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

[Corius]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 minutes ago, GREG PLAT said:

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

Why don't you wait until the X100VI is available and then rent it and the Q3 and decide for yourself?

I'm not sure what you are expecting to be told about a Fuji camera that is yet to be released on a forum dedicated to the Q3?

[oldwino]

I've tried several Fuji cameras - Xpro1, Xpro3, XE-3, X100V, even the GFX 50R - and I just cannot connect with them. Lord knows I've tried...But I cannot escape the feeling that there is something missing. The RAW files are...uninspiring. The lenses, too. Nothing technically wrong with them, but just lacking that "special sauce". The Jpegs are nicely done, most of them, anyway, but then I think, "I could just shoot film in my M5 instead". I took a lot of "nice" looking photos when I had my X100V, but I am not unhappy that I sold it. I don't understand the hype.

The last Q I used was the Q-P. It had what probably was the best finish on any Leica camera, ever, but the EVF was...difficult. I'm sure the Q2 and Q3 have amazing EVFs, but back then Panasonic was using those horrible sequential field things...The Q-P had a terrific lens, too (naturally), but I soon discovered that 28mm feels too limiting for me. Again, the newer(newest) version has "fixed" that issue with mega-megapixels and cropping. 

If I had my choice, it would be the Q2/3. It would not be a Fuji. 

[Advertisement]

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

[GREG PLAT]

1 hour ago, Corius said:

Why don't you wait until the X100VI is available and then rent it and the Q3 and decide for yourself?

I'm not sure what you are expecting to be told about a Fuji camera that is yet to be released on a forum dedicated to the Q3?

Corius I except a true and honestly opinion 

[Steve Miller]

13 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.

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 multiple Leica bodies (Q2, M10, SL2-S, Q2M, Q3 - still own the Q3) as well as multiple Fuji bodies. This is 2024. Almost every manufacturer these days makes cameras that produce excellent images. It's not the camera, it's the photographer.

I would have no problem if you simply stated that FOR YOU, the feeling you get and the shooting experience you enjoy from shooting with a Leica is superior to a Fuji (or any other brand). However, it is comical for you to trash another brand as if to say that one can only shoot a premium brand like Leica if you want to get beautiful images. I'd love to see your website or portfolio to look at photos that could only have been shot with a Leica.

By the way, feel free to check out my site (stevenjmillerphoto.com) and let me know which of my portfolio images were shot with a Leica. 

Steve

[jaapv]

I fear that the simulation argument is wasted on me. I think that film and digital are two different media that have a different look. Attempting to simulate film will always be a bit kitschy compared to shooting film. All with due respect for opposing viewpoints. 
 If I want my images to look non-digital I take out my M6. 
I am sure that it is next to impossible to guess a brand from a single image. Side by side is already hard enough.
The skill of the photographer is the differentiator. Nice work on your site BTW.  I’ll take out some time to have more than a glance later. 

[BobsFirstLeica]

55 minutes ago, Steve Miller said:

By the way, feel free to check out my site (stevenjmillerphoto.com) and let me know which of my portfolio images were shot with a Leica. 

Steve

I did.  Excellent images but what I appreciated most is your statement in the "About" section.  Well said and completely agree.  If the magic moment presents itself and I have an X100VI, Ricoh, Sony, etc. with me, that's all I really need.

For AussieQ, I wouldn't talk too much trash about the current trove of other brands.... in the hands of capable individuals, they can deliver!  BTW I own and like the Q3.

Bob

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 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.

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 and emphatically not because they joined a cult. 

[MikeD70]

I have used Fuji equipment professionally, for many years, and always got great results.  When the original X100 came out, I was lucky to get an early one.  I loved that thing, and upgraded to each new model through the V.  I sold that one, when I got my original Q, and soon regretted it.  I have a VI on order, and will pick it up when I get the call.  Not as a Q3 replacement, but there are times when it makes sense to risk a camera that doesn't cost $6,000, if the need arises.  Experience tells me it will be a great tool. 

By the way, I still have, and use a lot, an excellent XPro 3.  No plans on getting rid of it.  They all have their place.

Edited February 22 by MikeD70

[liggy]

10 hours ago, GREG PLAT said:

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 ? 

Tough to answer, I’m afraid. I always shoot RAW + JPEG with my Q2.  For social media I sometimes share the tiny jpegs from the Q2 via the Fotos app and on little screens they get the job done.   It’s a bit ironic but I find that the Leica Fotos app to be considerably better than the Fujifilm mobile app for image transfer etc. 
 

There are times when I shoot just jpegs with my Fujis.  I’ve printed some large images from jpegs after upscaling the files from even 16 MP jpegs successfully so I don’t mind starting with a jpeg if it’s an image I like.  

[thenick512]

I have a Ricoh GRIII as a secondary camera to my Q3.  I owned every X100 camera since the first version, I’m considering selling the Ricoh and replacing with the X100VI.  I generally take the Ricoh when I don’t want to carry my Q3 (sketchy situations, smaller camera on motorcycle trips with less fear of breaking it, when my Fiancé go out shooting). I pre-ordered so we will see if I am able to get one.

[codocee]

I’ve had the Q twice, the Q2 once and the Fuji x100s, x100t, x100f and x100v. All great cameras with a purpose.

I’ve preordered the VI but the million dollar question is: When could I see it.

If recent history is any indication, I might be able to afford a Q3 before Fuji can get me one to my door.

 

[Smogg]

I had Q and Q2, x100f, x100v, but I always preferred to use M10, later m11, instead of Q or Q2 (I really didn't like the artificial-looking noise on Q2, as well as on SL2). The x100 series, of course, provided lower quality than the Leica, but it fit in a large jacket pocket and was used occasionally when I didn’t want to take a bag with me or it wasn’t safe for me to take an expensive camera. However, I completely abandoned Fuji, since I’m not a fan of Fuji’s pseudo-film profiles; it reminds me of the popular teal-orange Instagram filters, which most often mask a bad photo

[Qwertynm]

vor 10 Stunden schrieb GREG PLAT:

Corius I except a true and honestly opinion 

Go to that review @FocusDot posted on page 1 (see below) and look at the images from Jonas. They are all jpgs. If you like those, get a X100VI. There is no point in getting the Q3 and shooting jpg imho. The draw of the Fuji is the nostalgic look and the filmic presets. Either you love that and want that or you don't care about it, so you buy any other camera that suits your needs.

Am 20.2.2024 um 14:32 schrieb FocusDot:

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/

 

[Budfox]

17 hours ago, GREG PLAT said:

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. 

 

 

Greg,

There is no right or wrong answer, and whatever you buy you will possibly wonder if you should have made the other choice. Having said that, based on your four criteria and my past experiences with a Q2 and X100S (plus too many other Fujis and Leicas) I would suggest:

1. One camera one lens - the Q3 is a smallish camera, but with the bigger lens and more sold body it is much less compact that a Fuji 100 series. The trade off is the Leica does feel more solid and higher quality, the lens is definitely better quality and more versatile (slightly wider, f/1.7 and a great macro mode), and I agree that the Leica menus are simpler and much better. That is what you get for the extra $$.

2. Jpegs v RAW - Fuji's jpegs are fun to play with and can make post processing of snapshots much easier. But this is very much a personal thing - some don't care for them of course. The Q3 does have some 'Leica look' profiles that (in my view) are trying to pick up on the Fuji profile popularity, but there appear to be only 2 colour and three B&W ones - so don't compare to the 20 Fuji profiles. For your book venture obviously RAW is likely to be better. Both can do jpeg and RAW combined.

3. 28mm v 35mm. I did have the 28mm adapter for the 100S. It's 'relatively' big and does take away much of the compactness of the camera. I rarely used it. In my view, if you want 28mm, the Q3 is the only one that will offer that without compromise. The Q3 60MP also allows cropping to 90mm equivalent (not optical of course), but the Leica implementation works really well and you can commonly crop to 35 or 50 with no perception of compromise (ignoring depth of field differences). I don't know about the Fuji cropping, but from the reviews I get the feeling it's less intuitive.

As above, if you want the best, most versatile lens, including the option to crop and easily simulate longer focal lengths, the Q3 is the best. Both now have some form of image stabilisation, so that's not a decider.

4. With $8,000 fixed budget, the Leica might be a stretch and not allow much left over for the actual travel.

Overall, if you really really want 28mm, higher quality overall, and are happy a slightly bulkier camera, the Q3 is the choice. However, if you want money left over for more travel, can accept 35mm and want the most portable option, the 100IV is the choice.

There is probably less risk of buyer's remorse with the cheaper 100IV, and if you are lucky it's resale value will hold up due to supply issues in case you want to upgrade later. The Q3 will depreciate more as soon as you leave the store.

Hope this helps.

Edited February 22 by Budfox

[jaapv]

But long term the Q3 is likely to degrade less in percentage though not in money. 

[Smogg]

27 minutes ago, jaapv said:

But long term the Q3 is likely to degrade less in percentage though not in money. 

It's hard to talk about what will happen in the future when artificial intelligence gains power: it is possible that in the near future AI will take 100-megapixel photos from your old pictures that were 6Mp and you will not notice that this was not taken with a modern camera matrix

[Mr Perceptive]

43 minutes ago, Budfox said:

 

3. 28mm v 35mm. I did have the 28mm adapter for the 100S. It's 'relatively' big and does take away much of the compactness of the camera. I rarely used it. In my view, if you want 28mm, the Q3 is the only one that will offer that without compromise. The Q3 60MP also allows cropping to 90mm equivalent (not optical of course), but the Leica implementation works really well and you can commonly crop to 35 or 50 with no perception of compromise (ignoring depth of field differences). I don't know about the Fuji cropping, but from the reviews I get the feeling it's less intuitive.

 

The Leica in 35mm mode is 39MP, the Fuji in 35mm mode is 40MP, so in terms of 35/50/70/90 crops the resultant image would be approx the same MP. That said the superior optics on the Leica are likely to render a better quality small crop.

What is actually more interesting to me is the cropping the Leica Q3 in 4:3 mode. I have a GFX50S and often use a GF45mm (35mm equivalent) in portrait mode. Doing this with the Q3 actually results in the same field of view (28mm on the Leica 3:2 sensor is virtually the same angle of field of view as the GF45mm on the 4:3 MF sensor), and the Leica actually has slightly more MP in this mode (cropping off top and bottom to create a 4:3 aspect ratio image). The Leica lens is F1.7 against GF45mm F2.8 (F2.2 equivalent)- makes me wonder about the use case for the GFX50S !!!!!

 

[jaapv]

18 minutes ago, Smogg said:

It's hard to talk about what will happen in the future when artificial intelligence gains power: it is possible that in the near future AI will take 100-megapixel photos from your old pictures that were 6Mp and you will not notice that this was not taken with a modern camera matrix

AI can do much but it can only fantasize detail that is not there in the first place. 

[Qwertynm]

vor 51 Minuten schrieb Smogg:

in the near future

we already live in that future. it's called Topaz Labs Gigapixel AI, Adobe Enhance and probably others...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Stuart Richardson]

38 minutes ago, Qwertynm said:

we already live in that future. it's called Topaz Labs Gigapixel AI, Adobe Enhance and probably others...

Yes and the future is bleak! These programs all tend to look at their most convincing from far enough away that they would usually not be needed anyway. When you actually try to use the resolution, it is full of glitches and errors -- sharp edges interspersed with muddy areas, aliasing and all kinds of artifacts such that to my eyes at least they look worse than a more standard scaling. Adobe Enhance raw details is an exception, as that is just a more computationally rigorous bayer demosaicing. The super resolution is a mixed bag. I am sure they will get better, but is that really what you want to show? Fake detail generated from billions of stolen images? Perhaps one's old 6mp images are just fine...you can certainly still make a decent print from a 6mp file...it just cannot be all that large.

It is far better to match the tool to the job. If you are going to do big prints or big crops, then get a high resolution camera. If you are not going to, try to print at a size that suits the resolution of your camera/lens combo.