Making decisions can be tough. It is a first world problem I know. I am lucky enough to be able make choices, which is the definition of freedom, but I still find them tough.

Warning; this is a self indulgent work-through post, but it may be helpful to others, so here goes.

I have come into a little money (an inheritance), which though a (mixed) blessing, has come at the best/worst time with literally one day of the Black Friday-Cyber Monday sales left.

Looking at where I am now.

Balance;

I just purchased an EM1 Mk2 on pre BF sale, which has given me balance in my Olympus kit.

Balance is good, balance is important.

2 EM1 mk2’s for action, 2 EM10 mk2’s for static (shutter savers I call them , for when an EM1 is over kill), a Pen F for portraits (‘cos it’s magic at that), 2 ok reliable EM5’s (see EM10’s) and 2 twitchy EM5’s for testing etc and a near new Pen Mini 2, just for me. Probably 1,000,000 frames there with maintenance and enough to see through this vein of good fortune with photography.

My lens stocks are nicely balanced with my cameras. 2 Pro f2.8 zooms covering 24-300 equivalent (work horses), 4 F1.8 primes (very low light/shallow depth from 35 to 150e.) and 3 trustworthy light weight kit level zoom lenses including a long option.

Now first up, I have to say, the school I work for has NEVER complained about the technical quality of my images, but I have personally been “too close” to them and have struggled with the results from some higher ISO work, which tends to be common when I want to shoot silently (= no flash).

If I do not pixel peep, or even if I just give myself a little cooling off time, things are fine. The schools needs are mostly for online, small print or the occasional big print/sign, which is the result of either controlled effort or selecting an already outstanding image.

So the question is;

Will I feel stranded in a few years, lamenting my choice as other’s grow and grow, or is this enough to go on with?

Now if you do the math, I would have to increase high ISO quality by at least 2 stops, preferably 3 before it makes a any real difference, because the ability to use a faster lens aperture without losing practical depth of field (f1.8 on M43 = f2.8 on a full frame) is one big advantage of M43.

The second contributing element is the immediate future of Olympus.

Do I put more money into a possibly “dead” system*, or do I start a migration into another system, assuming I will be working in this industry long enough for it to matter?

*

So, the options.

Option 1 stick with Olympus.

Get an EM1x at BF prices ($2500au-so cheap). This would effectively double my working kit’s life (400K shutter fires), increase my overall capabilities slightly, adding hand held high res, slightly better again AF and better high ISO sharpness** and more of everything useful like batteries and chargers etc. It would also allow the addition of the Oly 100-400 or maybe a premium prime and still retain that precious kit balance. Probably the most important thing, often forgotten, is the very real advantage of practiced familiarity.

If stretched, this combo should be able to give me fully useable, high quality ISO 3200 files at f1.8 (thanks to better af speed and accuracy), which is as enough to deal with the worst light I will encounter. Maybe these files will even be acceptable to me on a pickier level.

The issue of kit longevity would largely go away for me, even considering the unknown future for Olympus. Lots of shutter life, especially in the critical fast af camera class, enough quality and control to do anything I realistically need and full cross compatibility.

Another area I have not explored is processing. My blind adherence to all things Adobe is likely reducing my maximum potential quality, so maybe a specialist noise processing programme like Topaz would sort this anyway. Maybe even more familiarity with Photoshop, not just Lightroom would help.

All of the images above were shot at f1.8 on the 75mm at ISO 3200. The top pairs are jpegs (LSF with low noise reduction), the bottom ones are lightly processed RAWs. The second images would be as big as needed relative to enlargement format (high for smaller prints, low for posters and signs etc).

Acceptable?

Option 2 move partially to Fuji.

Fuji does give about two levels of high ISO cleanliness, especially in jpegs files. I have always responded well to Fuji “glassiness”, which is to my eye the geometric opposite of an Oly file. One gives a sometimes gritty, but detailed sharpness, the other a glassy smoothness. Another thing I have noticed is their ability to make ordinary light look good which when you come down to it, is the the problem.

Fuji is cheap enough to get a full “mirror” kit together in many forms within my budget***, adding depth, creative options and (hopefully) growth through future camera upgrades. The XT4 (cheaper than EM1x on special) is newer, has more pixels, a 1-3 stop ISO advantage, realistic jpeg workflow, great colour, a 300k shutter and is an excuse to do the same differently.

The down sides are not to be ignored.

Two sets of menus and handling interface, two sets of choices at bag level (even mirrorless gets heavy eventually), no cross-compatibility, forcing/adding duplication, some size issues and lastly, ironically too much choice. I have also had some difficulty adjusting to Fuji view finders and handling is a mixed bag.

*

So….I went to town to my friendly local brick and mortar and played with all of the options (buying blind online to save few bucks is crazy, you need to see and feel to truly know). I was leaning towards Olympus, but the 100-400 failed to impress me (even on my own camera). Maybe a bad copy, which does not seem to be a thread with these, but the long range images seemed to be a little soft especially down the left side. Closer, things were great. The lens also did not sit nicely on the camera, showing a little play (a first with an Olympus lens for me).

So I gave the Fuji a go. The 100-400 was nice but really big, so I gave the 50-140 a go.

It felt great on the camera. Looking at the jpegs I have at home, the difference in quality is not mind blowing. The Oly RAW images from the EM1 mk2 are a little flat as I have become used to, something that the helpful drab shop light, similar to my tough light at work helped provide. The jpegs from the Fuji were fine, but the Oly ones were not bad either and that is from the EM1 m2 not EM1x. In truth I had no real control over the Fuji, using it set as it was, I found the files did not have that “glassy” brilliance I remember from my previous Fuji experience.

In shop jpeg’s from Olympus with the 100-400 at 265 f6.1 ISO 2500 vs Fuji (XT3) at 140 f2.8 ISO 3200. WTF! I like to Oly more! The Fuji is smoother, but the Oly seems to have more punch and visual sharpness and that was with a lens I liked less. An EM1x would be even better?

The plan as of writing is to grab the EM1x at the sale price then sit and watch. Pana lenses work well with Olympus cameras (but not as well the other way around), so there is no need to rush a lens purchase. Ideally I would like the Oly 100-400, but a better one than I played with.

The 200 F2.8 Pana is also tempting (x1.4 extender included) as it is considered to be the best telephoto available for M43, even with the converter very close to the 300 f4 in performance. This would give me F2.8 from 24 to 400 equiv and F4 at 560 equiv and even 800mm f5.6 with the 2x.

*

*This is a poor term to use I guess, because there will be millions of Oly cameras and lenses around for years to come, but there may not be much advancement unless Panasonic does it, which is still problematic because of the patchy AF compatibility Oly lenses have with Pana cameras.

**Looking at (too many) reviews and comparisons, the EM1x with dual processors does seem to retain better sharpness at higher ISO settings and also has better dynamic range. The mushy EM1 mk2 high ISO RAW files, partially fixed in jpegs by firmware, are a known issue for me, but the EM1x seems to share the original OMD’s ability to retain sharpness/detail at high ISO’s allowing for noise reduction to taste. Part of me wishes they had retained the 16mp sensor for this one and increased noise reduction capability.

***XT4 and 16-55/50-140 f2.8, or XT4 18-55/100-400/90, or XT4 18-55/14/100-400 etc.