Leica Q3 or Fujifilm GFX 100RF

[reynoldsyoung]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Gosh....16 pages to this point.  I really feel, all the stats aside, the comparison ended at f4.0.  It's an expensive camera with a slow lens...a Fuji mistake, I fear.  But, they are the same weight...1.6lbs

Edited April 8 by reynoldsyoung

[Advertisement]

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

[Smogg]

5 hours ago, reynoldsyoung said:

Gosh....16 pages to this point.  I really feel, all the stats aside, the comparison ended at f4.0.  It's an expensive camera with a slow lens...a Fuji mistake, I fear.  But, they are the same weight...1.6lbs

Many people love the MATE (tri-elmar). It is a very convenient lens for travel and walking. However, its quality is no longer up to modern standards. Think of the GFX100RF as a Leica with a fixed modern MATE, but for less money.

[JNK100]

18 hours ago, Forty3 said:

 

For those who prefer the 4:3 aspect ratio the Fuji offers more resolution . However for those who prefer  3:2 or indulge in cropping the Q3 43 excels. The advantage of the 43 is that it allows higher resolution  crops over the Q3 and Fuji (35mm 28 FF equivalent

 

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!

How does the Q3/43 allow higher resolution crops than the Q3/28?

Surely at the same crop- factor the resolution will be exactly the same? of course the Q3/43 starts at a longer focal length.

 

[keithlaban.co.uk]

The social media bling brigade are going to go a bundle on the silver version.

😉

[hdmesa]

19 hours ago, JNK100 said:

How does the Q3/43 allow higher resolution crops than the Q3/28?

Surely at the same crop- factor the resolution will be exactly the same? of course the Q3/43 starts at a longer focal length.

 

Higher resolution when comparing the same FOV past 43mm.

[hdmesa]

On 4/7/2025 at 1:35 AM, SrMi said:

It should be the same as between GFX100 and Q2/Q3...

I'd strike the Q2 from that statement. Its noise pattern ≤ ISO 6400 is quite ugly at the pixel level, IMO, especially compared to the Q3/GFX100.

Edited April 9 by hdmesa

[setuporg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, hdmesa said:

I'd strike the Q2 from that statement. Its noise pattern ≤ ISO 6400 is quite ugly at the pixel level, IMO, especially compared to the Q3/GFX100.

< or >=6400?

The overall alarm at the Fuji is hilarious!:)

[hdmesa]

1 hour ago, setuporg said:

< or >=6400?

Got my symbol backward, lol. 

[BWColor]

On 4/3/2025 at 5:33 AM, colonel said:

I love Fuji stuff, and their MF lenses and cameras are really good.

However I would still want a Q3 over the GFX 100RF.

The main reasons are:

1. The lens on the 100RF's aperture is too small

2. The Q3 is likely to be faster in usage, with faster and better AF

3. Although the lens is shorter on the Fuji, I  like the slimmer and smaller body on the Q3

4. I like the controls of the Q3 better

Although if Sony brings out an RX1 v3 - I'm there

I spent a good bit of time following the RF.  The F4.0 I could live with, but no IBIS wouldn’t work with what I shoot.  I pre-ordered the Q3, but then cancelled after ordering the Sony A7CR and small lenses.  Again, all about trade offs..viewfinder is not great and not a fan of the Sony menu system, but really nice camera.   I did something similar when looking at the SL3, but ordered the X2D..didn’t need fast AF..Sony does that and size not far off.  Now, The M11 Monochrom can’t be replaced, except by another Monochrom, like the M10.  Absolutely my favorite camera.

[Chris W]

I have never and never would use digital zoom.

The X2D seems like a superior system to the Fuji in every way. I used my X1D2 as an every day camera with the 45p lens, and you have the choice to carry a second lens if you need. The image quality from the Hasselblad is incredible. I'm sceptical about the Fuji, based mostly on the lens.

[Dazzajl]

41 minutes ago, Chris W said:

I'm sceptical about the Fuji, based mostly on the lens.

As you should be. It’s not going to look the same as a ‘full sized’ MF lens. 
 

I think Fuji are trying to address the very common concern with the GFX system, that they are fabulous cameras but not inspiring to pick up or fun to use. Make it small, look more hipster, have more toys, hope that attracts a bigger audience. 

[JNK100]

6 hours ago, hdmesa said:

Higher resolution when comparing the same FOV past 43mm.

True, but only if a min. 43mm FL suits of course.

[JNK100]

57 minutes ago, Chris W said:

I have never and never would use digital zoom.

The X2D seems like a superior system to the Fuji in every way. I used my X1D2 as an every day camera with the 45p lens, and you have the choice to carry a second lens if you need. The image quality from the Hasselblad is incredible. I'm sceptical about the Fuji, based mostly on the lens.

I am sure the X2D is superior to the 100RF: as it should be given the difference in price. They are not really competitors in my view.

[Dazzajl]

14 minutes ago, JNK100 said:

I am sure the X2D is superior to the 100RF: as it should be given the difference in price. They are not really competitors in my view.

As with all comparisons, it’s superior in some ways and not in others. The Hassy X series is a wonderful piece of design and in the right area will deliver incredible results but if I needed a camera to document life as it happens, the RF (and almost any other modern camera) would out perform it by a large margin. 

[SrMi]

6 hours ago, hdmesa said:

I'd strike the Q2 from that statement. Its noise pattern ≤ ISO 6400 is quite ugly at the pixel level, IMO, especially compared to the Q3/GFX100.

What I meant is that the difference between GFX100RF and Q2 is the same as between GFX100 and Q2. Ditto for difference ro Q3. I did not mean to imply that Q2 and Q3 are the same in low light, though it fares quite well with a little help from AI NR.

Generally, one can argue that the noise difference between GFX and Q3 (not Q2) can turn in favor of Q3 because of OIS and widest aperture.

GFX100RF has the resolution advantage.

[Chris W]

3 hours ago, Dazzajl said:

As you should be. It’s not going to look the same as a ‘full sized’ MF lens. 

Based on my experience of several Fuji lenses, plus several Hasselblad and Leica lenses. The Fuji is a distant third.

[Chris W]

3 hours ago, Dazzajl said:

 if I needed a camera to document life as it happens, the RF (and almost any other modern camera) would out perform it by a large margin. 

By a 'large margin'? I highly doubt it.

I took an X1D2 on tour documenting people, places and events. The images were stunning. The only weakness was focussing in low light. But then the Fuji's f4 lens is going to be a low light handicap too.

[setuporg]

The original X100, which I got as an early adopter, has an OVF.  It's not a rangefinder but has a novel hybrid OVF/EVF.  The GFX100"RF" looks blind, with an EVF only.  With the Q we got used to it and its top is narrow.  The silver top of the faux RF cries murder where the OVF windows must have been.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Phatcat]

On 4/9/2025 at 3:56 PM, Dazzajl said:

As you should be. It’s not going to look the same as a ‘full sized’ MF lens. 
 

I think Fuji are trying to address the very common concern with the GFX system, that they are fabulous cameras but not inspiring to pick up or fun to use. Make it small, look more hipster, have more toys, hope that attracts a bigger audience. 

I agree, a lot of wealthy amateurs who are into the Fuji film emulations and has the X100VI are preordering the RF. I will certainly try one too and buy one if I like it enough., 

[setuporg]

34 minutes ago, Phatcat said:

wealthy amateurs

Should have been the actual name of this forum.