07-13-2013, 01:56 PM
Had a quick look... on optical quality, the Fuji is rated as 3.0 to 3.5, whereas the Pana is 3.5, so that is roughly consistent with the general results.
Agreed the price/performance is harder to explain at 4.5 vs 3.0 respectively. Best UK street price for both are near enough the same. I can only speculate, perhaps the Pan/Leica was much more expensive at the time the review was written? Or maybe something more subjective in perceived value plays here, as MFT has a much stronger presence in the low end, and Fuji is only slowly working their way from the top down.
Agreed the price/performance is harder to explain at 4.5 vs 3.0 respectively. Best UK street price for both are near enough the same. I can only speculate, perhaps the Pan/Leica was much more expensive at the time the review was written? Or maybe something more subjective in perceived value plays here, as MFT has a much stronger presence in the low end, and Fuji is only slowly working their way from the top down.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.