Jump to content

New challenger : X100 VI vs Q3 in 35mm crop mode

nicci78

By nicci78
in Leica Q3 / Leica Q2 / Leica Q

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 297
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Steve Miller
Steve Miller

Talk about self convincing dribble... You seem very confident in your statement of how superior Leica is to Fuji and presumably other camera brands. I have owned just about all brands including m

jaapv
jaapv

In case that you are serious: I know most active members from their contributions and I can assure you that the vast majority owns Leica gear because they prefer to use it for a multitude of reasons a

tom0511
tom0511

I find it interesting to not only look at Leica products itself but also look at options and how things compare. I dont know how good the new sensor and lens is, but I see it as follows: Fuj

Posted Images

Qwertynm

Qwertynm

Posted
Posted

I think the more appropriate comparison should be the Fuji XT-5 with the Fujinon 23 1.4 lens. Comparable in size and aperture diameter. Should result in roughly the same DoF and doesn't have the optical viewfinder like the Q3. But then it's not a fixed camera anymore and opens a whole other can of worms we shouldn't get into to not derail the thread. I'm sure the X100VI is a fine camera as is the Q3. Are they comparable? Imho no. But I still am interested in the results.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Olaf_ZG

Olaf_ZG

Posted
Posted

I loved the x100 for everything, except for its size, it was just too small. The Q is perfect in that sense. But the Q is too wide for me… 

Both are great cameras, and we should be great full that still many people fancy this above a phone. Both companies make great money with those compacts.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
mhasman

mhasman

Posted
Posted

I had a Fuji X100V for 2 weeks, returned; it didn't work for me. I do not like - ergonomic and controls, OVF/EVF combo, menu. Camera looks nice but fully missing rangefinder simplicity and fun-to-use. For me, it was like a brick with way too many buttons, wheels, clicks... 

Only I really like is 35mm lens flat design. I'd keep it if has full frame sensor. Nothing more than I can do with iPhone 15 Pro. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SrMi

SrMi

Posted
Posted

 

10 minutes ago, mhasman said:

I had a Fuji X100V for 2 weeks, returned; it didn't work for me. I do not like - ergonomic and controls, OVF/EVF combo, menu. Camera looks nice but fully missing rangefinder simplicity and fun-to-use. For me, it was like a brick with way too many buttons, wheels, clicks... 

Only I really like is 35mm lens flat design. I'd keep it if has full frame sensor. Nothing more than I can do with iPhone 15 Pro. 

IMO, the biggest advantage of the X100 series over Q is the OVF, something M owners appreciate.

The IQ difference between APS-C and FF is small. The IQ difference between FF/APS-C/m43 and an iPhone 15 Pro Max is huge.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
mhasman

mhasman

Posted
Posted (edited)

> IMO, the biggest advantage of the X100 series over Q is the OVF, something M owners appreciate. 

OVF in X100 is useless, nothing like M. In rangefinder-like camera, all the fun is having the rangefinder focusing OVF. In X100, it is just a hole covered with glass. 

> The IQ difference between APS-C and FF is small. The IQ difference between FF/APS-C/m43 and an iPhone 15 Pro Max is huge. 

Difference between APS-C and FF is HUGE. Difference between APS-C and iPhone 15 Pro is almost nothing. 

Everything above is IMO :) 

Edited by mhasman
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
bobtodrick

bobtodrick

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

31 minutes ago, mhasman said:

> IMO, the biggest advantage of the X100 series over Q is the OVF, something M owners appreciate. 

OVF in X100 is useless, nothing like M. In rangefinder-like camera, all the fun is having the rangefinder focusing OVF. In X100, it is just a hole covered with glass. 

> The IQ difference between APS-C and FF is small. The IQ difference between FF/APS-C/m43 and an iPhone 15 Pro Max is huge. 

Difference between APS-C and FF is HUGE. Difference between APS-C and iPhone 15 Pro is almost nothing. 

Everything above is IMO :) 

Pretty strong ‘opinions’.

As Bill Bullard said…opinion is the lowest form of human knowledge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
nemendes

nemendes

Posted
Posted

I have x100v and still use time to time for just myself and had q2 before and sold it to buy m11m. If you just want to post your photos to instagram and even print them out as a reasonable size, x100v is way enough. I think x100vi will be better than x100v and worth to upgrade because of having 40mp and ibis especially. 

But q series are way better camera than x100 series. Leica has more user friendly menu system, full frame makes really difference, q series have better ergonomics. Pricey of course, but if you want something premium class, worth it. They seem to be similar cameras (as point-shoot) but in fact they are really different. Therefore IMO one cant replace another, it depends on what you need from camera. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SrMi

SrMi

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, mhasman said:

> IMO, the biggest advantage of the X100 series over Q is the OVF, something M owners appreciate. 

OVF in X100 is useless, nothing like M. In rangefinder-like camera, all the fun is having the rangefinder focusing OVF. In X100, it is just a hole covered with glass. 

The rangefinder mechanism is only about focusing. The OVF is about framing, seeing the details in the shadows, and enjoying the image. EVF's lack of dynamic makes framing often difficult.

1 hour ago, mhasman said:

> The IQ difference between APS-C and FF is small. The IQ difference between FF/APS-C/m43 and an iPhone 15 Pro Max is huge. 

Difference between APS-C and FF is HUGE. Difference between APS-C and iPhone 15 Pro is almost nothing. 

Your opinion is not reproducible by any observation, experience, or measurement.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
mrlouie

mrlouie

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, FocusDot said:

I am one of those who changed to Q2 after having X100V. No regrets. Nevertheless it was a great little camera...
X100VI seems to be even better implementing some 40 Mp sensor and some interesting features seen in XT-5

For those interested - a very nice review:

https://jonasraskphotography.com/2024/02/20/returning-to-form-the-fujifilm-x100vi-review/

Thanks for the link !

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Miltz

Miltz

Posted
Posted

The Fuji X100 VI is sexy. But that’s really it. You think you’re getting 40 Megapixels out of it? Think again. I saw 2 side by side comparisons so far and the difference in image quality is almost none existent. The Q3 will destroy it in resolving power. The Fuji menu is horrible and probably one of the worst on the market. I still think it’s an excellent option for a lot of people, but don’t let the marketing fool you, 40 megapixels out of that lens is a joke. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris W

Chris W

Posted
Posted

Again, my Q images really blew my X series images out of the water.

The X100 series is for people who can't afford a Q. They are both easy cameras to carry around all day. I shot hundreds of images I'm proud of when I had my X100T. The images I made with my Q were just a lot lovelier out of the camera. I can't afford a Q2 and don't want to shoot at 28mm all the time (with the Q). So I have neither camera. Nothing drives me to buy another X100 (V or VI).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris W

Chris W

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Qwertynm said:

I don't think those two markets overlap that much.

The cameras do a similar job. One is 28mm fixed, the other is 35mm fixed. One is everyday priced, the other premium priced.

Having owned and used both extensively, I would say the Q series is the logical upgrade to an X100 series owner. 

I had an XT-4 which was very different to the X100 and Q. The Q series embraces simplicity and image quality. The XT series is over complicated, too many options and buttons, the X100 a lower quality than the Q.

Edited by Chris W
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Qwertynm

Qwertynm

Posted
Posted
vor 43 Minuten schrieb Chris W:

(...) everyday priced (...)

I don't want to offend you, but you have lost touch with reality. We are in a very small bubble here who can afford 6k for a piece of equipment for our leisure activities. I think for many people even 1.7k$ for a fixed FL camera (X100) is kind of a stretch. Most people won't just drop 6k on a fixed FL camera because it's the "logical upgrade" to their X100.

I agree with you that they are similar cameras that do similar things. But not everyone wants a fixed FL camera and not many people even want a 6k fixed FL camera. And who can blame them? It's not a logical purchase 😅

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris W

Chris W

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, Qwertynm said:

I don't want to offend you, but you have lost touch with reality. We are in a very small bubble here who can afford 6k for a piece of equipment for our leisure activities. I think for many people even 1.7k$ for a fixed FL camera (X100) is kind of a stretch.

All the latest digital cameras are expensive. Both of mine I bought used. The X100 series is far more affordable than the Q series, is more what I meant.

Still my point remains, if I had the money I would far rather have a Q series.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Qwertynm

Qwertynm

Posted
Posted
vor 6 Minuten schrieb Chris W:

The X100 series is far more affordable than the Q series, is more what I meant.

then I must've misunderstood your other argument and implied that you meant the Q3 is the logical upgrade from a X100VI.  You're also talking about used cameras such as prior versions of the X100 and Q116 and Q2 as I understand it now. I was not. That's where we misunderstood each other I think.

If my primary FL would be 35mm and I'd be budget constraint (which this thread doesn't suggest one would be, considering the Q3 is in the title), and I had to choose between a new X100VI and a several years old Q116 I'd personally pick up the newer camera. The Q116 in 35mm shoots 12MP images, which doesn't even cover the resolution of my monitor anymore. If 35 is your FL the Q116 isn't the first camera that comes to my mind and when you bring other cameras into the mix, then it's a different discussion altogether and, as others have implied, doesn't belong in the Q1/2/3 subforum.

I wouldn't have to think for one second if I'd be in the market of either a Q3 or a X100VI. I'd pick the Q3 anyday (as I did last May). To me it's not even a comparison. But YMMV

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...