Your thoughts on moving from the Fuji medium format GF series to the Q2?

[Stonewall Brigade]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am former Leica M, Q and CL user who previously traded everything (now regretting it) and moved over the the new Fuji GF 50R medium format, and several dedicated Fuji GF lenses.  The rationale at that time was to transfer the high equity value of my Leica gear over to the great introductory prices offered by Fuji for their new medium format GF line, and thereby increase the sensor size to medium format, and double the megapixels (50 in the Fuji GF 50R body).  I found the Fuji to give super images.  However, the size and weight of my Fuji 50R and (up to) 4 lenses that I have, plus the 1.4x tele extender, (and the carbon fiber tripod) are just killing me to carry around.  I should state I am a serious photo amateur with good experience and skills, but I am not a working pro who gets paid for images, I don't work in a studio with a fixed camera set-up, and I almost never print and enlarge my images.  Mostly just computer viewing and sharing.  My photographic interests, regardless of the camera brand, include tripod-mounted flower macros, landscapes, Civil War battle reenactment photography,  and motor sports races.  All of these interests usually entail being out in hot and humid weather, and carrying all my gear for the full day over long distances. I use a tripod for over 75% of my photography.

Now I'm thinking of trading the entire Fuji medium format line and head back to Leica and the new Q2.  I will take some equity loss on the Fuji system with the trade, and lose some flexibility with the Fuji GF's interchangeable lenses.  And I will gain a much lighter Q2 with a superb lens, large "full frame" sized 47 megapixel sensor.  The Q2's 35mm, 50mm, and 75, cropping options also offer good utility.

I should mention I also own and thoroughly enjoy (and plan to keep) an incredible Pentax K-1 Mark II, with its image stabilized, 37 megapixel full frame sensor, and some super Pentax Limited series prime lenses. SO the Pentax system will be my additional set of tools. My decision to make is keep the Fuji medium format series and the Pentax full frame system, or, swap the Fuji gear for a new Q2 to accompany my Pentax gear.  What are your thoughts on dumping the Fuji system in order to finance the Q2's purchase?  Thanks in advance for your comments.

[Advertisement]

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

[ralphh]

If you're mostly viewing on PC and not printing I'm not sure I understand the move to medium format (apart from gear lust - which I fully suffer from, don't worry!!).

I would have thought your Pentax K-1 would do everything you need.  If you fancy a walk-around camera then then original Q might be just as good for you; if you're not printing then resolution isn't as much of an issue and your K-1 is weather sealed if you really need to go out in the rain.  Or even the Fuji X100.  It's image quality is a step (or two) down from the Q2, but it does go in a pocket as where the Q does not and I'm not sure that you'd really be able see the image quality difference once you've downsized to 1MP for online. 

Of course if money is no object then I personally find the Q2 to be the best camera I have ever owned...

Edited August 22, 2019 by ralphh

[otto.f]

I never found the results of a Q or 2 presented here better than those from the M’s. So I’d rather go back to a Fujifilm GSW690iii  than go forward to a dull auto-whatever-you-can’t-think-of Q. And about the weight: it’s like cycling, it’s much more effective to loose a few pounds of your own weight than to search for the most lightweight racer. 

[ralphh]

The Q is not "better" than the M's in terms of results, it's just more convenient.  

As for the GSW690iii, I can't argue with that!  I had a GW690iii and I loved it.  I used to shoot ACROS and develop it in my bathroom

Edited August 22, 2019 by ralphh

[dancook]

After having M10, SL, Q, X1D - 'for me' the ultimate combo has been narrowed down to the Leica Q2 for street/travel/everyday use and X1D II for portraiture/travel.

It may not work for the OP as needs differ and I still have my Sony A9 setup for professional work and anything that needs long lenses or fast tracking autofocus.

Should I have to decide between the Q and X1D - I would choose the Q.

[ralphh]

I keep getting nostalgic about the M and romanticizing about an M10 and 3 lenses, but I know having owned one that the Q is the much more useful and usable camera for the kinda stuff I photograph (my kids mostly)

[Fedro]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

the Q2 is great, but I prefer using the M most of the time

that said, it is a wonderful camera for more casual stuff, and I guess if you crop (I don't) you would make the most of its 47 mp

[ralphh]

I'll get get round to posting a review at some point, but for me, it feels like all the camera I'll ever need

[Mr.Q]

Given your photographic interests, the GFX is clearly the better camera.  I love my Q as well, but I use it mainly for casual, documentary-style people photography.  For serious/tripod landscape work, the X1D goes out with my every time. 

If weight is a problem, why don't you carry less lenses?

[LexS]

Carry only your Pentax for a while, and see if you need more and why.

 

[BXL Gotham]

I’ve been on the GFX50S for a year and just picked up the Q2 as a complement to it (along with the RX1 R2). 

Ironically I find it easier to swing a tripod with the Fuji (and a single lens mounted to it) over my shoulder for a six mile walk around Manhattan than to have the dead horse head weight of the Q2 hanging around my neck for the same jaunt. The SONY on the other hand is barely noticed during the same trek. 

Go figure. At least I can set the tripod down or balance the weight behind my neck as I walk. 

[01af]

Well—dumping gear and pondering what to buy next also is a nice hobby ...

[Jared]

Honestly, I think you’d be making a mistake.  While the Q/Q2 is a wonderful too for certain types of photography, it is definitely NOT a replacement for the GFX.

You mentioned several types of photography that you do...

1) Flower Macros:  The Q2 has some fairly strong macro capabilities for a non-macro lens, but it won’t give you the working distance, the perfectly flat field, or the 1:2 magnification of Fuji 120mm.  Assuming, of course, that one of your GFX lenses is the 120. You could look at adding close up/magnification lenses to the Leica to address the lack of magnification, but that won’t change the working distance.  28mm is just a little awkward in terms of lighting and in terms of managing perspective.  The GFX is much stronger for this purpose.

2) Landscapes:  This one is going to depend a bit on your particular style.  If you think a 28mm lens is perfect for landscapes, and it’s certainly not bad, then the Q2 is a solid choice, certainly up to the task of showing you critically sharp images on a desktop monitor, sharing with friends, etc.  A lot of people, though, prefer to work at shorter focal lengths for landscapes.  I’d say 24mm is probably the single most useful focal length for this purpose, but the trend has been to go wider, wider, wider.  Again, not sure which GFX lenses you have or what your preferred focal lengths are for landscape work.  The GFX system doesn’t have anything particularly wide, but there is a lens or two below 28mm equivalent.  Also keep in. Ind the 2:3 vs 3:4 aspect ratio.  For vertical landscapes most people prefer 3:4, but the opposite is probably true for horizontal compositions.

3) Civil War Re-enactments:  Here is one where the Q2 will likely be as good a choice as the GFX.  Especially since you aren’t planning on large prints, so the crop modes will likely be fine.  

4) Motor Sports:  I assume you use your Pentax for this.  Both the Q2 and the GFX are poor choices for this work, though the GFX is the stronger of the two.

Personally?  In your place I would sell the Pentax instead of the GFX.  Then I’d live with the GFX and it’s limitations for Motorsport.  Then I’d buy the Q2.  I think that’s the single best compromise.  The other thing I would strongly recommend is NOT carrying the GFX and 4 lenses.  For any given day/event, cut it down to two lenses.  Seriously.  I suspect you will find your photography improves.  I know mine did when I gave up on being “ready” for every possible composition.  It will force you to find the compositions that match what you brought, and that, in turn, will make you think about what’s important in a given photograph.  Sometimes a little bit less is more.  You might be more adventurous in how much walking (zooming with your feet) you are willing to do if you don’t have so much weight.

Of course, I don’t know much about your photography, so my apologies if I’m talking down to you at all.  I’m making guesses based upon what you could convey in a paragraph or two.  

I find the Q2 to be a great camera for a fixed focal length camera.  I have also been surprised just how much one can do with a single focal length if you are willing to crop a bit.  But it’s still not a complete camera system.  No single focal length camera can be.  

[Jared]

On 8/22/2019 at 11:31 AM, ralphh said:

The Q is not "better" than the M's in terms of results, it's just more convenient.  

As for the GSW690iii, I can't argue with that!  I had a GW690iii and I loved it.  I used to shoot ACROS and develop it in my bathroom

It’s a significantly better chip, so it does produce technically superior results to any M as long as you are staying in the 28mm to 35mm focal length range.  Of course, technically superior results only occasionally make for a better photograph.  

[ralphh]

Yeah I meant results in terms of better photography. My post was in reply to a comment about results seen online.  Also the post I replies to mentioned the Q and Q2. I wasn’t comparing the Q2 to the M10, but rather Q’s in general to M’s. 

[Jared]

15 hours ago, ralphh said:

Yeah I meant results in terms of better photography. My post was in reply to a comment about results seen online.  Also the post I replies to mentioned the Q and Q2. I wasn’t comparing the Q2 to the M10, but rather Q’s in general to M’s. 

I would guess that on average photographers choosing an M camera are significantly more experienced than those choosing a Q.  Only averages, of course, and wouldn’t apply any given photographer.  I certainly wouldn’t put it down to the capabilities of the camera or lens in any event. The Q is the more flexible camera within the 28mm to 35mm range given it’s very good AF, the built in OIS, it’s close focus abilities, and the high speed drive.  This isn’t important for all types of photography, of course, but at those focal lengths the Q really gives up nothing to the M.