Leica Q3 or Fujifilm GFX 100RF

[Phatcat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

21 minutes ago, Besprosvet said:

I've read a few reviews since yesterday, and if they wouldn't have reminded me every 3 lines that this is medium format, I would have thought that those samples were taken with a random Viltrox lens on some kind of full frame.

To me that lens looks super sharp but very flat and dull, not up to the medium format richness.

But hey you can crop! Didn't you know that megapixels=quality?

Side by side, any Q is going to humiliate this fuji in terms of tonality and color separation.

Not sure this means much since I have also seen plenty of Q3 pix that looked like they were taken with iPhone. Will wait for more detailed comparisons before drawing conclusions. 

[Jon D]

I think the biggest error might be the lens. For the Q3 you are getting a state of the art summilux type lens that has a nice box attached. The GFX RF is getting a repurposed, 5 year old, X100V lens slapped on a slimmed down but  compromised GFX body. The lens is a big mistake in my opinion. Why go to all that trouble of putting a medium format 100 megapixel sensor behind a five year old “slow” lens? They’ve spent too much R&D on the body, and nothing on the lens. And keep in mind it’s only £300 less than the GFX 100ii which does allow interchangeable lenses.
 

Anyone seriously shooting medium format quality images is going to be very disappointed with that lens. I’d be amazed if professional medium format shooters purchase it (with their own money) and use it for whatever their job is. I see it as a “daily carry” sort of proposition - and Fuji has several excellent options for that category already. All cheaper, all smaller, all with IBIS, and with the either the same lens, or with an ability to use multiple lenses. 

[LocalHero1953]

C'mon guys, this is Fuji we're talking about, not Leica. On this forum we criticise Leica and praise its competitors, don't we?

[Smogg]

29 minutes ago, Jon D said:

The GFX RF is getting a repurposed, 5 year old, X100V lens slapped on a slimmed down but  compromised GFX body. The lens is a big mistake in my opinion. Why go to all that trouble of putting a medium format 100 megapixel sensor behind a five year old “slow” lens? They’ve spent too much R&D on the body, and nothing on the lens.

I'd like to clarify: Do you really see similarities in the design of the X100V and GFX100RF lenses? If so, I'm curious to hear what they are?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Jon D]

24 minutes ago, Smogg said:

I'd like to clarify: Do you really see similarities in the design of the X100V and GFX100RF lenses? If so, I'm curious to hear what they are?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

I do see similarities. I think the priority in both has been size, rather than performance  

100Vi f2 “8 elements in 6 groups (includes 2 aspherical elements)”
GFX 100RF f4 “ten elements in eight groups, including two aspherical lenses”

I actually think the X100Vi lens has the advantage in that it is f2 with IBIS in the body. 

Neither is a patch on the lenses on the two Q3 models. 

Edited March 21 by Jon D

[Smogg]

24 minutes ago, Jon D said:

I do see similarities. I think the priority in both has been size, rather than performance  

100Vi f2 “8 elements in 6 groups (includes 2 aspherical elements)”
GFX 100RF f4 “ten elements in eight groups, including two aspherical lenses”

I actually think the X100Vi lens has the advantage in that it is f2 with IBIS in the body. 

Neither is a patch on the lenses on the two Q3 models. 

And I don't see anything in common between the design of these lenses. In terms of quality, the lens in the X100V is very mediocre with a complete lack of micro contrast. The lenses in the Q3, and especially the Q3 43 are great, but they are quite large and, in my opinion, unbalance the camera (I would prefer them to be f2.8 but smaller). I don't really like using cameras whose depth (taking into account the lens) significantly exceeds the height of the camera.
Among other things, I want to note that the EVF and LCD in the GFX are of significantly better quality in terms of dynamic range and color rendering than the Q3.

[Phatcat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Jon D said:

I do see similarities. I think the priority in both has been size, rather than performance  

100Vi f2 “8 elements in 6 groups (includes 2 aspherical elements)”
GFX 100RF f4 “ten elements in eight groups, including two aspherical lenses”

I actually think the X100Vi lens has the advantage in that it is f2 with IBIS in the body. 

Neither is a patch on the lenses on the two Q3 models. 

But you basically said the RF was using the same lens as the 100VI, it’s not. To say you see similarities, well they are lens aren’t they? I can say all lens are similar, made of multiple pieces of glass. 

This isn’t the case like the Leica Q (bar the Q3 43). 

[microview]

On 3/20/2025 at 6:05 AM, Smogg said:

 

The camera looks very compact and visually attractive.

 

Really? Looks a complete mess to me, from what I see in the OP's link.

[Smogg]

7 minutes ago, microview said:

Really? Looks a complete mess to me, from what I see in the OP's link.

I see much more Leica roots and aesthetics in it than in many Leica cameras, excluding the M series.

[Dazzajl]

1 hour ago, Jon D said:

Neither is a patch on the lenses on the two Q3 models. 

Doesn't that depend largely on what you want from it? The lens on the Q is designed to offer a beautifully smooth transition from sharp into the OOF in a frame. But it wont cover a MF sensor, it wont fit in your pocket and it wont balance on the camera as well as the 100RF lens. In those circumstances, the Leica is not a patch on the Fuji.

As a disclaimer, I would personally chose the Q 

[oldwino]

6 hours ago, Besprosvet said:

I've read a few reviews since yesterday, and if they wouldn't have reminded me every 3 lines that this is medium format, I would have thought that those samples were taken with a random Viltrox lens on some kind of full frame.

To me that lens looks super sharp but very flat and dull, not up to the medium format richness.

But hey you can crop! Didn't you know that megapixels=quality?

Side by side, any Q is going to humiliate this fuji in terms of tonality and color separation.

This is exactly my problem with all the fuji cameras I've tried. I don't mind that it'a a f4 lens (though f3.5 would have been psychologically easier for some people), and the lack of IBIS doesn't bother me much either (it is, after all, a wide angle lens), but most of these Fuji lenses are just...boring. They are very sharp, admittedly, but have little character to them. This was my biggest complaint about the 50R and 55 (50?) I shot with for a while - sharp, but nothing to get excited about. I've found the Hassy XCD lenses to be much more "artful" in rendering. Ditto the Q series. 

Some of the Viltrox lenses offer a more interesting look than most of the Fuji lenses.

[Smogg]

12 minutes ago, oldwino said:

This is exactly my problem with all the fuji cameras I've tried. I don't mind that it'a a f4 lens (though f3.5 would have been psychologically easier for some people), and the lack of IBIS doesn't bother me much either (it is, after all, a wide angle lens), but most of these Fuji lenses are just...boring. They are very sharp, admittedly, but have little character to them. This was my biggest complaint about the 50R and 55 (50?) I shot with for a while - sharp, but nothing to get excited about. I've found the Hassy XCD lenses to be much more "artful" in rendering. Ditto the Q series. 

Some of the Viltrox lenses offer a more interesting look than most of the Fuji lenses.

Sure, Hasselblad can turn the ordinary into something magical with its color science. And I take the X2D with me when I need extraordinary color. Unfortunately, Hasselblad hasn't released a compact camera with a fixed lens yet, so we're talking about what we're talking about.

[JoshuaR]

I dunno, I think this is a pretty intriguing camera.

I shot Fuji X-mount for many years. I loved that system. My favorite cameras were the X-Pro and X100 series—I took thousands and thousands of great images with them. To this day, I think of them as my personal sweet spot for a combination of size, autofocus, user experience, and image quality. (Without autofocus, my favorite system is Leica M.) Only last week, I was thinking about selling my SL2-S for an X-Pro3 and a couple of Fujicrons. 

Back when I shot X-mount, I was curious about the GFX system, but the size and handling of the cameras didn't appeal to me. Now there's an MF camera for X100 and X-Pro fans. If this had been available when I left X-mount, I might have gone in this direction instead of to Leica. (I'm glad I went to the M system -- I'm just saying what might have happened.) The richness of those medium-format images is truly appealing.

After years of shooting Fuji X, I really get the Fuji ethos, and value it. What I really like about Fujifilm cameras is the slightly poetic and quirky design. This isn't something Leica does. Leica wants to give you "the essentials." Fuji—at least in some of its cameras—wants you to play a bit. So they give you the flip-down screen on the X-Pro3 (which I loved) or the hybrid EVF/OVF. These design decisions aren't ultimately utility driven; they're meant to be fun, to prompt you a little creatively. But Fuji's designers must also be Leica fans, because they also understand the value of being pared down and tactile. So the Fuji equilibrium is a place where the design is tactile, simple, and focused, but also a little playful.

In this case, I like the idea of the aspect ratio dial, and I like the interesting implementation of crop modes, with the ability to either zoom in or see around the frame. These are fun and creatively done and allow for the embrace of different kinds of shooting experiences. I really like the overall size of the camera. I'm impressed that, without the hood, it can fit in a jacket pocket. In terms of image quality, the YouTube videos have left me mostly unmoved, but Jonas Rask's review has pictures that make a convincing case, at least to me.

As an M shooter, I've been asking myself what, if anything, I actually want out of an EVF camera. It's not autofocus, which I don't really need. The question is, What do I want from an EVF in terms of what Sean Reid calls "seeing the subject"?

My Ms excel at fluid, intuitive, fast, unobtrusive, in-the-midst-of-things documentary photography; they are, for me, better at this than the Q system, or any EVF + autofocus system. My SL2-S is excellent, but big and clunky. What I personally like about EVFs is that they can offer a different, more considered, less spontaneous, more picture-focussed way of composing; they make it easier for me to linger over the scene, the exposure, the framing. So I like the idea of a medium-format digital camera that's small enough to bring everywhere, and that has outrageous resolution so that you can shoot in X-pan-like aspect ratios if you want, and that enables the physical trying-out of crops and aspect ratios without menu diving. (The dial and lever approach of the GFX100RF seems a little more fun to me than mashing that tiny button on the back of a Q.) It seems like it would be a really fun (albeit expensive) creative gizmo.

I think a lot of X-mount shooters will aspire to own this, and that a lot of full-frame-based hobbyists who want to try medium format will be curious about it. I'm not saying I'm going to sell my M10M and SL2-S to buy one. But I'm definitely going to rent one as soon as I can, and give it an extended tryout.

Edited March 21 by JoshuaR

[Besprosvet]

47 minutes ago, oldwino said:

This is exactly my problem with all the fuji cameras I've tried. I don't mind that it'a a f4 lens (though f3.5 would have been psychologically easier for some people), and the lack of IBIS doesn't bother me much either (it is, after all, a wide angle lens), but most of these Fuji lenses are just...boring. They are very sharp, admittedly, but have little character to them. This was my biggest complaint about the 50R and 55 (50?) I shot with for a while - sharp, but nothing to get excited about. I've found the Hassy XCD lenses to be much more "artful" in rendering. Ditto the Q series. 

Some of the Viltrox lenses offer a more interesting look than most of the Fuji lenses.

I sold my X100V out of desperation for its flat and dull lens. Thankfully that Fuji worked as a gateway for Leica M (thank you Fuji, lol).

My 35 1.4 nokton on my M240 humbled down the X100V (I tested them both at medium apertures, so no "bokeh" illusion involved). The difference was so evident in favour of the much older Leica (with humble glass...) that the X100V flew on ebay the same day.

I don't even call it character, it's just being a good lens. Leica M APOs lenses are perfect, but they retain so much tonal range and color separation that they still look unbelievably beautiful, they don't look "clinical" or "boring". The issue with most contemporary manufacturer is that they entirely focus on sharpness sacrificing tonal range and color separation: they sacrifice the so called "3d look".

All in all, the vast majority of buyers are amateurs, and the only thing those buyers do before making a decision is checking 100% crops of brick wall shots. That's why this GFX100RF is going to sell well: "100 megapixels super sharpness mega crop WOWOW".

[Jon D]

2 hours ago, Smogg said:

And I don't see anything in common between the design of these lenses. In terms of quality, the lens in the X100V is very mediocre with a complete lack of micro contrast. The lenses in the Q3, and especially the Q3 43 are great, but they are quite large and, in my opinion, unbalance the camera (I would prefer them to be f2.8 but smaller). I don't really like using cameras whose depth (taking into account the lens) significantly exceeds the height of the camera.
Among other things, I want to note that the EVF and LCD in the GFX are of significantly better quality in terms of dynamic range and color rendering than the Q3.

Okay. 

[Jon D]

1 hour ago, Dazzajl said:

Doesn't that depend largely on what you want from it? The lens on the Q is designed to offer a beautifully smooth transition from sharp into the OOF in a frame. But it wont cover a MF sensor, it wont fit in your pocket and it wont balance on the camera as well as the 100RF lens. In those circumstances, the Leica is not a patch on the Fuji.

As a disclaimer, I would personally chose the Q 

Well yes, I guess that’s true. I was simply, and maybe erroneously, assuming a similar use case. 

[Phatcat]

1 hour ago, JoshuaR said:

I dunno, I think this is a pretty intriguing camera.

I

In this case, I like the idea of the aspect ratio dial, and I like the interesting implementation of crop modes, with the ability to either zoom in or see around the frame. These are fun and creatively done and allow for the embrace of different kinds of shooting experiences. I really like the overall size of the camera. I'm impressed that, without the hood, it can fit in a jacket pocket. In terms of image quality, the YouTube videos have left me mostly unmoved, but Jonas Rask's review has pictures that make a convincing case, at least to me.

 

Yeah after reading Rask’s review, now I feel like I need one lol. 

[Besprosvet]

2 minutes ago, Phatcat said:

Yeah after reading Rask’s review, now I feel like I need one lol. 

Even he admits that his review is biased. And none of those shots screams "medium format quality" to me. As much as this camera is nicely compact, I still challenge anyone to go around with 730 grams in the pocket, come on!

That said, look at this sample from dpreview: 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Transitions between focus/out of focus is atrocious, the general look is dull, and that halo overall the photo in backlit situations really reminds me of the X100V I happily sold years ago 🤢

I mean, if all these optical compromises were necessary to make this camera compact, fine, but... I can't spend 5600 euro for such a bad lens. We're not even talking of correcting distortion via software, which is not noticeable in 99% of the cases, we're talking of a compromise that no software can fix for you.

The sensor is amazing, but that's it.

[Phatcat]

14 minutes ago, Besprosvet said:

Even he admits that his review is biased. And none of those shots screams "medium format quality" to me. As much as this camera is nicely compact, I still challenge anyone to go around with 730 grams in the pocket, come on!

That said, look at this sample from dpreview: 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Transitions between focus/out of focus is atrocious, the general look is dull, and that halo overall the photo in backlit situations really reminds me of the X100V I happily sold years ago 🤢

I mean, if all these optical compromises were necessary to make this camera compact, fine, but... I can't spend 5600 euro for such a bad lens. We're not even talking of correcting distortion via software, which is not noticeable in 99% of the cases, we're talking of a compromise that no software can fix for you.

The sensor is amazing, but that's it.

You know, I see plenty of very average Q3 photos that are no better than this. A lot of Q3 photos are dull too without some work, I know because I have one. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[JNK100]

My understanding is that the Fuji is equivalent to a 28mm f3.2 . This is very nearly 2 stops slower than the Q3 rather than the 1 stop mentioned in the thread somewhere.

I use my Q at f1.7 frequently so would notice the difference in selective dof control.

What hasn't been discussed as far as I can see, is the 4:3 vs 3:2 format. I have always used the latter so this would take some getting used too I think. Using the Fuji at 3:2 takes the MP down to only 90mp (😉) and reduces the sensor area used to 90% I understand.

What I am unsure about though is exactly how the 35mm MF lens 4:3 compares to the Q28 in terms of fov and dof due the squarer format.

I also find it unusual that DOF and focus position markings are absent from the lens.