Leica Q3 or Fujifilm GFX 100RF

[JNK100]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Chris W said:

I've never met a mugger who'd ever heard of Leica. You think a blingy, medium format camera is less desirable to robbers?

I am not sure that the Fuji in black is blingy.

[Miltz]

The Fuji is F4 without IBIS. 
Leica Q3 is F1.7 with OIS. 
Any image quality advantage the Fuji sensor has is taken away. The Q3 gathers 5.5 times more light than the Fuji. It’s not even in the same league. 
 

That’s 800 iso vs 6400 iso.

no way 6400 on the Fuji will give you better quality than 800 on the Leica. The sensor isn’t 5.5 times better. 

Edited March 23 by Miltz

[Dazzajl]

1 hour ago, Besprosvet said:

But, I don't know if the lens on this Fuji is going to be on par with Leica APO

It’s going to be quite different and designed for a different purpose. I’m expecting you will lose on the dreamy/portrait aspects and gain on the pure resolving power and detail. As well as size and weight of course. 
 

All cameras are compromised but on the plus side, that makes it easier to want them all 

[Smogg]

14 minutes ago, Miltz said:

The Fuji is F4 without IBIS. 
Leica Q3 is F1.7 with OIS. 
Any image quality advantage the Fuji sensor has is taken away. The Q3 gathers 5.5 times more light than the Fuji. It’s not even in the same league. 
 

That’s 800 iso vs 6400 iso.

no way 6400 on the Fuji will give you better quality than 800 on the Leica. The sensor isn’t 5.5 times better. 

The Noctilux 0.95 can gather 4.4 times more light than the 50 APO cron. Is it better at f2 than the APO? Definitely not.

[Phatcat]

1 hour ago, Chris W said:

Again, I find this bizarre. Of course you can adjust the colour temperature and hue.

Again, there is a very respected photojournalist who shoots Leica, mostly M11P and some SL3 and his images are stunning, beautiful colours. He would definitely use a different system if it was a hassle, or he couldn't achieve his own style with a Leica.

I don’t think they are saying Leica have bad colors, they are just saying colorist don’t like working on them because it takes more time for them, which is understandable since time is money for them.  

You already said the photojournalist you mentioned does his own post work, so it’s entirely different circumstances. 

[Smogg]

By the way, speaking about the quality of lenses, do not forget that the larger the camera format, the easier it is to make a high-quality lens.

[Chris W]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 hours ago, Telemetric said:

This is subjetive and if you like it, perfect but the truth is that Leica color science is not good. 

'Not good' seems very similar to 'bad' in my book. Also the same person saying it is 'one of the worst' colour science.

I wonder if Leica is reading this as the poster wants to become a Leica collaborator.

[Chris W]

6 minutes ago, Smogg said:

By the way, speaking about the quality of lenses, do not forget that the larger the camera format, the easier it is to make a high-quality lens.

It seems like you are sold on the Fuji and won't accept any possible downsides. that's fine.

No use in continually arguing the point. I wouldn't personally buy a camera where you had to crop every single shot. Which is why I don't own any of the Q's, despite feeling the image quality is amazing.

I also question the quality of Fuji lenses compared to Leica and Hasselblad, based on actual personal experience of all three (inc XT3).

Edited March 23 by Chris W

[Chris W]

11 minutes ago, Phatcat said:

 

You already said the photojournalist you mentioned does his own post work, so it’s entirely different circumstances. 

I said, they edit their images in the hotel, late after a long day of shooting. Their images look absolutely stunning, shot with the M11p.

You don't think they would just choose a different system if they had to spend hours getting the colours right after a long day in the field?

Most people using Leica are in the field, out and about, not portraitists. The only time people send their images for someone else to edit, it's for magazine covers and portraits.

Edited March 23 by Chris W

[Smogg]

12 minutes ago, Chris W said:

It seems like you are sold on the Fuji and won't accept any possible downsides. that's fine.

No use in continually arguing the point. I wouldn't personally buy a camera where you had to crop every single shot. Which is why I don't own any of the Q's, despite feeling the image quality is amazing.

I also question the quality of Fuji lenses compared to Leica and Hasselblad, based on actual personal experience of all three (inc XT3).

According to tests by Jim Kasson, whom I trust almost unconditionally, medium format Fuji lenses are in no way inferior to Hasselblad lenses. As for the constant crop... I just look at this camera differently. For me, it is a FF camera with Tri-Elmar, which at 50mm, alas, is only APS-C. I like the ergonomics, I can set it up once and forget about the idiotic menu. The external controls are enough for my purposes and they are conveniently located, I will never need to go into the menu again. Yes, there is an extra wheel with aspects, but I will simply ignore it.

[Dazzajl]

21 minutes ago, Phatcat said:

I don’t think they are saying Leica have bad colors, they are just saying colorist don’t like working on them because it takes more time for them, which is understandable since time is money for them.  

You already said the photojournalist you mentioned does his own post work, so it’s entirely different circumstances. 

This is exactly it. It’s not a case of good and bad, poor or better in the overall sense. It’s about best tool for specific jobs. It appears to me that Leica like to design a style into their bodies. Not all their cameras share the same style, other than that all seem to be elegant and offer a considered palette that combines to create something aesthetically pleasing. So if you’re an artist or looking to create something with great visual appeal, Leica are a great, possibly the top choice. 
 

However, if you’re shooting something like a catalog for a clothes company or furniture maker, you find yourself perhaps in many locations, in varying light and conditions but needing studio levels of consistency over a large collection of images. Then your Leica files become much harder work to standardise. 
 

To say either is definitely better is like saying a wide angle is better than a tele. 

[Dazzajl]

11 minutes ago, Smogg said:

medium format Fuji lenses are in no way inferior to Hasselblad lenses

You can make a very good case for Fuji making the best MF lenses but since there are no bad MF lenses either, it’s much more a case of pick the system that feels best to you and be happy. 

[keithlaban.co.uk]

29 minutes ago, Dazzajl said:

Snip...However, if you’re shooting something like a catalog for a clothes company or furniture maker, you find yourself perhaps in many locations, in varying light and conditions but needing studio levels of consistency over a large collection of images...

I doubt that you'd be using any fixed lens camera for the gig.

[Besprosvet]

1 hour ago, Dazzajl said:

It’s going to be quite different and designed for a different purpose. I’m expecting you will lose on the dreamy/portrait aspects and gain on the pure resolving power and detail. As well as size and weight of course. 
 

All cameras are compromised but on the plus side, that makes it easier to want them all 

And that's exactly what I'm not looking for in a lens. I don't care about resolution if I have to give up a focus/out of focus transition of quality (most common difference between Voigt and Leica M glass, imo) or richness in tonality.

There's a reason if my 50 summicron 6 elements from 1969 makes images that look much better than the ones created by a 50 sigma art...

The only time that people ask me what I've used, is when they stumble into photos I took with Leica glass on Leica cameras

[LocalHero1953]

I suspect the truth of the matter regarding Leica's 'bad' colour science (the word that was used and caused this debate) is that professional editors and colourists are far more used to Canon/Nikon/Sony files, so of course Leica's files will require more work, and they will have less experience with them. In their shoes I would also ask for Canon/Nikon/Sony files.

I've worked with digital colour files from Leica, Canon, Fuji, Ricoh, Sigma, BM, Nikon and Olympus. Personally I like Leica's colours, and find them natural; the only times I've tried to match camera colours, it has been Leica (various bodies) with Sigma fp and Ricoh GRD4 for stills, and Sigma fp and Blackmagic (video); it is not difficult to make them match. 

[Phatcat]

4 hours ago, Chris W said:

I said, they edit their images in the hotel, late after a long day of shooting. Their images look absolutely stunning, shot with the M11p.

You don't think they would just choose a different system if they had to spend hours getting the colours right after a long day in the field?

Most people using Leica are in the field, out and about, not portraitists. The only time people send their images for someone else to edit, it's for magazine covers and portraits.

Huh? Yeah he doesn’t have to spend much time because the photojournalist is already proficient working with his own Leica files, that’s why I said it’s different circumstances comparing to colorists who work mostly on Sony/Canon/Nikon files. 

Edited March 23 by Phatcat

[algrove]

I find it very interesting that Fuji said when introducing their first generation of GFX cameras that MF needed IBIS for a multitude of reasons. 

Now they say just because of a leaf shutter one does not need IBIS and instead let the ISO go bananas. It must reduce some of the DR benefits of MF, no?

[algrove]

As for using C1 with a Hassy, I do minimal Phocus work and then export as a tif and do my main PP in C1. 

C1 versatility for me comes from Sessions work where each outing has its own Session which I can get to very rapidly on my RAID drives.

[Mr Perceptive]

37 minutes ago, algrove said:

I find it very interesting that Fuji said when introducing their first generation of GFX cameras that MF needed IBIS for a multitude of reasons. 

Now they say just because of a leaf shutter one does not need IBIS and instead let the ISO go bananas. It must reduce some of the DR benefits of MF, no?

There was no IBIS in the launch GFX, the GFX50S - it came first with the original GFX100

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Smogg]

41 minutes ago, algrove said:

I find it very interesting that Fuji said when introducing their first generation of GFX cameras that MF needed IBIS for a multitude of reasons. 

Now they say just because of a leaf shutter one does not need IBIS and instead let the ISO go bananas. It must reduce some of the DR benefits of MF, no?

Everybody lies (c) House m.d.