Olympus EP-2 or FujiFilm X100: Which Photo is Which?

Readers of this blog may know that I recently purchased an Olympus EP-2 with 17mm F/2.8. Today, I got the Fujifilm X100 in for review. Since the two cameras have almost equivalent focal lengths, I decided to do a test between the two. Can you tell which camera took which photo?

photo 1

photo 2

Here’s what I did: set both cameras to Aperture priority, both to F/2.8, both to ISO 400, auto white balance, and focused on the center mango. I tried to approximate each image being as close as possible, but this was also a very quick test. Both were shot in RAW and then imported into the newest edition of Lightroom 3. Then they were exported as JPEGs. The images are full sized and you can compare and contrast each.

The EXIF data for each image has been left intact. No peeking! Can you tell which one is which? Let us know in the comments below.

Update: Photo one was taken with the Fuji X100 and Photo 2 was with the Olympus EP-2. Thanks to everyone for taking a guess!

Tagged as: camera, comparison, ep-2, fujifilm x100, image quality, olympus, review, test

Peter

The “photo 1″ was taken with the Fujifilm and the “photo 2″ with the Olympus. I say this because I think that the Zuiko 17mm is so much sharper than the Fujinon that is on the X100.
- Anonymous
  
  Wow! You know you’re honestly the first person that I’ve ever read say that that lens would be sharper than anything. Many people I know hate that lens, I admittedly just wish it were faster.
  - Peter
    
    Well, it’s not razor-sharp but I could bet that it’s sharper than the Fujinon that is on the X100. And also I say that the “photo 2″ was taken with the Olympus because the grainy noise, unlike the smoother of the “photo 1″. Personaly I prefer the grainy one
    - Anonymous
      
      Fair enough then, Peter. Thanks for your answer, insights, and a great conversation. I really appreciate it.
      
      Now back to writing Day 1 of this Field review!
    - Beverdams
      
      I bet if you took the jpg straight from the camera, the result would be reversed. X100 does not need a raw converter. The lens on the X100 is no doubt a quality piece of glass, most professional reviewers agree on that regard. You are very special, indeed.
http://www.facebook.com/EstebanGil Esteban Gil

I would have to agree with peter.
- Anonymous
  
  Same reasons?
Lainer

I think the top one is the Fuji due to the focal length and colors being a tad more colorful. I think there is a bit more noise in the photo below also upon magnification.
- Anonymous
  
  Keep in mind that they’re both nearly the same effective focal length.
  - Lainer
    
    Yeah, but the top one has a bit more color and less noise. Also, isn’t the Fuji less sharp than the Oly when wide open, (around the edges of the frame?) B
    - Anonymous
      
      Fuji was stopped down to F/2.8. Oly was wide open at F/2.8
Oli

First one is the Fujifilm, as its focal length is 23mm and the focal length of the olympus is 17mm (more wide-angled). I myself like the first picture better as it shows a better bokeh at 2.8 F.
- Anonymous
  
  You know that they’re both pretty much 35mm, right?
http://www.facebook.com/tompenpark Tom Penpark

Top one is X-100 with more shallow dof. Look at the knob of microwave.
- Rodrigo Vargas
  
  Had just the same idea. At the microwave you can see clear differences in dof.
Pingback: Field Review: Fujifilm X100 (Day 1) at The Phoblographer
Spacebarpark

Based on the amount of noise in the shadow regions, I’d say the top is the X100.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37601182 Mark A. Sperry

The first one is the X100, because there is less depth of field, and less noise than in the second shot.
http://ecosummit.hk Wai Tsui

I’d say the bottom one is EP-2 because of the yellowish color tone on the table (at AWB the Oly likes to produce color on the yellowish side)
Ab

Top is most likely the Fuji, for a lot of the same reasons:
More Grain in the Second
Shallower DoF in the First
Less of a Magenta Cast in the second could be due to better white balance which i feel Oly has always had.

I have always like my 17mm on my EP2, i would have expected the fuji to perform just a bit better though.

Ab
Spoorthy Vemula

I think that the bottom one is the x100
- Anonymous
  
  Do you have any good reason as to why you’re saying this?
  - Jason
    
    I say there is more distortion in the top photo so the slightly wider Olympus 17mm (vs the 23mm Fujinon) is the top.
    - Spoorthy Vemula
      
      I think he bottom one is the x100 because it is sharper and the top one i think has slightly cooler coolers. I felt that the epl-2 has too cool colors when I tryed it out.
      - http://twitter.com/rds Richard
        
        On the contrary, Olympus tends to have warm colours. Saying one is sharper than the other is probably the wrong way to judge.
Crzyhanko

I’d say the top one is the Fuji, both because of the color and because it looks like it could use a little IS.
Aaron

If the bottom one is the E-P2, I wonder if it’s sharper due to the vibration reduction of the E-P2, not the lens. It looks like pretty dim lighting.

I’d be curious to see a similar comparison in brighter light or faster shutter speeds.
OLY WINS

E-p2 FTW!
Mike Pouliot

OK, I have to jump in on this one. And, no…I don’t have insider information.

The top one is the X100 and that’s just going by DOF.
Rdeleskie

I looked at both images, not so much with an eye to guess which was which, but to assess them as I would my own photos on a technical basis. How’s the noise level, shadow detail, white balance, saturation, sharpness, etc.?

The two shots have some obvious differences: framing, contrast, white balance and bokeh/dof. The top image has smoother out of focus areas with less noise in the shadows at the expense of crispness in the centre of focus. Highlight retention seems a little better. There’s a bit of a magenta cast. From what I’ve read, this leads me to think it may be the X100.

The bottom image is nice and crisp throughout. Shadow detail is good, but there is more noise. DOF seems wider, but this would decrease by moving closer to the subject to obtain a similar frame to the top image. Latitude seems a little less. There’s a yellow/green cast.

However, I think a little tweaking in lightroom or aperture could create two images that were very, very close. I think latitude, one of the sacred cows of sensor comparison, is sometimes over-rated: many photographers routinely add a fair amount of contrast in PP and/or crush the blacks. So long as you have exposed for the highlights, you are usually okay. Noise is more troublesome, but a faster lens and above all proper exposure can mitigate some of the issues here at ISOs below 1600 with most modern large-sensor cameras. I personally feel that ISOs above 800 are still something of a “specialty” application, and don’t effect 90% of what I shoot. YMMV

All this said, the two images look different to me, and both need some PP, but neither looks “bad” or obviously superior. I’d be happy with either from a technical perspective. My initial gut reaction favoured the top image over the bottom because of the bokeh and less garish colour cast, and because the contrast seemed more “filmic” to me.

Sorry about how long winded this is, but I appreciate you posting the pictures and enjoyed the exercise.
- Anonymous
  
  I appreciate this, thanks man!
Peter Frailey

The top one is the X100 because of the blurred background. Larger sensors, all else being equal will have less depth of field.
Jeff M

Number 2 has that kind of mealy 4/3s grain I’m familiar with. I’m guessing that’s the Olympus. Number 1 has nicely smooth darkish areas.

Interestingly, Number 2 also seems to have better detail or contrast or something in the area of presumed best focus (the skin of that mango in the middle). Not sure what accounts for that.
http://twitter.com/Stevox_comments Steve T.

The bottom image looks much better overall than the top image (to my eyes, at least).

So… I’m inclined to believe that the top one is the EP2 and the bottom is the X-100, if only because the Fuji is supposed to be the better camera (and there fore more expensive).

It’s a little disappointing to see that the EP2 would look that much worse (not bad, just worse in comparison).
http://twitter.com/ZDP189 Dan

1 of 2 is the X100. Dan (ZDP189 on Twitter)
http://twitter.com/ikristof iKristof

Bad job removing EXIF data, its still there. DL full size IMG and import it to Lightroom and you know all!
- Anonymous
  
  Hi @twitter-19680122:disqus , please kindly read the last two paragraphs.
http://mike.geiger.ca/ Myke

They’re the same EFFECTIVE focal length… the angles will not be the same. It’s called “crop factor” not “magnification” for a reason. Big difference.
http://mike.geiger.ca/ Myke

They’re the same EFFECTIVE focal length… the angles will not be the same. It’s called “crop factor” not “magnification” for a reason. Big difference.
Pingback: Field Review: Fujifilm X100 (Day 2) at The Phoblographer
Pingback: Canon 5D Mk II vs Olympus EP-2: Studio Review | Canon 5D
Limedbk

I feel that the top one is the Oly with 17mm (softer with aperture wide open), and bottom pic is the X100 with 23mm stop down to 2.8. Usually most lens are soft wide open and sharper as u stop down to 2.8 or 4, except for the leica 50mm 0.95, which is sharp at all stops. Hope I am correct. It I am right, then the 23mm fujinon is quite sharp at 2.8. Just had my hands on the x100 today at the exhibition in singapore today. nice rangefinder type viewfinder, but something missing which makes it not a real rangefinder. parallax correction also only kick in when shutter button half compressed.
Pingback: Why I Chose The Olympus EP-2 Over the Fuji X100 at The Phoblographer
lowlight

the top image is the X100. the way I determined this was by looking at the full size versions of both images and looking for noise in the darker area of the top left corner, on and near the fruit that is in the shade.