Another Camera post
 

I've been looking at getting a new camera and reading posts and reviews about them. Right now I am focused on the the Olympus OM-D E-M5 MIII and the Fuji X-T3. I need a camera to shoot photos on vacation, fishing adventures, my boys playing water polo and shooting video of them playing water polo. I know there are a lot devoted followers of each type, but if you could tell me why one over the other that would be great. Also what lens would you go with for what I want to accomplish and what is the second lens I should get? I will probably go with two right now. Thx.

I would put a vote in for the Fuji XT-3.

The Fuji ecosystem is great, the tactile feel of the camera with its physical dials is a treat to work with.

The film simulations are great, as you're able to produce a polished image straight from camera without the need to do any post processing, though should you choose to you can still shoot in .RAW format and get the most out of your images. JPG+RAW is great as you'll have images good to go straight out of camera and also the RAW file for future manipulation should you want it.

I have no experience with Olympus glass; however, I can say the Fuji lenses are very nice. Solid construction, good optics and the recent release of their WR (weather resistant) line of compact prime lenses makes for a small package that produces on a large scale.

As you're looking for general photos, you can't really go wrong with the Fuji Kit Lens: 18-55mm (27-82mm full frame equivalent). This lens has OIS (optical image stabilization) which will allow you to shoot handheld in lower light situations and performs much better overall than most kit lenses.

You could look at either the 23mm F2 WR (35mm equivalent) as a great, compact everyday lens if you like the prime experience and 35mm focal length.

Alternatively you could look at a zoom telephoto with the:
50-140 F2.8 (pro level lens, $$$)
55-200 (great all rounder)
18-135 (wouldn't get this with the 18-55 as there is a fair bit of overlap - although this + 23mm would be a nice combo)

edit: worth looking at the XT-30 as a cheaper alternative that does most of the same without too much sacrifice.

Can't comment on either of these in particular detail but the Olympus is a 4/3" camera and the Fuji is an APS-C.

I would be biased against the 4/3" here, and not for a reason you might expect.

Cameras are getting squeezed by smartphones. It gets harder and harder to justify carrying a camera kit around year by year.

If you're going to carry one, IMO go for the biggest sensor you can carry because you're maximizing the difference from the smartphone camera you're always carrying around.

I have an EOS 5D Mark III... it is getting long in the tooth (though no where close to worn out) but I'm not terribly excited about replacing it even though it's sufficiently large to be very optically different than a smartphone.

I'm actually way more excited about getting my hands on a phone like the iPhone 11 Pro models that have 3 lenses in them next time around. Having the ultrawide/standardish/telephoto-ish in the point & shoot I have all the time is really exciting.

So given that I'd lean towards the Fuji because it's going to get you more of the "big sensor" look.

I have hundreds of thousands of RAW images sitting on a file server. I'd also put value on the whole idea of a camera that you really like the in-camera JPGs. It saves a lot of time and grief and reduces a lot of friction. At some point we all decided we were really serious and started shooting raw.. but it increases that friction and effort to use the fancy camera instead of the smartphone. And if you're not regularly making giant prints it doesn't matter all that much. I love the Canon JPGs but for some reason am stuck on raw. I should be shooting both and trashing the .CR2 files except for select images that are candidates for big prints if I think about it.

I used to have an X-T2 and cannot recommend it or Fujifilm as a company at all. Tons of issues with it, was not reliable, and required multiple services, which I had to ship back on my own dime, the first of which was only a week after I owned it when I just suddenly died. Fujifilm customer service is non-existent and a poor excuse given the price of gear.

I switched over to a Sony a6400 and Panasonic GX9 and am very happy. Build quality and design of these cameras are a cut above Fujifilm imo, and image quality is on par with Fuji.

My Lumix with a 15mm Leica lens is my go-to for an all-in-one package. The micro four-thirds system is extremely high quality. If I were looking to get into cameras these days, I would skip crop sensors and go to full frame instead if wanting to move up.

I spent many years as a full-time pro and now my personal cameras, which I still on occasion use professionally, are Fujifilm (XT-3 and an XE-2s) Most manufacturers' cameras are pretty damn good these days but the main reason I use Fuji, in addition to great optics and image quality, is the interface. I love real knobs and switches to control the camera instead of looking through submenus to change basic functions.

Fuji glass is slightly nicer than Olympus glass IMO, and the ergonomics are about equivalent between those two cameras, but you're really paying a premium on both based on the ergonomics and styling.

For the price and for your usage (vacation, action shooting, video) a newer Sony A7 series will probably work better. With the improved autofocus and larger sensor it's easier to get a better looking shot than with the Fuji. The glass isn't as nice but is about equivalent in price but with the flexibility of full-frame. It's a bit heavier than the Fuji but it doesn't seem like carrying is on the list of priorities due to usage.

If you were more into travel, backpacking or street photography the Fuji would win hands down.

Another Camera post
 

At the price point, feature list, form factor, and image quality possible from a micro 4/3 camera, I would say for the majority of folk looking for general usage, it makes more sense than APS-C these days. There is still a noticeable difference in a M4/3 image versus iPhone imo, and not a huge difference to APS-C. Not so much a compact point and shoot though, so those cameras have nothing going for them other than the form factor.

If budget were not considered, if I had to have one dedicated camera and lens setup, I would go for a Leica Q2 and go enjoy life instead of talk cameras.

nailed it

Crazy 8 Ball says
 

Fujifilm X-T3. I'm fortunate enough to own the Oly and the Fuji (as well as the Nikon Z6). I like the Oly for travel. The MTF body and lenses are super small and light. The Nikon is my mac daddy for full frame landscape work and enlargements.

The Fuji is just...awesome. The dials for all major settings are right there in the top deck. No menu diving. The EVF is bright and sharp. The body is metal, WR and just light enough. The lenses are superb (though pricey compared to used Nikkors and new Olys). I love everything about this machine.

The Fuji film filters bring me back to the days of Velvia, Provia and Astia. For portraiture, the X-T3 is unmatched. The skin tones and sharpness are outstanding. The AF-eye tracking is better than Nikon (but not as good as my friend's Sony). With the excellent 35mm prime, it makes for a discrete street photography companion. With an UWA, it even makes decent landscapes.

The X-T3 is crop sensor and does not have IBIS. Neither have held me back or altered my photography. Uncompressed RAW images are recognized by most PP editors. The in-camera HDR algorithm is surprisingly good and easy to use...one trip of the shutter does it all. No need for tripods and multiple exposures.

I hope my opinions are helpful to you. Good luck.

Love my OM-D. Original version. I'd buy it again.

Micro 4/3 has never really had a huge size advantage over anything though. Especially if you are comparing against a mirrorless APS-C body. That's part of it. I've been skeptical about it since it first showed up. It never would have existed if not for economics. Most of the manufacturers who supported it early on did so for economics and then started adding APS-C and 35mm bodies as soon as they could affordably do so.

We're not really talking about Canon but Fuji service was mentioned. Canon Service and Canon Professional Services are absolutely amazing in my personal experience. I've had to use them 3-4 times over the last 20 years, never a warranty issue but I've been super happy every time. I only had one piece of gear brake without an "accident" and that was a big lens that started acting up after 15 years. Most of my bodies have been involved in "accidents" and never broken... it's the lenses you have to worry about.

Another Camera post
 

I would give it to Sony for making such a nice form factor in their APS-C range, and full frame too, really. And their cameras are a joy to hold. YMMV

Sorry, but Fuji cameras just don’t do it for me. They make the ugliest bodies and lenses next to Olympus and Pentax.

Plus for the X-T3. In total agreement with scopes along with the XT-30.

If there are any camera stores in your area, it may be in your best interest to go in and see what feels good in your hands. There may be some demo days where they will take you out on a shoot.

Only downside I can come up with my X-T3 is the battery. While it adds to the bulk of the body, think about getting the additional battery grip, or at the least you will need additional backup batteries, as the camera blows through em quick.

Fuji XE3 and XT20 owner here. Very happy, great lenses. But, what may settle this argument is that I've read that Olympus is in trouble, and may drop the camera line. That could be a dealbreaker.

Some great info above. Thank you for everyone’s input. I have a major camera store nearby so I plan to stop in and try them all out and see what I like. Thx.