As a x100f owner, should I get the Q?

[MyLeicaWorld]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

This is my very first post to the forum. I am Kaan from Istanbul and already shooting with x100f. But especially on the street x100f isn't sharp enough at the sudden shots.. and something's wrong at the x100f after the 100t.. X100t was much sharper and the IQ was much more better.. And from all these reasons, I want to get into the world of Leica.. but AF is a must for me.. and only Q can feature it at the moment in among the Leica Full Frame cameras (except the SL)

So some say x100f and the Q are almost the same cameras. But IMHO leica must be much better camera. Yes, I've read all the tests and comments. But you; being the users of the Q, I wanted to hear from you why should I buy the Q or why shouldn't.. I have found one in stock at Brussels. The price is yapılabiliri 4200 euros and when I take the tax back at the airport the final price will be 3600 euros for the brand new one.. Thank you very much..

[SonomaBear]

The Q excels at IQ for street images. The Fuji is very good and has more options but APS-c sensors have limits. I prefer 28mm for street but some prefer 35mm perspective like X100. F1.7 is amazing with such good AF (shallow DoF and bokeh) but take several shots since no street AF is perfect. I often leave the aperture at 1.7 and let camera determine shutter and ISO. I have gaffer's tape over red dot and camera top plate -- no one knows it is Leica and damp weather can't seep into microphones. I shoot raw but many choose jpeg.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Leica Guy]

The Q excels at IQ for street images. The Fuji is very good and has more options but APS-c sensors have limits. I prefer 28mm for street but some prefer 35mm perspective like X100. F1.7 is amazing with such good AF (shallow DoF and bokeh) but take several shots since no street AF is perfect. I often leave the aperture at 1.7 and let camera determine shutter and ISO. I have gaffer's tape over red dot and camera top plate -- no one knows it is Leica and damp weather can't seep into microphones. I shoot raw but many choose jpeg.

 

I agree with all your comments. I owned the Fuji X100 and the X100T. I enjoyed both cameras but found focusing especially on the original X100 to be slow. The IQ was very good, but I thought that before obtaining the Leica Q. Now I believe that the Leica Q IQ is significantly better and focusing is amazingly fast, accurate. I thoroughly enjoy the ergonomics on the Q. It's returned fun to my photography experience.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bransom]

I also had the X100 and X100T before the Q and find the Q better in pretty much every way except weight (it's noticeably heavier) — but I don't consider that much of a problem. The Q is incredibly fast, accurate, and the image quality is just beautiful. I don't think you'd be disappointed with it.

[Voxen]

I moved from X100S to Q. If you can deal with 28mm lens that requires to move much closer to your subject, the Q is the perfect street camera. It took me 30 years to find it, now its the only camera I still own and I do all my photography with it. I wouldn't trade it for anything else in the current market.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Voxen

[wda]

Don't forget that the Q has optional frame lines for very usable 35mm cropping and 50mm, available at the press of a button.

 

Welcome to the forum, Kaan.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Actually, I think that there are no higher-end cameras on the market that are a bad buy. IMO it comes down to individual affinity with the ergonomics, user interface, handling, technological compromises, etc.

[kismetsky]

This comes up a lot and I feel it should be reiterated - the Q has a longer lens at 28mm than the X100F at 23mm.  Yes, the native sensor output at full frame of the Q is 28mm, but at 35mm, the sensor crop is only 1.25x.  On the X100F, the sensor crop is 1.5x.  The Q at 35mm will have more bokeh and more separation than the X100F with all else being equal (distance to subject, to background, etc).

 

The AF is stellar: fast and pinpoint accurate.

[Peyton Hoge]

I've had two X100 versions. I still have one, and never use it. The Q is much, much better!! In every way! The 28mm image quality is so good, you can crop it a lot to get a much tighter picture if needed, and it holds together really well. Over the years, I've used many Nikons (and still do) and also use M9 and M10. But the Q is still my favorite!

[plantagoo]

Hi.

 

Welcome to the forum and to the wonderful world of the red dot... It all comes down to your personal preferences. I had a Q before I made a move to Fuji. Had the X100F. Now I‘m on Q again.

 

If you have the chance, pick up a Q and shoot with it. How does it feel? Do you like it? Does it make you want to grab it and take pictures? Do you like the output? These are all those personal questions only you can answer. And if the Q wins against the X100F in that regard -> just buy it and don‘t look back...

 

If you search the web you will find phantastic pictures taken with both cameras.

 

If you just need to compare the technical specs the Q already has won. Full Frame versus APS-C, Super quick Autofocus, One of the best EVFs, stellar lens with great macro capabilities - but then again, photography is all about emotion...

 

Either way: have fun taking pictures!

 

Greetings

Erik

Edited September 18, 2017 by plantagoo

[MyLeicaWorld]

Thanks for the useful replies.. but the main thing is will I get significantly better quality images than the x100f? My instagram is double_0_se7en.. if you look there you will see the photos taken with x100f.. the problem with x100f is the people's faces are not sharp in the daylight condition in a indoor shot.. even in some outdoor shots they are still not sharp enough.. will I have these problems with the Q ?

[Marac]

For Instagram, I doubt you will notice a lot of difference, however, in print is a totally different story all together.

[MyLeicaWorld]

For One more thing I need your advice.. there is a used (shutter counter is 6500) M type240 (24mp) with 1.4 50mm summilux lens.. It is in perfect condition with three oem spare batteries, oem UV filter, hood and oem EVF.. price is $6500.. but as you know it has no AF and AF is the most important thing in street photography IMHO.. so which one would you prefer? Brand new Q for 3600 euros or used in perfect condition M type 240 with lens and other things.. ( my heart says get the Q )

[plantagoo]

Thanks for the useful replies.. but the main thing is will I get significantly better quality images than the x100f? My instagram is double_0_se7en.. if you look there you will see the photos taken with x100f.. the problem with x100f is the people's faces are not sharp in the daylight condition in a indoor shot.. even in some outdoor shots they are still not sharp enough.. will I have these problems with the Q ?

 

Hi!

 

IMHO your pictures are perfectly fine and sharp. So from my point of view no need to switch cameras. I hardly doubt anyone will see a difference looking at your Instagram. But then again... I repeat myself from #10 -> "If you have the chance, pick up a Q and shoot with it. How does it feel? Do you like it? Does it make you want to grab it and take pictures? Do you like the output? These are all those personal questions only you can answer. And if the Q wins against the X100F in that regard -> just buy it and don‘t look back..."

 

Greetings

Erik

 

 

[Guest]

To me, the people who tell you that the Fujifilm X-100 series cameras are as good as the Leica Q are simply lying or have never shot with it. You simply cannot compare the two! I am a retired ex pro and I have shot with all systems up to 4"x 5" view cams. I have recently acquired a Q and the files are just stunning compared to my X-E2 (updated). Please compare for yourself and comment on the files.

 

www.flickr.com/photos/131715273@N05

 

Respectfully,

[MyLeicaWorld]

That's what I need to hear ..

[almoore]

It 35mm is your focal length and you want better technical quality than the Fuji, why not get a Sony RX1Rii? It's quirky, but very good.

[Voxen]

That's what I need to hear ..

 

 

IQ is much MUCH better than any X100 can deliver. X100's f/2 is crappy and it really start to be sharp at 2.8, while f/1.7 on the Q is razor sharp.

But beyond sharpness, the Q images are much more organic and have an interesting 3D look. X100 images are way more numeric.

[HighlandK]

IQ is much MUCH better than any X100 can deliver. X100's f/2 is crappy and it really start to be sharp at 2.8, while f/1.7 on the Q is razor sharp.

But beyond sharpness, the Q images are much more organic and have an interesting 3D look. X100 images are way more numeric.

 

Yes, I moved from an X-Pro2 with a set of primes. They were sharp but there is something about the sharpness of the Q lens  that I cannot quite describe - organic and 3D comes close. In fact working with RAW I have had to hold back on the sharpness slider in a way I never did with the Fuji. So sharp you could cut your finger! But it is more than that as the micro contrast just makes the images pop. At first I thought I might be making it up to justify £3.5k of expenditure to myself but 7 months on I am convinced. I have also produced good A3 prints from crops which must approximate to 35 - 50mm crop equivalents. Sorry, beginning to sound like an out of control fan-boy!!!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[MyLeicaWorld]

So what about the jpegs.. I often use jpegs on the social media.. I don't shoot raw. Are the jpegs on Q as good as the x100f's ?