olympus ep-l10 vs fujifilm x-s10

Micra 4/3 vs crop: Olympus E-PL 10 vs Fujifilm

At the camera Olympus E-PL10 some online reviews. The camera is at the beginning of the Olympus line and is positioned as an upgrade after a smartphone, as well as a blogging camera. Although for blogging, a device without a microphone input is hardly suitable.

I am very grateful to the Ukrainian store profotosale.com.ua for the opportunity to test the camera on the system micra 4/3. Now such cameras are quite difficult to find in photo stores. There is no representative office of this brand in Ukraine for a long time, and this system itself has long lost its relevance.

In this article, I will compare a camera with a miniature sensor 17.3mm by 13.0mm versus an APS-C crop camera with a sensor 25.1mm by 16.7mm.

aps-c vs ​​micro vs ff

At first glance, the difference between crop and micro is small. But in fact, it is very tangible. In my tests inYou will see why size does matter.

Camera weight

The main thing that cameras on the micro 4/3 system have always boasted about is compactness and size. Let's compare with analogues with crop matrices.

If we take the initial models of approximately the same price category, then in terms of weight we will have the following:

model Olympus E-PL 10 Fujifilm X T20 Fujifilm X-A5 Fujifilm X-E3 Canon m200 Canon EOS M50
the weight 380gr 383gr 361gr 337gr 299gr 387gr

If we compare different models of crop mirrorless, we see that a camera with an even smaller sensor does not have advantages in reduced weight. Often crop cameras are even lighter. As for the dimensions, these are all very compact devices.

In my tests, I will compare with Fujifilm X-S10which weighs 465g. But this is a more advanced and expensive model (I have it in stock, there are no others). Although the quality of photography differs little from the Fujifilm X-T20 from the table above. Matrix comparison X-T20 vs X-T3 (same as X-S10) I had  this video.

For the sake of curiosity, let's compare the weight of the top models on crop and mic 4/3.

model Olympus OM-1 Olympus E-M1 Mark III Panasonic GH5 Panasonic GH6 Fujifilm X T3 Fujifilm X T4 Nikon z50 Canon M6 Mark II
the weight 599gr 580gr 725gr 823gr 539gr 607gr 450gr 408gr

Format cameras brick on mic the Panasonic GH5/GH6 models distinguished themselves, which are already similar in weight to top-end full-frame mirrorless cameras. Olympus, although lighter than Panasonic, in fact has no advantage over crops with large sensors.

Weight of standard optics

But carcass weight is not everything. Let's compare how much WHITE lenses for crop mirrorless and mirrorless lenses with a mic 4/3 sensor weigh.

model Olympus 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 Olympus 12-40mm F2. 8Pro Fujifilm XC 15-45mm F3. 5-5.6 Fujifilm XF 16-55mm F2. eight Fujifilm XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4
the weight 113gr 382gr 136gr 655gr 310gr

The simplest kit lens differs in weight by 26 grams, this can be neglected. But if you take the best aperture zooms, then the difference of 273 grams will be more noticeable. If we compare the Olympus 12-40mm F2. 8 Pro and Fujifilm XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4, the crop lens will be even slightly lighter.

About equivalence

And here we come to a very important point - what to compare with. The thing is, f2.8 on a mic is NOT equivalent to what you would see when shooting at f2.8 on a crop. Yes, the exposure setting will be the same. The f2.8 aperture lets in the same amount of light - regardless of the size of the matrix. But the depth of field and volume in the frame will differ significantly.

In many comparisons on the Internet, they like to compare even f2.8 on a mic and f2.8 on a full frame in terms of weight, price and dimensions. And the fact that these lenses give a fundamentally different picture, they prefer to remain silent about this. For clarity, I will show several photos taken at the same aperture, but with different focal lengths and different matrices.

If you want to get a field of view like 300mm full frame, then on a crop you will use a lens with a focal length of 200mm, and on a mic 4/3 it will be 150mm. At the same time, the same f5.6 aperture will give a very different image.

200mm vs 150mm f5.6 micro 4/3 vs aps c crop
200mm vs 150mm f5.6 -1
200mm vs 150mm f5.6 micro 4/3 vs aps c crop
200mm vs 300mm f5.6ff vs micro

If you look closely, you can see the difference not only in the degree of blur, but also in the perspective of the frame.

What is also noticeable is the difference in contrast. Photos on the Olympus E-PL10 are always more contrasting, and in difficult areas they have overexposure. More on that later.

Tele lens weight

Let's go into the territory of heavy optics. It is telephoto lenses that traditionally differ in maximum dimensions and weight.

model Olympus 40-150mm F4-5.6 Olympus 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 Fujinon XC 50-230mm f/4.5-6.7 Fujinon XF 70-300mm F4-5.6 Canon EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 Canon EF-S 55-250mm f / 4-5.6
the weight 190gr 1070gr 375gr 580gr 260gr 375gr

I had a Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4.5-5.6 STM reflex lens available for testing. But in the table for comparison, I have given other models with a similar field of view. The 40-150mm F4-5.6 lens on mic 4/3 outperforms the 50-230mm or 55-200mm crop counterparts in terms of compactness and weight. In fact, these are all very miniature and weightless lenses. But if we want to get a similar depth of field on a 4/3 mic, then we will need to take the Olympus 50-200mm f / 2.8-3.5, which will be noticeably heavier than the cropped Fujinon XF 70-300mm F4-5.6 with a smaller aperture.

When advertising micro 4/3, everyone likes to mention super telezooms, like the Olympus M.Zuiko 100-400mm f / 5.0-6.3 IS 1,120gr. For crop, the closest analogue of Fujinon 100-400mm f / 4.5-5.6 with weight 1,436gr. A 4/3 mic lens will give you more zoom and weigh 300g less. But I must say that both lenses are rather big and not easy. Focal lengths with a full frame equivalent in the region of 600-800mm are very specific in terms of usage.

By the way, if you really want super-compactness, then there is already a full frame Canon RF 600mm f/11 (930gr) and Canon RF 800mm f/11 IS STM (1260gr) paired with a lightweight full-frame mirrorless camera Canon RP the weight of the set will not exceed the analogue on the mic 4/3. We again come to a situation where the micro 4/3 does not have a weight advantage.

On average, 4/3 micro lenses are somewhat smaller and lighter than crop-like lenses. But this is not the difference you will feel. SLR optics for a full frame differ significantly in size.

Lenses for mirrorless crop and micro are comparable in terms of compactness and weight. The difference between these systems is much more noticeable in image quality.

Dynamic range

Cameras with mic 4/3 sensors have problems with dynamic range. Moreover, they are noticeably inferior not only to full-frame, but to crop cameras similar in size. Problems are noticeable in both RAW and JPG.

olympus vs fujifilmolympus vs fujifilmOlympus tends to always overexpose a frame a little. I noticed the same feature for the Panasonics on the mic. In bright sunlight, this avoids dips in shadows, but in a more complex scene, dips appear in both shadows and highlights. It is worth noting that Fujifilm has one of the best in-camera processing of JPG files and these cameras give very good dynamic range in JPG among other crops.

This is how RAW files from two cameras look without processing:

olympus vs fujifilmYou can see that Fujifilm has exposed the frame below to preserve information in the highlights. At the same time, the shadow areas look more failed than on Olympus.

Here are the results I got after processing the RAW files:

raw olympus vs fujifilm crop ddOf course, in RAW it is better than in JPG, but the mic is still noticeably behind the crop. If you zoom in, you can clearly see the difference:

raw olympus vs fujifilm crop ddIn the photo on the left, the stroller completely disappeared into the failed shadows, the crop camera was able to pull out this information. And this is despite the fact that the Fujifilm source was exposed about a step lower, that is, the shadows in the source were even more failed. This indicates a significant difference in the potential for post-processing RAW files from crop and micro 4/3.


The Olympus E-PL10 has a resolution of 16 megapixels, which is average for a 4/3 micro, and my Fujifilm X-S10 has 26 megapixels, which is also already standard for modern croppers.

Both cameras produce very sharp images. But the crop-sensor camera provides a perceptibly greater degree of detail when looking at details.

Another example of a photo in JPG side by side:

olympus vs fujifilm

If you zoom in:

jpg olympus vs fujifilm details

The difference in detail will be noticeable when you want to crop the image (often occurs when shooting birds or other distant objects), as well as when image printing. Moreover, here, in addition to the relatively small number of megapixels, there are obvious problems with the dynamic range.

Color rendition

Olympus has a nice color rendition. Colors are pure and saturated. But, if you are used to shooting on cameras with a large sensor, then photos on mic 4/3 will remind you of cartoons due to high saturation and contrast.

One of the problems with micros is the limited color gamut. These cameras do not reproduce the full color gamut that APS-C sensors are capable of, not to mention full frame.

Working ISOs

According to ISO, the difference, of course, is also in favor of the crop.

iso fuji vs olympus

I will attach the source files at the end of the article.

About the Olympus E-PL10 in general

This is a very nice camera with a nice body and stylish design. The body is made of high quality, Olympus E-PL10 is pleasant to take in hand, unlike Sony camerasmade very cheaply.

olympus ep-l10

The grip is uncomfortable, but with light lenses it is permissible. With Voigtlander 42.5mm f0.95 (weighing under 600 grams) the camera is not comfortable to use.

olympus ep-l10

Autofocus in good light works properly, no complaints. In low light and on video, it is inferior to autofocus on a Fujifilm camera.

Video shooting capabilities are very limited - the camera is clearly not for bloggers.

I almost forgot, the Olympus E-PL10 has the vaunted matrix stabilization. In the process of sighting, this is noticeable - the picture seems to float slightly on the screen. But in practice, when shooting, I got blurry at shutter speeds of 1 / 60-1 / 100, which is unsatisfactory for any stabilization system. The declared degree of stabilization is 3.5 exposure steps.


The time for such devices has passed. the niche of devices for undemanding amateur photographers was occupied smartphones. I micra 4/3 there is a quality advantage over phone cameras, but this system is too inferior to modern crop cameras, and even more so to full-frame cameras, to continue to remain on the market.

As the comparison showed, the micro has no tangible size advantage over crop cameras. Often they are identical in weight. But the obvious loss in image quality is obvious.

Test files on Google Drive:

As for the dynamic range, I want to clarify, Fujifilm has it maximum at ISO 640. Read more about this here.

PS And once again I want to remind you that Fujifilm cameras of the X-Trans III / IV generations do not fundamentally differ from each other in terms of the quality of photography. However, as well as various models on the mic 4/3. The idea that a more expensive camera from the same line is completely different and shoots better is a strong delusion. But there is a difference between the sizes of the matrices.

Superzoom for crop: Canon EF-S 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 NanoUSM vs STM

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 - a very convenient lens. Its advantage lies in its large focal length range. This lens provides a field of view equivalent to 29-216mm at full frame. This makes it possible to shoot from one point and get a multi-plane image.

Personally, I see the most sense in this lens for video shooting with tripod... You can comfortably shoot almost any event without moving from your place. This focal range to some extent turns your camera into a camcorder. Minus - low aperture ratio. If you have initial / old Canon crop camera, it is better not to shoot with such a lens indoors.

Concerning photos on Canon EF-S 18-135mm f3.5-5.6, it pleasantly surprises with a sharp image and very good autofocus. Minus - frankly weak color rendition. The original photos on the EF-S 18-135mm are faded and have low contrast. This can be compensated to some extent during processing. RAW filesbut in general for photographers I would recommend more Canon EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 USM.

On the other hand, 18-135mm will be a good help for newbies to understand the different focal lengths and to understand what is more to their liking for future optics purchases.

If speaking about superzoom in general, then Canon EF-S 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 I think the best option. Lenses with a wide range of focal lengths such as - Tamron 16-300mm or 18-400 mmare too compromise in all respects. They not only have frankly poor image quality, but also disgusting autofocus and zoom ring, which severely limits the scope of use.

This review is about SLR lenses. But there is still a mirrorless lens Canon EF-M 18-150mm f3.5-6.3 STM for series Canon M, which can also be recommended. It is even more compact, has a slightly larger zoom and a slightly lower aperture.

What is the difference between the NanoUSM and STM versions?

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 NanoUSM vs STM2 Canon EF-S 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 NanoUSM vs STM2

The main difference is the focusing motor. These lenses are optically identical. The NanoUSM version focuses very quickly in photo mode. The STM is not bad either, but it is still inferior to the newer lens in photography. For video filming, both are good.

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 NanoUSM vs STM2

The older Canon EF-S 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 USM still exists in nature. At the end of the name - without the word Nano and without STM. I do not recommend this lens, because it is inferior optically to both lenses from the review.

For more information about the differences between these lenses, see my video review:

Recommended these are the Hoya protective filters for your optics.

pergear 35 f1.2

Pergear 35mm f1.2 review for crop mirrorless cameras

Pergear 35mm f1.2 Is a fast non-autofocus (manual) lens for mirrorless cameras with crop sensors.

I'll get down to business right away, optically it is a very compromise. On bpergear 35 f1.2At close focusing distances, the detail is mediocre. When focusing at infinity, you can get good sharpness, but the result is unstable. Some shots are sharp, some are not. Moreover, it's not about manual focusing. The quality of the optical system is questionable. Nevertheless, despite all this, the lens may be of interest to enthusiasts of interesting bikes. The background blur is nice and soft.

Examples of bikes on Pergear 35mm f1.2:


A panorama stitched from 7 frames shot on Fujifilm X-S10 + Pergear 35mm f1.2:

pergear 35mm f1.2 panorama

The lens has an aperture of f1.2, and I personally noticed that it gives a stronger blur compared to ttartisan 35mm f1.4.

pergear vs ttartisan

The lens from ttartisan is of higher quality optically and gives a predictable result. You can close it down to f5.6 and get very good sharpness. The same cannot be said about the analog from Pergear. However, I liked the bokeh in difficult conditions better on the Pergear 35mm f1.2.

The verdict is this: a lens for creative photography, not for viewing pixels.

(I.e. Buy Pergear 35mm f1.2 on Aliexpress

For more details, see my video review: