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

[liggy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 minutes ago, SrMi said:

OVF in x100 is not RF, you can continue to use AF. RF is unrelated to OVF vs EVF experience, though RF requires and OVF.

A little bit of time with an M246 and M11 were enough for me to know that I'm not a natural at using a rangefinder.  

The X100 and XPro2 OVF experience didn't really do it for me.  I suppose it is nice to be able to see outside the frame while shooting but I like seeing exactly what I'm going to get when using an EVF, especially great ones like in the high end Sonys.

[Smogg]

20 minutes ago, liggy said:

I'm shooting an A7RV and A1 with the 35 1.4 GM lens.  Both of those bodies have the 9.44M dot EVF that I believe is best in class.  Never tried the CL.

For crop I really love the X-T5 with the Voigtlander 23 1.2 lens.  That is a sweet combination.  It might be sacrilege here but I prefer the dials on the X-T5 to the Leica controls. 🙃

I also have an A7rv, but it seems to me that a resolution above 5Mp is already redundant and does not provide any advantages. It would be better if manufacturers improved the DR of their EVFs to see shadow detail

[panoreserve]

Am 20.2.2024 um 12:18 schrieb Stuart Richardson:

Wait, what!? The X100 versions have been very popular since the first Q was but a glint in Kaufmann's eye...it was about five years before the original Q. I am curious as to what makes you think the Q2 had anything to do with the X100 popularity...all the variations seem to have been popular?

In any case, it is interesting to see that it is coming up with more resolution. Over the years I have had the X100F, Q2 and GRIII and GRIIIx. The only one left is the GRIIIx. The Fuji is a great camera to carry along on a hike or trip, but in my experience it is too big to be a camera to have with you all the time when the purpose was not photography specifically. I had the F version, and the lens was honestly not great. Either Ricoh is a large improvement over it. Hopefully the new one is better. The Q2 meanwhile is compact and has a great sensor and a decent lens (it is good, but no comparison to the L mount APO primes), but in my experience it is still like carrying a full sized camera, and in that case the SL2 and a prime lens are better in every way other than compactness and weight. So for me at least both the Fuji and Q were a bit neither here nor there. Too big to be compact, and not compelling enough in terms of image quality and handling compared to my main camera. I realize that this is not the experience of most people. But the fact that the X100VI is even bigger and thicker does not make it any more appealing to me at this point.

That's exactly how I see it! For this reason, I'm eagerly awaiting the Ricoh GR IV, which will hopefully be released later this year. This would be an optimal addition to my SL2 and my L-Apo fixed focal lengths 28/35/50/90mm...

[liggy]

4 minutes ago, Smogg said:

I also have an A7rv, but it seems to me that a resolution above 5Mp is already redundant and does not provide any advantages. It would be better if manufacturers improved the DR of their EVFs to see shadow detail

Truthfully the thing I like best is the A1 EVF.  The super fast refresh is closest to a live view for me.   I am not sensitive enough a shooter to make EVF based determinations of shadow detail a part of my shooting.  I just try and get close to what I want to end up with in my viewfinder exposed and focused correctly. 

[liggy]

3 minutes ago, panoreserve said:

That's exactly how I see it! For this reason, I'm eagerly awaiting the Ricoh GR IV, which will hopefully be released later this year. This would be an optimal addition to my SL2 and my L-Apo fixed focal lengths 28/35/50/90mm...

I really want an GO Panoinverse...  😎

 

[panoreserve]

vor 6 Minuten schrieb liggy:

I really want an GO Panoinverse...  😎

 

No, not for me. Too obvious. It's enough to be able to look at the wonderful caliber 65 on the back...

[liggy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

35 minutes ago, panoreserve said:

No, not for me. Too obvious. It's enough to be able to look at the wonderful caliber 65 on the back...

I have a few subtle pieces.  Not many though.  

The Panoinverse is really fun.  Panoreserve is elegant but has visual interest to be sure.  

[SrMi]

8 hours ago, liggy said:

I'm shooting an A7RV and A1 with the 35 1.4 GM lens.  Both of those bodies have the 9.44M dot EVF that I believe is best in class.  Never tried the CL.

For crop I really love the X-T5 with the Voigtlander 23 1.2 lens.  That is a sweet combination.  It might be sacrilege here but I prefer the dials on the X-T5 to the Leica controls. 🙃

We are talking about X100V’s EVF, which is abysmal. 
I have both A7rv and A1 and the EVFs are OK, certainly much better than X100’s EVF. I have always found the EVF resolution to be a minor component in the quality of use.

EVFs have their advantages, but they do not make you see, feel, and frame the scene better.

[SrMi]

7 hours ago, liggy said:

A little bit of time with an M246 and M11 were enough for me to know that I'm not a natural at using a rangefinder.  

The X100 and XPro2 OVF experience didn't really do it for me.  I suppose it is nice to be able to see outside the frame while shooting but I like seeing exactly what I'm going to get when using an EVF, especially great ones like in the high end Sonys.

Why are we still talking about RF? Neither Q3 nor X100 are RF cameras.

It is a misconception that you see in the EVF what you will get. Yes, it does change the colors and brightness to reflect the exposure, which sometimes prevents proper framing, but neither the colors nor the brightness or contrast is what you’ll see on your computer or print.

The EVF is great to see the histogram and clipping. X100 allows assigning histogram to a function button. It switches quickly to EVF and shows three large RGB histograms. A cool advantage of a hybrid viewfinder,

[clasami]

The AF-S on the X100V was unreliable, and MF with that lens is a pain. Sold it after a year and bought the Q2M and then the Q2. Not sure how well the AF-S on the X100VI works, but the qualtiy and handling of the Q2 and the wider focal lenght is worth the additional money. And remember: It is an APS-C sensor.

[liggy]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

Why are we still talking about RF? Neither Q3 nor X100 are RF cameras.

It is a misconception that you see in the EVF what you will get. Yes, it does change the colors and brightness to reflect the exposure, which sometimes prevents proper framing, but neither the colors nor the brightness or contrast is what you’ll see on your computer or print.

The EVF is great to see the histogram and clipping. X100 allows assigning histogram to a function button. It switches quickly to EVF and shows three large RGB histograms. A cool advantage of a hybrid viewfinder,

Relax.  I don’t like the OVF of the X100 family either.  
 

I know it’s an OVF and not a true RF.  I don’t care for either. I prefer EVFs, that’s all.  
 

[SrMi]

28 minutes ago, liggy said:

Relax.  I don’t like the OVF of the X100 family either.  

I like X100's OVF, but I assume that is a typo, and you meant, "I don't like the EVF of the X100 family either."

 

 

[liggy]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

I like X100's OVF, but I assume that is a typo, and you meant, "I don't like the EVF of the X100 family either."

 

 

lol.. good point.  I really like the overall package of the X100 family but both the OVF and EVF aren’t my favorites.  Prefer the Q2 EVF only experience.  

[iqall]

Am 22.2.2024 um 00:04 schrieb 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.

I have the Q2 and several Fuji cameras. I‘d really like to know what exactly is meant when someone says he or she doesn‘t like the RAW files??

Has that something to do with dynamic range or the color science or what else? Or is it just how the Lightroom handles the Fuji RAW files?

It‘s known that there are better converters out there. For example DXO does a far better job in terms of clarity of the Fuji files. Almost like you‘d had a better lens mounted. Unfortunately the DAM is just awful and I don‘t like using multiple apps. 

I‘d really appreciate a more in depth insight into the claim that Fuji RAWs are bad!

[jaapv]

It simply means that he or she does not like the raw files which can mean that the sensor filter is not tuned to his liking or that he does not like the way that the firmware handles the data. 

[tom.w.bn]

With every Fuji X100 model there were threads in forums about a new Leica contender / challenger / whatever.. No surpise this happens for the 6th time now.

Again the made up hype around this model is strange.

 

[oldwino]

8 hours ago, iqall said:

I have the Q2 and several Fuji cameras. I‘d really like to know what exactly is meant when someone says he or she doesn‘t like the RAW files??

Has that something to do with dynamic range or the color science or what else? Or is it just how the Lightroom handles the Fuji RAW files?

It‘s known that there are better converters out there. For example DXO does a far better job in terms of clarity of the Fuji files. Almost like you‘d had a better lens mounted. Unfortunately the DAM is just awful and I don‘t like using multiple apps. 

I‘d really appreciate a more in depth insight into the claim that Fuji RAWs are bad!

Basically what @jaapv wrote. I just prefer other sensors. Key word is “I”. 
I used Iridient when I had my X-trans cameras, which is supposedly one of the top converters for Fuji files. As I wrote, I was left underwhelmed, every time.

[Olaf_ZG]

3 hours ago, tom.w.bn said:

With every Fuji X100 model there were threads in forums about a new Leica contender / challenger / whatever.. No surpise this happens for the 6th time now.

Again the made up hype around this model is strange.

 

Why is it strange? The x100 series is a great camera and deserve its audience. As much as the Q or a M. 

[bobtodrick]

3 minutes ago, Olaf_ZG said:

Why is it strange? The x100 series is a great camera and deserve its audience. As much as the Q or a M. 

Just don’t get this thinking…”I like (whatever)…everyone else’s opinion is crap”

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[goodbokeh]

I'm toying with the idea of trying to buy a X100 VI 90th anniversary edition (1934 units) in late March. It promises to be challenging and competitive to secure one. I've not had a X100 model before but I'm familiar with the Hybrid viewfinder from my past X-Pro 3 and it works well. The EVF is not as nice as my Q2's but the OVF is a valuable option to have. I would keep my Q2, is offers enough quality and technical differences that the Q2's niche is secure.

The Fujinon Version 2 23mm/2 lens looks to hold up pretty well to the 40MP sensor, that's no mean feat. Candidly, I think we all know Leica should have introduced a Version 2 28mm/1.7 lens for the Q3.

Fujifilm is doing a real service for the camera industry and us with the X100 line. Given the TikTok craze so many young people are now being introduced to using a camera that wouldn't have otherwise. And many will continue to want to use them in the future. That is a bright spot to contrast against the steam roller of cell phones.

The X100 VI 90th anniversary edition comes in silver only and has a $400 surcharge. But hey have you seen the prices for regular X100 VIs on eBay...right now, they're going for $3000 US and up.