Jump to content
Snowman

Leica Q or Fujifilm X Pro 2?

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

Hopefully all set to get my Q next month, here in the UK.

 

However a spanner in the works has been thrown in by the newly launched Fujifilm X Pro 2, that see, to be getting very good

previews at the moment.

 

I understand it does not have a full-frame sensor like the Q, but the X Pro 2 does seem to have advantages to me at least such

as waterproofing, lens options and a rangefinder.

 

I'm curious on what Leica Q or future Leica Q users have to say about this new camera.

 

Many thanks,

 

Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing apples and oranges, imho.

 

Do you have an interchangeable lens camera system at present? If not then you might want that before owning a Q unless you are a one camera, one lens person.

 

I'm more intrigued about possibly moving from Sony, with which I have not had much of an emotional connection, to Fuji which has a very fine set of lenses.

 

Just my two cents.

 

LouisB

Edited by biglouis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

X-Pro 2 for me as the Q lens at 28mm is too wide for me. I agree with Big Louis thought that it is an apples or oranges question, to a degree, but it will be possible to use the Pro 2 in a similar manner (EVF with one lens and still have the option to add a lens or two for specific purposes when required. Of course the Q is full-frame and the Pro 2 APS-c, but both are very capable formats.

 

Mike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing apples and oranges, imho.

 

Do you have an interchangeable lens camera system at present? If not then you might want that before owning a Q unless you are a one camera, one lens person.

 

I'm more intrigued about possibly moving from Sony, with which I have not had much of an emotional connection, to Fuji which has a very fine set of lenses.

 

Just my two cents.

 

LouisB

 

Agree with Louis.

 

X-Pro2 plus 2 of the fast Fuji lenses will add up to the price of a Q. 

 

The 3 points for me with the Q are fixed and fast lens, FF and fast AF.

 

I don't want to change lenses.

 

Having said that if I did want an interchangeable APS-C I'd buy the X-Pro2 over the T any day of the week.

Edited by Rapierwitman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Comparing apples and oranges, imho.

 

Do you have an interchangeable lens camera system at present? If not then you might want that before owning a Q unless you are a one camera, one lens person.

 

I'm more intrigued about possibly moving from Sony, with which I have not had much of an emotional connection, to Fuji which has a very fine set of lenses.

 

Just my two cents.

 

LouisB

No, I have no system at the moment and I'm probably a one lens guy anyway. Thanks for the input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Louis.

 

X-Pro2 plus 2 of the fast Fuji lenses will add up to the price of a Q. 

 

The 3 points for me with the Q are fixed and fast lens, FF and fast AF.

 

I don't want to change lenses.

 

Having said that if I did want an interchangeable APS-C I'd buy the X-Pro2 over the T any day of the week.

Thanks for your input. Maybe the Q after all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This can't be answered without trying them. The way a camera or system looks on paper and the way it feels in use are almost unrelated. I lose interest in a hand-held camera if it feels at all sluggish. The Q sets a very high bar - the new Sony feels glacial in comparison. I love the output from the Fuji, but will have to handle it, and the T, for that matter, before making any decision. 

 

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new fuji will be excellent but it is really a different animal. For me there is nothing quite like the Q and of course it is limited to 28mm BUT it is FF and has a  f1.7 lens so you can get  a look that you just can't with the crop sensor of the fuji in that focal length. 

Edited by viramati

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the Q and it's fixed 28 lens ...

 

But also have a Fuji X-T1 with a couple of WR lenses, and an X100T. I love the Fuji, the way it handles, the way Fuji are doing things, their lenses, their firmware updates ... they're on the ball and will certainly be keeping Leica on their toes 

 

Horses for courses, I'll mix and match ... depends on what I'm doing, where I'm going, but I'm well aware that both cameras are far better at the job than me, it's a continual learning curve, and long may it be so. 

 

But it that X-Pro2 looks the biz 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the Q and it's fixed 28 lens ...

 

But also have a Fuji X-T1 with a couple of WR lenses, and an X100T. I love the Fuji, the way it handles, the way Fuji are doing things, their lenses, their firmware updates ... they're on the ball and will certainly be keeping Leica on their toes 

 

Horses for courses, I'll mix and match ... depends on what I'm doing, where I'm going, but I'm well aware that both cameras are far better at the job than me, it's a continual learning curve, and long may it be so. 

 

But it that X-Pro2 looks the biz 

 

It does. And if it was FF it would really fly 

 

I wonder why it's not?

Edited by Rapierwitman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is NOT a knock on the Q whatsoever, because I had an X-T1 and X100s before the Q....

 

If the X-Pro2 existed when I purchased my Q, I might have gone that route because it's the blend of size and interchangeable lenses that really appeal.  I am a huge fan of what Fuji have been doing in recent years too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does. And if it was FF it would really fly 

 

I wonder why it's not?

 

It was a design parameter from the onset.  "Full-frame" has a number of engineering issues that APC-C cameras just don't have to overcome. 

 

"Full frame" is a misnomer anyway.  The 35mm format has been known as a "miniature format" since it's inception at the turn of the last century.  Under specific conditions, the 24x36mm format does offer some advantages; primarily though, it just offers that the lenses designed for that format carry the same field of view.  I shoot both the M9P ("full format") and a Fuji X-T1 (APS-C) and use them interchangeably.  It's more about the features of the camera/lens setup than it is the format it records in.   

 

The X-Pro1 was the camera that drove me back to Leica digital.  I just couldn't do the non-rangefinder ovf.  The camera missed focus in OVF mode too frequently to be usable.   The EVF wasn't very useful, and there was no way to manually focus a lens with the OVF.  I suspect that the X-Pro2 will be similar in that regard.   It has all of the disadvantages of a rangefinder camera with none of the advantages.  The X-T1 as a completely different, later iteration body does overcome most of those issues and offers a better control set.  It will be interesting to see what the X-Pro2 and the X-T2 offer when they're released. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I might have got this wrong ... so please correct me.

 

24 mpx on a full frame ... yeah, I understand that.

 

24 mpx on the smaller Fuji sensor ... has to relate to more info on that sensor? No?

 

As far as I know the extra pixels on the Fuji are for focus and dynamic range? No?

 

Gee folks, I just point and press and enjoy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The X-Pro1 was the camera that drove me back to Leica digital.  I just couldn't do the non-rangefinder ovf.  The camera missed focus in OVF mode too frequently to be usable.   The EVF wasn't very useful, and there was no way to manually focus a lens with the OVF.  I suspect that the X-Pro2 will be similar in that regard.   It has all of the disadvantages of a rangefinder camera with none of the advantages.  

 

 

I agree about the X-Pro1.  It looked so cool at the outset, and wonderfully Leica-sized, but with use one quickly realized it had some serious flaws.  When using the OVF, there was no way to know exactly where it was focusing, just somewhere generally in the big AF box.  That's so unlike the Leica rangefinder, which tells you exactly where the point of focus is.  On top of that, the X-Pro1 was just sluggish all over the place, from startup to autofocus.  And while seemingly everyone praised it's 35/1.4 lens, I found it to be a noisy, jiggly thing whose design and build quality did not match its price.  Oh, and the batteries, please ... they're still using the same ones.  Paying full price for the X-Pro1 was a bitter experience, so I'm hesitant to leap into the X-Pro2, although the X-Pro2 looks better in every way and seems to address some of my complaints with the X-Pro1.

Edited by zlatkob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non esiste paragone, due formati, obbiettivo fisso, qualità di immagine, equilibrio nitidezza e rumors, intuitività di utilizzo, mirino ottimo anche per messa a fuoco manuale, fantastica per street, ritratti, interni at home, famiglia ed eventi.

 

Ho anche 240 / 35mm-1.4 ma adesso quando esco di casa sono sempre indeciso.

 

Leica Q grande macchina.

 

Ciao a tutti Guido

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand it does not have a full-frame sensor like the Q, but the X Pro 2 does seem to have advantages to me at least such

as waterproofing, lens options and a rangefinder.

The X-Pro2 is not a rangefinder camera although its hybrid viewfinder supports an ‘electronic rangefinder’ focusing aid. I had a chance to try it and it is a very nice camera, but as a system camera it is quite different from the Leica Q. The new X70 from Fuji is slightly closer in concept to the Q, but like the X-Pro2 it is an APS-C camera (and it is missing a viewfinder).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Went from an X100 - XT1 (3 lens) - Leica Q.

 

I have discovered that I am a 1 lens man and happy with it. No regrets at all. 

 

If you "like" the X100 range then you will "love" the Q.

 

My personal opinion is that FF does have a considerable edge over APS-C not with standing that the Fuji cameras are dam good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just couldn't agree more with Benutzer !  I went through the X-Pro, the X-T1 and the X100s...terrific cameras. But, have found a real home in the Q and being the one lens shooter. FF and quick AF...WOW...what a difference over the Fujis. 

 

Went from an X100 - XT1 (3 lens) - Leica Q.

 

I have discovered that I am a 1 lens man and happy with it. No regrets at all. 

 

If you "like" the X100 range then you will "love" the Q.

 

My personal opinion is that FF does have a considerable edge over APS-C not with standing that the Fuji cameras are dam good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got the Q and Fuji X-T10 at the moment and they make a great combination. I have ordered the X-Pro2 to replace the X-T10 just because I like the idea of matching 24MP rangefinder-style bodies. Current ETA is late Feb so will report back then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...