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

[Chris W]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

[Qwertynm]

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

[Advertisement]

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

[Chris W]

3 minutes ago, Qwertynm said:

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.

 

The Q2 is enough of an upgrade on the new X100VI in my opinion.

My main point was that I sold my X100T and bought a Q (1) and was shocked at the difference in image quality (colours, sharpness etc), which is obviously a combination of factors, but my feeling is Fuji have a long way to go to match the Q series 28mm lens.

If I needed a compact camera and couldn't afford a Q2 or Q3 I would rather have a Q1 than the new Fuji X100VI. In fact I use a Sigma FP as my compact travel camera.

[Qwertynm]

Gerade eben schrieb Chris W:

The Q2 is enough of an upgrade on the new X100VI in my opinion.

it's also twice the price. and The X100V and VI have a different lens that is sharper at F/2 but anyway...

this discussion isn't leading anywhere fruitful and it's off topic anyway so I won't engage further.

[Chris W]

Just answering the initial post, claiming the new Fuji was a challenger to the Q3.

To me it isn't based on image quality - before you even talk about price.

[JoshuaRothman]

I think it's true that the X100 series can fill the role, for some people, of a budget Leica M. Small, rangefinder-esque, with an OVF and an ethos of embracing constraints and getting back to basics. Fuji didn't invent the 35mm film camera like Leica did, but it has its own worthy history, channeled through the camera in the form of the film simulations. Years ago, when I dreamed of a Leica but couldn't afford one, I bought an X100F, and I was very satisfied. (And had a bigger bank balance.)

It's also true that an X100 can fill the role, for some people, of a Q-series camera. It's aimple, autofocus, take-it-everywhere camera that's somewhat ruggedized with good image quality. If you add the wide adapter you get a 28mm lens in a tidy form-factor. Now, with the new model, you can use digital zoom to get from 28mm to 40mm—an appealing setup. The IQ is not on the level of the Q—and the Q2/3 can substitute for an entire camera system in a way the X100 can't, at least not easily—but for many scenarios it's more than adequate. I can clearly see the difference in my own Lightroom catalog, but many of my favorite pictures were still taken with the X100F and V.

And it's also true that an X100 can fill the role, for some people, of a Ricoh GR camera. A small (though not super-small), silent, one-handed snapshot camera with a built-in flash. It slips easily into a jacket pocket. 

An X100 is definitely not a direct replacement for any of those other cameras. But, in my experience, it has its own lane: none of the other cameras are perfect substitutes for an X100, either. So the X100VI isn't a "challenger" to the Q3, exactly, but a plausible alternative for some photographers. And that's not even taking cost into account.

I've pre-ordered mine, but I'm not sure if I'm going to keep the preorder open or cancel it. The last time I owned an X100—an X100V—I found that I just used my M10 with a 35mm instead, leaving the Fuji to languish. I currently rely on an M10, M10M, and M6 in roughly equal proportion; I've owned and sold the Q2 several times. My theory is that an X100VI could do what my Q2 used to do for me at a smaller size. It could be my autofocus "rough-and-tumble" camera, the one I take to the beach or the pool, or with me on trips where damage is possible, and a backup camera, too. But it may be that, in the end, I just want to stick with the M system. For me, an M10 with the 28mm Elmarit ASPH is sort of the ultimate take-everywhere camera. Maybe I'll just be extra careful not to drop it into the pool.

Edited February 21 by JoshuaRothman

[lefse]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, AussieQ said:

I was waiting for someone to throw some mud in the forum and here it is.

 

The x100VI is not a competitor. It is optically inferior along with the engineering, design and build of the unit. Its targeting a wanna be Leica market, a market that can't afford to get into a Leica family. Yes, there are users on the forum who are going to buy one and I don't condone that but to compare it to a Q series or even an M series camera is ...................................

This is yet another desperate attempt by fuji to try and cash in on the youtuber influenced popularity of their previous camera. I really dont care if I get removed from the forum but if you are comparing the Q series to x100vi, then you have no idea of what Leica and it's cameras are as a brand and way of life in photography. 

You are trying to compare a budget camera with a premium, high quality engineered, historically stable brand such as Leica. 

If you search youtube, there seems to be a massive group of people trying to convince themselves that their cameras, cars, women, dogs, planes, whatever are just as good if not better than high end prestige versions. These are people who flat out can't afford and have to try and convince themselves that their lower quality gear is just as good and so they just don't need to buy the better more expensive brand.

 

Your post is just more comparable, self convincing dribble.

 

Admins, feel free to pull the plug on my account if you need to......I really can't be bothered seeing posts from now on comparing other cameras to Leica cameras in a Leica forum.

 

I have joined the Family and will be Loyal to the Family.

Yet, many in here seem to enjoy the combination of a $6000 Leica M camera, with 35mm Fuji film scanned on a professional (but ancient) Fujifilm scanner.
Joking aside, the x100 series indeed is a cheaper copy of the innovative Leica X1. Still a great camera, though!

[GREG PLAT]

Hello everybody 

I want to share some thoughts with you and I would like to send me your opinions about me dilemma.

I am professional photographer but since 3-4 years I don’t take photos anymore. 

I only take photos in my vacations and when I visit cities where I do street photography mainly and a few city landscapes.

I sold almost my photographic equipment and I kept only 2 cameras. 

Ricoh GRII and Fujifilm XT5 and some lenses ( 10-24/4 & 35/2 & 56/1,2 & 16-80/4)

 

My project for the next years is to visit cities and countries around the world and taking street photography and some landscape photography and maybe publish some books with these photos.

Street photography is 80-85% of my photos now.

 

Here some key points that will help me to take my final decision.

 

1. I want to take only one camera and one lens. No big cameras, no lenses, no bags anymore. I like to be more minimalist in my philosophy to take photos and in my life generally.

2. I shot 95% Jpeg not RAW. I know the benefits of RAW in editing, dynamic range etc but all cameras has anymore very good jpeg. And it’s ok for me. If a camera has RAW and JPEG I choose this option and keep RAW for the future when I print the books. Then I will edit my final photos for the printing. If the camera has this possibility it’s great. 

3. I like 28mm not 35mm

4. I sold my Canon and Fujis and I have 8.000$ in stock. For my new camera and for my first trips.

 

I read many reviews and I decided to buy one of these 2 cameras for my basic camera. 

Leica Q3 - Never had a Leica

Fuji X100 VI  with 28mm lens adaptor

 

Would you like please to send me your opinion about this dilemma? Which you would prefer from these 4 and why according my key points?

Leica Q3 or Fuji x100VI and invest more in trips? 

 

Thank you 

Greg Plat. 

 

 

[jaapv]

I don't see any dilemma. If you want optimal image quality and enough flexibility for street and basic landscape there is no competitor for the Q3. It leaves a bit for trips, and maybe the sales from your books could take care of that part?

The Fuji is not as cheap as the initial investment sounds - you'll want to upgrade after a few years. The Q3 should keep you in top-notch photographs for a decade.

[Tobers]

Fuji X100V to Q3 owner here. I also had the X100S and X100T, and QP, plus M9, M240, M10. 

The X100V is excellent and I’ve no doubt the X100VI will be increments better. However, nothing replicates the Q3 full frame at f/1.7. I use 28mm f/1.7 for pretty much all my documentary style photography. The resulting images are simply fantastic, with a super look to them. 

However, if I wasn’t so focused on my particular style, then an X100VI would be fine for all sorts of uses and in many ways makes an ideal travel/casual camera.

[liggy]

If I didn't have the Q2 R I'd gladly upgrade my X100S to the X100VI.  It's going to be a great little camera that brings a lot to the party.

@GREG PLAT Honestly if you want to shoot JPEGs only I'd choose the Fuji.  The film sims are great right out of the box and you can fine tune them even further. 

When I'm shooting casually and only plan on shooting JPEGs I often will shoot in Film Simulation bracketing mode with Acros and a couple color options.  

Edited February 21 by liggy

[PaulJohn]

Both the Q3 and X100 series offer the photographer a nice experience. The X100 with the wide converter lens is not a pleasure to use. It undoes the experience. I have tried it.

[GREG PLAT]

1 hour ago, liggy said:

If I didn't have the Q2 R I'd gladly upgrade my X100S to the X100VI.  It's going to be a great little camera that brings a lot to the party.

@GREG PLAT Honestly if you want to shoot JPEGs only I'd choose the Fuji.  The film sims are great right out of the box and you can fine tune them even further. 

When I'm shooting casually and only plan on shooting JPEGs I often will shoot in Film Simulation bracketing mode with Acros and a couple color options.  

Liggy this is my crucial dilemma. Are JPEG from Leica Q3 better from Fuji X100VI? 
If not why to buy Leica? My books I will print would not be maximum of A4 landscape. So 60MP are great but will I  actually need ? 

[GREG PLAT]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

I don't see any dilemma. If you want optimal image quality and enough flexibility for street and basic landscape there is no competitor for the Q3. It leaves a bit for trips, and maybe the sales from your books could take care of that part?

The Fuji is not as cheap as the initial investment sounds - you'll want to upgrade after a few years. The Q3 should keep you in top-notch photographs for a decade.

Hello jappv. 
Will I need need 60 MP to print A4 books? 
Honestly Fuji JPEGs are the best right now. 
So why I spent 3.000€ more? This is the difference I will pay. 

[jaapv]

You will certainly not need it. For A4 prints 10 MP is already overkill. We are talking about rendering here AKA the quality of the pixels.
I really doubt that you will want to use JPGs at all. A JPG throws away 60% of the data that your sensor provides; They are great for a quick snap - but for image quality throughout the chain? I would prefer an iPhone 15, regardless whether the starting point is Fuji or Leica.

[Corius]

2 minutes ago, GREG PLAT said:

Hello jappv. 
Will I need need 60 MP to print A4 books? 
Honestly Fuji JPEGs are the best right now. 
So why I spent 3.000€ more? This is the difference I will pay. 

As an "ex" professional photographer I would have thought you might be able to answer this for yourself. It's all to do with dpi when you are printing.

You say you want to use JPEGs, and you also say that Fuji JPEGs are the best. Not sure what you are expecting folk on a Q3 Leica forum to say, but I'll have a go...

Buy a Q3, it is much better than an X100. 

[jaapv]

Actually, one needs the high pixel count for cropping down to longer focal length equivalents.

[jaapv]

16 minutes ago, Corius said:

You say you want to use JPEGs, and you also say that Fuji JPEGs are the best. Not sure what you are expecting folk on a Q3 Leica forum to say, but I'll have a go...

Buy a Q3, it is much better than an X100. 

And JPGs are a no-no for professional book productions. If you shot film would you trust Boots to do the printing?

[PeakBirder]

Hi, I have owned Q’s and X100’s but neither currently.  I wanted a camera that was easy to carry and be available.  Although the image quality from the Q was really good, the jpegs were not great and I found it too large to be readily available and easy to take out and in fact it was similar in size to my M9.  I feel the X100 VI is very capable powerhouse that gives very good quality images, easy to use and also I am far more likely to take it into a more vulnerable situation than my Leica’s. Also Fuji benefit room producing far higher volumes of cameras so benefit from lower production costsfrom, so cost comparison can be a little misleading.
I have seen Q3 owners on other forums with buyers remorse not being able to justify the price difference, looking to sell their Q3 and get a X100 VI. €6000 is a lot of money to spend on a high quality but restrictive fixed lens camera.  I am more likely to but an SL to use with my small M glass

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[GREG PLAT]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

And JPGs are a no-no for professional book productions. If you shot film would you trust Boots to do the printing?

Jaapv last trip in Frankfurt took 600 photos with iPhone 15 pro in RAW. 
Brilliant photos. But when I will start to visit  cities around the world I want to carry a professional camera. 
I will shoot on RAW and JPEG. 
When I will print the books I will use RAW files. 
My dilemma is Leica Q3 with the best quality or FUJI X100VI with great quality and great simulations? 
I have a Ricoh GRII for street photography but want something better and Q3 & X100VI are levels up