Leica Q3 or Fujifilm GFX 100RF

[steve edmunds]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 minutes ago, SrMi said:

The ergonomics and build are better with Q3. RF feels a bit toyish. With RF, I have to shoot JPEGs with raws, and there is no highlight-weighted metering (Leica's implementation). The EVF flickers as with any Fuji when acquiring focus or locking exposure with a half-press.

There are also several advantages to RF, including a great RGB histogram, improved AF, BBF, and a better implementation of digital zoom.

I will keep both GFX 100RF and Q3.

thank you, very clear reply [ Q2 user]

[Advertisement]

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

[Smogg]

4 hours ago, SrMi said:

The ergonomics and build are better with Q3. RF feels a bit toyish. With RF, I have to shoot JPEGs with raws, and there is no highlight-weighted metering (Leica's implementation). The EVF flickers as with any Fuji when acquiring focus or locking exposure with a half-press.

There are also several advantages to RF, including a great RGB histogram, improved AF, BBF, and a better implementation of digital zoom.

I will keep both GFX 100RF and Q3.

Why do you need JPEG?

[SrMi]

19 minutes ago, Smogg said:

Why do you need JPEG?

Without JPEG, I cannot set the aspect ratio, and I cannot check the critical focus. The embedded JPEG is only 12MP.

[Smogg]

30 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Without JPEG, I cannot set the aspect ratio, and I cannot check the critical focus. The embedded JPEG is only 12MP.

Thanks, I understand. But why not Heif then?

Edited April 27 by Smogg

[SrMi]

19 minutes ago, Smogg said:

Thanks, I understand. But why not Heic then?

Good point, HEIF would save space on the SD card (for example, 13MB vs 8MB). Since I delete all JPEGs or HEIFs after import, the chosen format does not affect the final storage space consumption.

[Smogg]

I chose the 100RF over the Q3 28/43 for a few reasons:

1. I already have an M11-p, which means when I only need single-point focusing, the Q3 28/43 doesn't offer anything new to me.

2. When I need face detection, the 100RF is pretty handy. The Q3 28/43's face detection is impossible to use reliably.

3. The zoom in the 100RF is incredibly convenient and can replace my frequently used A7RV+24-50/2.8 combo, while being more compact and lighter.

 

If Leica makes face detection acceptable and reworks the zoom in future firmware updates, I might consider buying the Q3 28/43 again.

[adrianh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, Smogg said:

I chose the 100RF over the Q3 28/43 for a few reasons:

1. I already have an M11-p, which means when I only need single-point focusing, the Q3 28/43 doesn't offer anything new to me.

2. When I need face detection, the 100RF is pretty handy. The Q3 28/43's face detection is impossible to use reliably.

3. The zoom in the 100RF is incredibly convenient and can replace my frequently used A7RV+24-50/2.8 combo, while being more compact and lighter.

If Leica makes face detection acceptable and reworks the zoom in future firmware updates, I might consider buying the Q3 28/43 again.

That's interesting, because for me personally some of these points would  look differently.  A Q3 offers an automatic single point focusing that is reliable, instead of manually focussing. I had a bad keeper quote with the M11 and wide open lenses, but maybe that was just me not good enough focusing on a RF wide open. The Q3 also has decent face detection as long as you don't have many faces in a group and also animal detection (which for me, works pretty reliable). On the other hand, the X2D was awful at AF, but a joy to focus manually. 

I would not rate the 100RF IQ nowhere near the IQ of a G or GM lens on the A7RV, even less so if you start zooming in on the Fuji and therefore losing resolution. 24mm is not even posisble on the Fuji. I do own the 24-70 GM-ii and that lens is in a complete other league. However, I use my lenses often wide open and the GM lenses are hard to beat there. But compact and lighter, that is definitiely true for the Fuji. 

I agree with you that face detection should be improved and that zooming should be visible in the EVF (which is something I have been asking since the original Q came out). 

 

[Smogg]

5 hours ago, adrianh said:

That's interesting, because for me personally some of these points would  look differently.  A Q3 offers an automatic single point focusing that is reliable, instead of manually focussing. I had a bad keeper quote with the M11 and wide open lenses, but maybe that was just me not good enough focusing on a RF wide open. The Q3 also has decent face detection as long as you don't have many faces in a group and also animal detection (which for me, works pretty reliable). On the other hand, the X2D was awful at AF, but a joy to focus manually. 

I would not rate the 100RF IQ nowhere near the IQ of a G or GM lens on the A7RV, even less so if you start zooming in on the Fuji and therefore losing resolution. 24mm is not even posisble on the Fuji. I do own the 24-70 GM-ii and that lens is in a complete other league. However, I use my lenses often wide open and the GM lenses are hard to beat there. But compact and lighter, that is definitiely true for the Fuji. 

I agree with you that face detection should be improved and that zooming should be visible in the EVF (which is something I have been asking since the original Q came out). 

 

I don't shoot with an open aperture, for me the foreground, middle ground and background are important. Everything should come together in one picture in colors and shapes and/or meanings. And at closed apertures 100RF gives me sufficient quality. Q3 even with a single person often loses it and focuses on a random object, especially if the person takes up a small part of the frame. In addition, Q3 gives an incredible number of false positive results. As a result, you have to turn off face detection and switch to spot focus, and this is implemented in such a way that you have to press several buttons in succession and takes time enough to miss the shot. Therefore, I just gave up even trying to use something other than spot focus on Q3. By the way, I do not agree that X2D has bad spot autofocus. In my opinion, with new lenses it is quite adequate. I do not even consider 24-70 II glass because of its size and weight, I even consider the new 24-50 to be big. If you have the opportunity, compare the tracking on the Q3 and 100RF - it's simply night and day.

[Chris W]

I do not agree that the Hasselblad X Series has bad autofocus. I'm sure there is better on the market, but I used autofocus all the time on my X1DII and found it perfectly fine 95% of the time.

When I had my OG Q the auto focus was also fine. I don't think I ever missed a shot. Obviously camera systems like Sony have very fast, accurate auto focus, but that doesn't make other systems 'bad' or 'unusable', it just means they aren't quite as advanced as Sony.

[keithlaban.co.uk]

I'm always happy when I read that others are happy with their camera choices. Happily it means we get to see more images.

[adrianh]

Well, it's probably a matter of expectations and what you've been using before. If you use the Sony (which is extremely fast and reliable though also not 100% perfect), switching to anything else than the best Canikons a challenge. The X2D has issues autofocussing in backlight situations (even with the new lenses), whereas the Q3 has no problems. If you don't expect a fast AF, or photograph mainly landscapes, that is not an issue. In all fairness, it's probably the main field for the X2D. People photography was frustrating at times however. I am happy to hear that the Fuji is better in this regard. 

[steve edmunds]

can you just turn off all these buttons on this Fuji? i mean just totally disable them like they do not exist?

[jennifernolanphoto]

On 4/26/2025 at 7:19 PM, SrMi said:

The ergonomics and build are better with Q3. RF feels a bit toyish. With RF, I have to shoot JPEGs with raws, and there is no highlight-weighted metering (Leica's implementation). The EVF flickers as with any Fuji when acquiring focus or locking exposure with a half-press.

There are also several advantages to RF, including a great RGB histogram, improved AF, BBF, and a better implementation of digital zoom.

I will keep both GFX 100RF and Q3.

I was so torn before getting the Q3 I am curious to see what you think once you play more with the Fuji.

[SrMi]

9 hours ago, jennifernolanphoto said:

I was so torn before getting the Q3 I am curious to see what you think once you play more with the Fuji.

Welcome to the forum, Jennifer.

Hopefully, I will be able to report my experience soon. In the meantime, @Smogg has written about why he prefers RF over Q: better subject detection and tracking. I rarely shoot people, so my priorities are different than his or maybe yours. I much prefer Q3's ergonomics, but I like the MF 100MP sensor.

[setuporg]

On 4/28/2025 at 1:33 AM, keithlaban.co.uk said:

I'm always happy when I read that others are happy with their camera choices. Happily it means we get to see more images.

As Tolstoy had said, happy photographers are all happy with their cameras in the same way, and all the unhappy ones are unhappy for different reasons.

[Alistairm]

Have had a chance to play with my RF, a little. Fuji has done a great job. Early impressions are that I love the way the controls are laid out, love the customisability of the buttons/dials, love the form factor (it’s very noticeably slimmer than the Q3 and doesn’t feel lens heavily unbalanced and sits better “on the hip”). Also, the lens is sharp, as expected, so the IQ ceiling is one the Q3 can’t reach. 
 

I am also very impressed with the leaf shutter. It is quiet and (as I experienced with the X2D), I am able to handhold at lower shutter speeds than I can with a focal plane shutter. 1/10th okay, 1/15 no worries. Being a wide angle lens helps of course. 

F/4 is somewhat limiting if you shoot indoors without flash regularly. While the sensor is so good that I expect I’ll underexpose and pull shadows, there is no escaping that in dim lighting at ISO6400 I’d rather have a faster (eg f/2.8) lens and be shooting at 1/30 than 1/15. The slower aperture also affects the light available to the EVF in dim lighting. 
 

For my own intended use, as a companion to the (very large) GFX100s ii, the RF is shaping up to be a delight. Playful, small, stunning IQ. And uses the same battery.  It won’t ever be my only camera, but I expect I’ll take more photos this year than if I hadn’t purchased it. Having a nicely laid out camera with a fun, quirky and compact body with that Sony 100MP MF sensor in it is just outright fun. 

If I was cross shopping the Q3 and RF as my only camera, it wouldn’t be a hard choice. The Q3 is much more versatile, mostly due to the Summilux. It is also has better finish and higher apparent build quality. I prefer the control layout on the RF, but both cameras are really well laid out and anyone whose shooting style revolves around setting aperture and shutter speed will find either camera will be super easy ergonomically. Leicas menus are more intuitive I think, but as a GFX user I’m fluent with Fuji so this doesn’t worry me either way. 

I completely understand why Fuji prioritised compactness and went with f/4, but I think it takes the camera one stop outside “all rounder”, so that alone means if it’s a single arrow quiver then the Q3 “wins” without having to go much further. 

Also, by the time you muck about and add the filter ring, a filter and the hood to “weather seal” the RF, any advantage in slimness is lost, so (again) the Q3 is a more straightforward “out of the box”, tough and compact solution. It is also more cohesive. 

So, I think both cameras do what they intend to and do so very well. The Q3 is a bloated half-facsimile of an M with autofocus, stabilisation and a gorgeous Leica lens which draws beautifully. The RF is a slimmed down GFX, with a quirky leaf shutter lens that is small but limited by being a little slow, and while excellent lacks some of the character you get from a Summilux, but which is drawing onto one of the greatest sensors ever put into a consumer level camera and sharp enough to make it count. 

As such, most of the “comparisons” will (I think) ultimately devolve to a comparison of the advantages of “full frame” (small, fast, excellent IQ) vs “mini medium format” (larger, slower, class leading IQ). And history suggests that full frame is the sweet spot for most photographic applications. I’ll be keeping the RF and will likely sell the Q3, but expect most users would be happier with a Q3. 
 

Both are excellent cameras designed by companies that deeply understand what photographers want in the field. 

[SrMi]

My initial impression of RF when compared to Q3:

Positives

• Has real BBF
• Is cheaper
• Has focus bracketing
• Surround mode.
• X-Pan aspect ratio
• AF is better
• Less false color, a bit more detail when resized to the same dimensions (sensor difference)

Negatives

• No Highlight-weighted metering.
• No full-size embedded JPEG; must shoot raw + JPEG (also for aspect ratios)
• Feels less premium
• The shutter button and joystick feel cheap.
• Only f/4
• No OIS/IBIS
• No perspective correction.
• Larger (especially if with the hood)
• Worse MF experience.

[frame-it]

Yodabashi camera April'25 Top sellers:

The full list is as follows:

1. Fuji GFX100RF;
2. The Fujifilm X100VI;
3. Canon PowerShot SX70 HS
4. The Sony ZV-1 II Shooting Grip Kit
5. The OM Tough TG-7;
6. Sony VLOGCAM ZV-1 II
7. Ricoh GR IIIx;
8. The Sony Cyber-shot RX100 VII
9. Canon PowerShot SX740 HS
10. Ricoh GR III

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Simone_DF]

Off topic, but can you believe the GRIII is still in the top ten even though it was released in March 2019? 

[Dazzajl]

45 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

Off topic, but can you believe the GRIII is still in the top ten even though it was released in March 2019? 

It’s been a huge huge success story hasn’t it and with good reason. I’ve always disliked the idea of them but a friend who adores his iiix more or less made me use it for a morning on a recent trip and all my prejudices were immediately washed away. It’s an extremely intuitive little box and the images are fantastic. It must be the best camera out there if you rate on a “power to weight” basis 

But alas, like so many brilliant bits of tech, it fails to excite me personally. 
 

Genuinely surprised to see the 100RF at the number one slot. Even in launch month I didn’t think such a niche camera at such a high price would shift a lot of units for Fuji. Good for them. I’d love to see them go back towards the bold designs that made their name.