuji to Olympus. With the 17mm lens and only one body you are required to change lenses more often and that is probably one of the major plusses with having the Fuji AND the Olympus. The drawback to having both is that I have to take both cameras out if I want to shoot the 17mm focal length along with something else.

For our money though, we still haven't fallen in love with the Olympus 17mm f1.8 like we have with the Fuji. There are still many times that we have gone out with the 17mm and it has brought back sub-par images that are flat, lifeless and lack punch and expression. Sure it autofocuses faster than any other lens we have but the Fuji x100 isn't as slow as everyone says.

For the record, I'm stoked that I own both, but Grant wants an x100 now and I would still like to own an Olympus 17mm...