X-E1 Vs. X-E2… Since You Asked - Mark Schueler

X-E1 vs. X-E2… since you asked

Yeah, this is a gear post. Some folks have asked me recently about the Fujifilm X-E1 vs. the X-E2, and so here’s my way of responding. I was going to just move past talking about the gear for awhile since it is only contributing to an unhealthy fixation on the parts of photography that don’t matter all that much, but inquiring minds want to know, and who am I if not a soulless shill desperate for an audience?

All of the photos in this blog were, of course, taken with one camera or the other. I’m not going to tell you which is which, because I honestly have no idea. They have essentially the same sensor, and take essentially the same quality of photos (hey, this might be foreshadowing). If you are looking for side-by-side 100% crops from each camera, then go ahead and click outta here. Likewise if you’re looking for the Youtube video where I focus both on things near and far and you listen for how fast the beeps come.

The questions are coming, of course, because the X-E2 is newer, supposedly better, and currently $350 more expensive than its predecessor, the X-E1. Additionally, December 2013 brought some early Christmas gifts from Fuji in the form of significant firmware updates for the X-E1, bringing it closer in ability to the X-E2.

I’m going to start by saying that the X-E2 is better than the X-E1 in just about every important respect. And when I say better, I don’t mean that it’s exponentially better, or incredibly better, or some other hyperbole. It is a refinement on the X-E1: the autofocus is quicker and more sure, the knobs and switches a little firmer so they don’t get knocked out of place. The EVF refresh is quicker in low light, the LCD is bigger and sharper, the continuous autofocus is more familiar to those of us who cut our teeth on DSLRs (I’ll come back to this in a minute). It’s just better all around, for the most part. The X-E1 keeps crawling a little closer to the X-E2, but the newer camera has fundamentally improved hardware that keeps it ahead of the X-E1.

The question, of course, is whether or not it is enough better than the X-E1 to make it worth the extra expense, and that, of course, is where things get mighty murky. As I suggested at the the start, I use both cameras regularly, and interchangeably. I find that I tend to shoot the X-E1 for more deliberate landscapey stuff, mostly because my version of Lightroom can read the .RAF files from it, and because it has the View Mode button which makes it easy to toggle between the EVF and the rear LCD. The X-E2 comes out for people photos and other handheld work, where things are a little more on-the-fly and a more responsive body is handy.

Do I ever reverse those roles? You betcha. Usually because one has the lens on it that I want to use and I don’t feel like switching over, not because one is better suited to something than the other. So why did I spring for the X-E2 if the X-E1 is essentially the same? Because I could, and because it IS better, and because, well, because I wanted to see for myself.

One thing that would appear to be better on the X-E2 is the continuous autofocus. Instead of the useless and counterintuitive implementation on the X-E1, where you were limited to the center point and the camera focused constantly until you pressed the shutter (let’s see how fast we can drain that tiny battery), the X-E2 features a more familiar version, where you can choose any AF point you want, and the continuous tracking starts when you half-press the shutter.

And indeed the X-E2 is better than the X-E1 in this regard, in the same way that a headache is better than a migraine–i.e., it’s still pretty painful (many thanks to the wife for coming up with that analogy!). Just because the X-E2’s version is more familiar doesn’t mean that it works. Best case scenario, it is nervous on a stationary subject, moving in and out of focus, seemingly not able to make up its mind. At worst, it’s just as completely useless as it is on the X-E1. I have a five year old, so I know what I’m talking about.

It used to be that the X-E2 was easier to focus manually, but the newest firmware for the X-E1 leveled that playing field. Ditto for the auto-ISO, which is finally completely usable on either camera.

So, really, which is better? As I mentioned, the X-E2’s autofocus is markedly faster and surer. For me, having +/- 3 stops of exposure compensation (vs. +/-2 on the X-E1) is a big deal, and makes my life easier. Having stiffer dials is nice, and means you are less likely to change settings while carrying the camera or putting it in and taking it out of your bag. The loss of the View Mode button on the X-E2 is extraordinarily irritating. The Wi-Fi is fun to play with for posting photos on the fly, but not something I consider a ‘must-have.’

Basically, as always, it comes down to your particular needs and how you use your camera. If you shoot landscapes from a tripod and mostly use manual focus, then I’d say it’s essentially a draw. If you need maximum flexibility for a variety of different subjects, then the X-E2 might edge out the X-E1, especially if you need faster autofocus in low light. If you’re getting paid to shoot, you’ll probably opt for the X-E2 since those incremental improvements can make a big difference.

For me personally, I’m glad to have both. Because I shoot weddings and portraits and depend on my gear to get the job done, I feel like I need the X-E2. However, it’s not so compellingly better that I felt the need to sell my X-E1 and replace it with a second X-E2 (if you’re getting paid, you DO have a backup body, right??). Generally I find them to be complementary bodies, and aside from a few cases of moved cheese (I’m looking at you, Q button), there’s not a lot of cognitive dissonance going back and forth between the two.

Does that answer your question? I certainly don’t know. I hope, though, that gives you some helpful information to chew on, and will keep you from asking me about it for awhile, so we can go back to talking about the stuff that’s really important to good photography.