It should also be noted that while Fuji cameras aren’t the quickest at focusing, they aren’t cameras designed to capture quick action either. They’re a more “reflective” type of camera. I know that many would disagree, but speed of focusing is quite secondary to me when using a Fuji. I’m not shooting racing cars with it, I’m shooting street scenes, portraits and landscapes. Accuracy on the other hand is a real issue.On that subject, I thought the X-Pro1′s AF was indeed problematic, more so than on the X100 (properly configured and once you’ve grown accustomed to the way it performs, I have to say that I haven’t missed a shot in a long long time).

Nice try, but you need to use the same focal length and aperture for a reasonable test. And, you should use a specific subject, instead of just random subjects, to test the accuracy – who cares about speed if it is not accurate.

Although I am neither a Fuji nor Olympus user, I have tested the AF for both systems in the last few weeks, and I would never buy the OM-D ~ the AF may be quick, but it is highly inaccurate and frustrating for delicate focus shots. For any subject that does not fill the entire focus area (square), the OM-D was terrible ~ it kept focusing on the background instead. For instance, I was trying to take shots of some lavender, and it had great difficulties focusing on the tip of the lavender, even in optimal light conditions.

If you are just shooting people or large subjects (subjects that fill the entire focusing square), I am sure the OM-D is fine. Though you could say the same for almost any camera. However, as I mentioned, for delicate focus shots, the OM-D’s AF system is terrible. I found the Fuji to be far more accurate and less frustrating, though it may be slower – speed means nothing if it is not accurate.And, considering the OM-D has a 2 times crop factor, it is very weak with respect to depth of field control. Without the low pass filter, the Fuji should have sharper images as well.

If you are going to perform an AF test, use a specific subject that will show the accuracy as well. This test merely showed speed and did not test the accuracy of the AF system ~ except for the shot of your hand, which was clearly out of focus.

By the way, I am not trying to be rude and I have nothing against you. I am just tired of biased reviews, especially when they are misleading and insufficient. The OM-D may be a great camera for some people, but it does have some serious AF weaknesses and limitations…

Any kid from kindergarten can do a better comparison test. Stop publishing this crap!

The least that they could have done is put an equivalent focal length prime lens (or closest to it) on the Olympus (50mm equivalent which makes it 25mm on the Oly?). In addition, they could have done an equivalent aperture on the Fuji given that it has paper thin DOF at f/1.4 (which this test was done at) and thus making the camera really work on critical focusing, i.e., slower focus. Some shots the Oly was making at f4.5 which is what equivalent aperture with the Fuji’s bigger sensor, f5.6?

However, I do notice that the shutter throw of the Olympus is shorter than the Fuji. If all things being equal, I would imagine the performance would be quite close, though the Oly would probably still be faster from what it looks like.

Since the comparison above is apples and oranges anyway, how about the Oly OM-5 against the Nikon 1′s that have instantaneous focus. )

The smaller the sensor, the lower the quality of blur! Therefore, in response to Jun’s question, the OM-D will not provide you with as much depth of field control as the Fuji, which has a larger sensor (OM-D is 2 times crop factor; whereas, the fuji is 1.5 times crop factor). While you can get bokeh from fast primes on the OM-D, the quality of the blur is not as appealing. In addition, for delicate focus, shallow depth of field shots, the OM-D’s AF system is not very accurate ~ unless the subject fills the entire focus square and there is enough contrast.

While the OM-D has some great features (in-camera image stabilization, weather sealing, etc) and the image quality has improved compared to older M4/3 cameras, I would never consider getting it due to the small sensor and poor accuracy of the AF system. That said, some people love it ~ it depends on your style of photography and whether you are willing to accept those limitations.

On the other hand, I would love to buy the Fuji X-E1. However, raw file conversion continues to be an issue. Due to the unique sensor, the raw file conversion software companies (including Adobe) have, so far, failed to convert the files without issues (loss of detail, colour smearing, and artifacts). So, if they do not resolve this issue soon, I will likely be compelled to stick with a DSLR, which is unfortunate.

Come on Fuji ~ resolve this issue now, so your X-series cameras can meet their full potential and you can increase sales of these cameras considerably. The JPEGs are very impressive, but JPEG is not sufficient for most users…