Snowman Posted January 19, 2016 Author Share #21 Posted January 19, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I sold my Fuji X-E1 and four lenses (XF14, XF35, XF60 and XF18-55) when I bought the Q. I don't like to change lenses anymore. And my photography has changed since I use the Q. That's good to hear, thanks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 Hi Snowman, Take a look here Leica Q or Fujifilm X Pro 2?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Snowman Posted January 19, 2016 Author Share #22 Posted January 19, 2016 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. Good to hear. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted January 19, 2016 Share #23 Posted January 19, 2016 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 I don't have an emotional attachment to Sony either, but I feel the A7 series compliment the Q better than the X-Pro2. There are a number of things I could think of, but the biggest reason is Fuji's poor video performance. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlesL Posted January 20, 2016 Share #24 Posted January 20, 2016 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 have an X-Pro 1 and I tried a Leica Q at a Leica store last year. Years ago I used a Leica M8. I now have the X-Pro 2 on order. Because: The EVF 3x/10x magnification gives me precise focus more easily than the M8. The X-Pro 2 easily flips from OVF to EVF and back, or puts an EVF picture-in-picture over a section of the OVF. So manual focus with M-mount lenses works fine. The image quality I get from the X-Pro 1 is excellent. Tonal transitions are smooth with a proper lens. I find the Leica Q lens a bit too sharp (see many examples on the Flickr group), resembling a Sigma DP2 Merrill. Perhaps this remark should really say that the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus on the Q is nothing special; at least, I have not seen it. Maybe a 50mm Q would be different. The camera JPGs from the X-Pro are often wonderful, and they accept modest adjustments well. The Q JPGs? -- you decide. Not to mention the huge price difference. Some of that is the full-frame sensor, but a good chunk of it merely pays for the Leica dot. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
m9photo Posted January 20, 2016 Share #25 Posted January 20, 2016 Q is better! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreasB Posted January 20, 2016 Share #26 Posted January 20, 2016 Q is better! Yes, also my opinion, with only one little exception: The ooc-jpegs are very poor. With ooc-jpegs like X1/2/113 or X-Pro1 I would like to buy it again... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sultan of Swing Posted January 20, 2016 Share #27 Posted January 20, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't know if the Q ist better than the X-Pro 2. I think these two cameras are different and both are great. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
beez Posted January 20, 2016 Share #28 Posted January 20, 2016 I had (among other M stuff) an M8 with a 21/2.8 Elmarit ASPH, (making it a 28mm equiv.) and it was a great combo. but really needed more than 10MP for the pro photojournalism that I do. I also use Nikons for super-wide and telephoto, but the M8 was my "around the neck" camera, and 28mm is my "normal" lens focal length. I was seriously considering waiting for the X-Pro 2 and using it with the Leica 21 using Fuji's trick adapter ring. But, I went down to a local store and played around with the X100T to see/feel/use the hybrid VF, and really didn't think it would suit my needs - not enough "real rangefinder" feel for my taste, and all the rumors were saying theX-Pro 2 would probably have this same VF setup - which turns out to be true. For me, using it with an exclusively manual focus lens, meant I'd be focusing using the bottom right pop-up window in the VF. I suppose I might have gotten used to it, but the Q offered me a much more "Leica-like" shooting experience, with my preferred focal length,Full frame 24 MP, accurate edge to edge and speedy AF, no low-pass filter, 3D matrix metering, etc. Cameras are a tools for me, and things like vintage film stock simulations are not a big sales point. So, I got the Q and have not looked back. I've been using it ince mid November for my assignments - mostly presidential election political events - and I love the camera. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
m9photo Posted January 20, 2016 Share #29 Posted January 20, 2016 I don't know if the Q ist better than the X-Pro 2. I think these two cameras are different and both are great. They are different cameras indeed with one has the ability of interchange lenses. So far what I have with Q, their files are awesome both RAW and JPEG. Am not sure with XPRO 2 and I know there are Fuji hardcore fans too that will say XPRO 2 is better camera. I already have Canon 5Dmk3 as my camera with interchange lenses ability, so this Q is the compliment if i just want to travel light and not to worry of changing lenses. 28 is perfect for me! yes necessary improvements would come along on the next generation Q or even on firmware upgrade but in the mean time I would enjoy this little gem Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropo54 Posted January 20, 2016 Share #30 Posted January 20, 2016 Yes, also my opinion, with only one little exception: The ooc-jpegs are very poor. With ooc-jpegs like X1/2/113 or X-Pro1 I would like to buy it again... I"m finding the jpegs are much better since the software update. Anyone else agree? Rob 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
millsart Posted January 20, 2016 Share #31 Posted January 20, 2016 I had the Xpro, original version and while its a pretty decent camera and the hybrid OVF/EVF is cool, I found the OVF had a couple of issues. For one thing, you don't know whats actually in focus. I had the AF box over what I thought was the subject but then the background would be in focus, and you have no way of knowing until you review the shot. Now, the Xpro2 does have the little EVF "patch", but having had this feature on my X100t, it just got in the way and I found it rather annoying. If I'm going to have a little EVF covering part of the finder, I might as well just switch to the normal EVF mode. Second, is that the OVF didn't really frame the 14mm too well, and certainly not the Rokikon 12mm, the 10-24 etc, and same issues with the 55-200 and other longer lenses. This was known before buying it of course, but I found that for much of my shooting needed the EVF and really only when I put the 35/1.4 on did the OVF work well. Now the XPro had a pretty poor EVF, which has been updated in the Xpro 2, BUT, its a fairly low magnification and certainly not a class leading EVF, which I think is kind of surprising in a $1700 camera. A $400 Sony A6000 has a 24meg APS-C sensor, great EVF, and a good EVF. A $800 Sony A7 has a 24meg FF sensor and a great EVF etc...... I feel that for the price Fuji should of added some class leading features, such as doing away with the hybrid finder and instead putting the industry leading Epson 4meg EVF ala the SL. Then it could be said that yeah its "only" APS-C and $1700, but its got an EVF that far outclasses the A7rII etc. Likewise, add a flip out touch screen and some other unique features the A7 series etc don't have. To me anyways, the Xpro2 just doesn't really offer anything special to justify such a high price tag for an APS-C camera. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk.kat Posted January 21, 2016 Share #32 Posted January 21, 2016 I'm going to vote for getting both :-) Having moved from the X100s to the Q as an early adopter, I'm still very happy with the Q and remain ever hopeful for future firmware upgrades. The X-Pro2 is looking very attractive to me right now as an addition: weatherproofing, styling and the film simulations and Fuji handling which i enjoyed with the X100 and now miss. When I do get the XP2, I think I'd be using it primarily with prime lenses, alongside the Q. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted January 28, 2016 Share #33 Posted January 28, 2016 The x-pro2 is an aps-c interchangeable lens camera apples and oranges anyway I never liked the x-pro design, too big and too light, eg Fuji made it oversize for the U.S. Market as their research showed people liked bigger cameras Much prefer the size of th x-e2 or the x100 series .... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramosa Posted February 7, 2016 Share #34 Posted February 7, 2016 If you love the 28mm field of view (FoV), the Q would be an extraordinary camera. I actually purchased one, but quickly found out that I can't survive at 28mm (and then sold it). So, for me, everything was great--except for the FoV. In contrast, if the Q had a 50mm or 35mm fixed lens version, I'd have one already and be set for years to come. So you need to ask yourself basic questions about FoV. Can you survive with a fixed lens? And, if so, can it be a 28mm? (I should have known better in advance, but I fell into the category of "wanting to love the 28mm FoV.") I have never been smitten by the sensor of the M240 and variants, so I'm wandering about (in a sense). I have interest in the XPro2, but will wait to see how good the RAW (actually RAF) IQ is before considering it seriously. (The one RAF file I have played with is quite poor and muddy in regards to details, but that's just one image from a pre-production XPro2 when processed with LR.) By the way, there are reports that the XPro2's ETA will be delayed until March. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted February 7, 2016 Share #35 Posted February 7, 2016 In my opinion, the answer to your question rests entirely on what you want to do with your cameras. The Q is a fantastic street camera with a focal length lens that Mary Ellen Mark referred to as perfect. It is also quite good for landscapes and architectural applications. I was a M system shooter for many years, both film and digital. I owned the M8, MM, M240 and several lenses across the spectrum. I decided that I no longer needed or wanted a bag full of choices for the kind of shooting I do, so have sold all M equipment and now shoot primarily with the Q. No regrets whatsoever. No more lens changing and no more sensor cleaning. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhQtQgraphy Posted February 7, 2016 Share #36 Posted February 7, 2016 I asked myself the same thing and I sold my X-T1 and my X100T when I finally bought my Q. I loved my Fujis until I first got a Q in my Hands. The handling of the Q is way better (due to size and weight). The AF is so much faster. The X100T almost felt like a toy next to the Q. The Sonys are even worse (at least I feel that way). Imagequality is about even. I don't see any difference there, but I'm not comparing pixels. The Fujis JPEG Film Simulations are awesome and I miss them on my Q! Besides: There are more personalizeable Buttons on the Fujis, which makes changing the most important settings easier. The new X-Pro2 got my interest as well. But I'm not a fan of Fujis OVF. Didn't use it anymore on my Pro1 and my T. Only at the very beginning when I made the switch from my D3 to the mirrorless system. So that's one “advantage“ of the Pro2 that I don't care about. It would have been a faster fuji than the ones I had. That's what interested me. But I realized that I often don't have the right lens mounted (or even with me). Photography is much easier with one camera and only one lens. You don't lose any time. You know what you and your camera are capable of and where you have to place yourself. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlesL Posted February 7, 2016 Share #37 Posted February 7, 2016 I have interest in the XPro2, but will wait to see how good the RAW (actually RAF) IQ is before considering it seriously. (The one RAF file I have played with is quite poor and muddy in regards to details, but that's just one image from a pre-production XPro2 when processed with LR.) Below is an example of an X-Pro 2 raw file developed in Raw Therapee. The raw file is available in a Spanish-language review at http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/fuji-x-pro2-analisis-muestras-fotos_14036 1. Adobe DNG Converter, a free program, converted the RAF file to DNG. Current versions of Raw Therapee accept RAF files from all cameras except the new X-Pro 2. 2. Raw Therapee demosaiced and processed the DNG file. When it demosaics, it reports X-Trans, so the Converter program leaves the image data in X-Trans format. A few shadows are blocked in sRGB; this can be avoided if you work and display in Adobe RGB color space. 3. The example is shown downsized and saved at JPG quality of 95% in Fast Stone. Considering the aperture of f/4.5 and likely focus on the foreground, the twigs in the background look good. There is minor chromatic aberration on the asphalt to the left of the automobile and at the left of its hood, which the camera JPG does not have. Automobile in snow with forest in background 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Fagerås Posted February 9, 2016 Share #38 Posted February 9, 2016 First of all, Decide if you want a system camera with multiple lenses or a fixed 28mm. That is the most important difference here. Personally i was bitten by the Fuji bug with a X100T, i loved it, i travelled with that as my only camera. Life was easy with one camera and one lens that didn't weigh much and didn't take up much space. I always brought it along, and when you always bring the camera, the more good shots you get. Then i got the tele and wide-angle converters for the X100. they were cumbersome to attach and remove, so i sold them and got a X-T1 and a 56mm and 16mm so i could shoot with a second camera alongside the X100 instead of attaching the converters. What do this equal to? about the same size and weight as bringing my Canon 5D3 and a 24-70. The advantage of mirrorless was gone, and i was left with APS-C and lower resolution than shooting the Canon. I missed the philosophy of the X100, I missed the simplicity and the absence of lens dilemma. But i also wanted the IQ from my Canon FF. The detail and watercolour/ACR problems with Fuji X-Trans really screwed with my workflow and i had to jump through too many hoops for optimal results. Then the Q came out. I fell in love after visiting my local Leica dealer and i got to hold it in my hands for a few minutes, The build-quality was great and certainly something else than Fuji. Then i saw the IQ coming out of this camera and fell in love for a second time. Conclusion; I sold all my Fuji gear, and put in around 900$ more and bought the Q. i absolutely treasure it. I still keep my 5D3 with a wide-angle, standard and telezoom for studio work plus a couple of primes for specialty, but i haven't used it more than 2 times in the last 6 months or so. The Q is my every-day and travel camera. IQ is much better than the 5D3 (and MILES ahead of fuji, even the x-pro 2 judging by the samples), but i would not be without a system camera for those times i need it, it would just not be Fuji for me because of the X-Trans sensor. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlesL Posted February 10, 2016 Share #39 Posted February 10, 2016 ...The Q is my every-day and travel camera. IQ is much better than the 5D3 (and MILES ahead of fuji, even the x-pro 2 judging by the samples)... This X-Pro 2 raw file developed with Raw Therapee is hardly miles behind the Q. The file is available in a Spanish-language review of X-Pro 2 via http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/fuji-x-pro2-analisis-muestras-fotos_14036 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted February 10, 2016 Share #40 Posted February 10, 2016 Q is better! A scalpel is better than a Swiss army knife. Always, and especially when one desperately tries to open that bottle of red without a corkscrew...... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.