Leica Q3 or Fujifilm GFX 100RF

[Dazzajl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

I find the UI of all Fuji cameras hard to like. Buttons everywhere like the plague. Every possible menu option almost to “which side does sir favour” and beyond. I much prefer the streamlined approach that Leica takes, using profiles for my preferred shooting approaches.

That way I can focus on taking photographs rather than fiddling and faffing about with options. 

The buttons are an unfortunate symptom of the ever increasing number of functions packed into todays cameras. I do find that with my Fujis, I don't ever use the menu. The functions I do want to change are all assigned to a button and the rest were set on day one and left. Leica avoids the buttons to some degree but not bothering with many of the newer tech toys, something I definitely applaud.

[Advertisement]

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

[dereit]

Of course the Q3 28 F1.7 and 43 with F2. what a fantastic lenses to use dept of field in all kinds of photography. Only have to compare this with the F4 of the Fuji. 

[JNK100]

12 minutes ago, dereit said:

Of course the Q3 28 F1.7 and 43 with F2. what a fantastic lenses to use dept of field in all kinds of photography. Only have to compare this with the F4 of the Fuji. 

It's actually equivalent to roughly f3.2 in FF terms I understand. These near two stops though would be noticeable for sure in terms of DOF.

[FocusDot]

On 3/20/2025 at 7:20 PM, Dazzajl said:

Now we have the details, I think it looks great. It offers more power than a Q and does it in a form that will far more easily fit into coat pocket.

 In terms of DoF, there is stop of difference between the Q and the RF and that seems an acceptable trade off for the more attractive perspective of the 35mm lens compared to the 28...

There is a bit more than one stop of difference between the Q (f/1.7) and the RF (FF equivalent of f/3.2) 

[JNK100]

2 hours ago, FocusDot said:

There is a bit more than one stop of difference between the Q (f/1.7) and the RF (FF equivalent of f/3.2) 

Yes, it's just under two stops which is significant if one wishes to minimise DOF.

I am unsure what the OP means by "more power".

The perspective of a 35mm MF lens and a 28mm FF will be similar.

[Alistairm]

I have preordered an RF. I think it is brilliant that this type of camera is being released. 

 

However, it is definitely NOT, at least to my mind, a conventional replacement for a Q3, although it will do just that in my quiver. 

 

The Q3 is an incredible camera. Great (and fast) lens, beautiful controls, fabulous sensor, weather sealed, image stabilised. However – and this is highly personal to me – I have always found the lens too large for the body. Although it’s not a huge difference, where the M11 feels svelte, the Q3 feels bloated. I would vastly prefer a Q3 with a Summicron (and ideally a 35mm one). 

 

And, although I speculate until I get one in hand, I am very sure that I will prefer the “trimmer” (in terms of depth) GFX100RF to the Q3. 

 

And that slimmer camera matters much more to me than the “features” that are missing, but which add bulk - primarily image stabilisation and a fast lens. Especially in a camera where those sacrifices have been partially offset by a leaf shutter and hands down the best sensor I have ever used across any camera I have owned, and one that allows you to shoot at higher ISO values with relative impunity. 

 

I have no issue with the Hasselblad X2D at low speeds (largely due to the leaf shutter I believe), and expect that the RF give a similar experience with the leaf shutter. 

 

For general travel these days I invariably just take my M11. For more photography oriented trips, I take a GFX100SII and the Q3 has mostly been used where I needed weather sealing, so almost exclusively on holidays and over my shoulder for a wide angle landscape option while I have a 500 on the GFX for birding (or for a walk around urban camera while the GFX stayed in the hotel). So the RF is an better companion camera for me. Not as deep (so better on the hip), and the same sensor as the big body so that I have continuity across my shots. And it takes the same batteries as my GFX100SII. Colour me excited.

 

So, is the RF “better” than the Q3? Certainly not. And the criticisms I make of the Q3 (pretty much just that it’s a cumbersome design with an oversized lens) are really just me saying that I value different things (compactness, sensor size) over the Q3’s main strength (fast, stabilised lens) and am prepared to sacrifice those things in the RF in my use case. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I won't be getting a GFX RF. Not because of the BS arguments around colorists or the lens or the price or the sensor. I just don't shoot 28mm as my primary focal length and I already have the cameras I love as a 1 camera carry.

I really hope Fuji sell a shit ton of these. It's an intersting camera in a sea of dull black boxes. The next gen will likely get IS (I see an upgrade path in not having it in this model). I wish the crop wheel was unmarked and customisable. I don't see why I want to click through 8 options I don't want to get to the two I do. But the hardware dial idea is great. The size is just astonishing. You either are happy with f4 or not. Lots of people love the 45P on the Hasselblad. The Fuji in silver is also very very pretty. Not sure how many black ones will sell.

Personally an X2D or Q3-43 suits me more. I'll take a small bump in size and weight for the improved eronomics and IBIS of the Hasselblad, which does allow me to customise the crop modes and dedicate that to a button (in effect the same system). But mostly the 43mm lens (equiv) is my thing. I can go somewhat smaller and get OIS and a flip screen and an APO optic on the Q3-43. I also have the GFX100ii and 100Sii but that's mostly for the zooms and the 500.

If this were a 50mm then it'd be a much harder decision. I shot an X1D since 2016 and lived happily without IBIS, flip screen or fast AF. I still have my X1D bodies but don't use them so it's apparent the bump in weight to the X2D isn't as important to me as the extra utility. Especially the IBIS. It's incredible.

As for colour, thay're all just fine. The Hasselblads suit me more. I almost never have major adjustments. But there's no mono at all. I like Leicas colours but they're less consistant from model to model. But I have a profile for each camera and now I can do what I want just as easily as any thing else. I like the Fuji colours but a little less than the other two. That's just a taste thing. But they do have decent consistancy and a vast range of preset options for fast workflow stuff. Pick your poison and move on.

I look forward to Alistair's journey with the GFX RF. A LOT of people are excited by this camera and I can see why.

Gordon

[Smogg]

It seems to me that the approach to developing RF and Q3 was completely different. RF developers started from the needs of the photographer and, when developing the design, tried to integrate all the primary functions that a photographer needs for quick access in an elegant form. Q3 developers started with the design and only then thought about how to adapt what they got to the needs of the photographer, while in some cases deliberately cutting out some of the functionality to get a Lite version, pushing people to buy SL3 or M11 as Pro versions.

[Chris W]

On 3/25/2025 at 7:40 AM, Telemetric said:

Hi!

I’m just saying that with my Leicas (M10-P and M11-P), it’ not easy to apply a personal color style. 

Sure, that is subjective. In the beginning you kept repeating Leica colours are bad, which is more of a statement of fact than a personal opinion.

Quote: The TRUTH is Leica colours science is NOT GOOD.

Stating that colourists charge extra to work with leica images. And also making your statement leica wide, despite the systems all having different sensors and colour science (M, Q, CL, SL)

Edited March 29 by Chris W

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, Smogg said:

It seems to me that the approach to developing RF and Q3 was completely different. RF developers started from the needs of the photographer and, when developing the design, tried to integrate all the primary functions that a photographer needs for quick access in an elegant form. Q3 developers started with the design and only then thought about how to adapt what they got to the needs of the photographer, while in some cases deliberately cutting out some of the functionality to get a Lite version, pushing people to buy SL3 or M11 as Pro versions.

What are the functions missed from the Q3 that you think were cut out? (Just curious). 

[Smogg]

38 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

What are the functions missed from the Q3 that you think were cut out? (Just curious). 

Joystick, BBF, Toggle Focus Point (face recognition works unstable and often requires a quick switch to the central point), a number of other detailed small settings for fine tuning, including screen profile settings (just compare the settings with the SL3 settings).

[Chris W]

On 3/26/2025 at 8:02 AM, LocalHero1953 said:

In the spirit of pure pedantry, I should point out that the Q models do not have IBIS (In Body Image Stabilisation = moving the sensor), but OIS (Optical Image Stabilisation = moving a lens element). Hard-core pedants could argue that since the Q has a fixed lens then any IS is by definition IB, but I wouldn't go to that extreme.

 

I had more steadier shots on my Q than with my X1DII. The Q is smaller in the hand and very ergonomic. The f4 of the Hassy 45p lens means you can end up shooting at lower shutter speeds. I have a lot of slightly blurry images. The f2.8 X lenses are larger and longer, which also exacerbates the tendency to slightly shake or blur at slower shutter speeds.

[Chris W]

6 hours ago, Smogg said:

It seems to me that the approach to developing RF and Q3 was completely different. RF developers started from the needs of the photographer and, when developing the design, tried to integrate all the primary functions that a photographer needs for quick access in an elegant form. Q3 developers started with the design and only then thought about how to adapt what they got to the needs of the photographer, while in some cases deliberately cutting out some of the functionality to get a Lite version, pushing people to buy SL3 or M11 as Pro versions.

A lot of people so far seem to think F4 is too slow. If they were serious about the 'needs' of the photographer rather than hitting a price point they would have designed a different lens. The Q3 was designed to crop for different fields of view (35mm, 50mm), there is not much about a 28mm medium format camera that appeals to me.

How would you know what the people at Leica 'deliberately' left out?

[Smogg]

21 minutes ago, Chris W said:

A lot of people so far seem to think F4 is too slow. If they were serious about the 'needs' of the photographer rather than hitting a price point they would have designed a different lens. The Q3 was designed to crop for different fields of view (35mm, 50mm), there is not much about a 28mm medium format camera that appeals to me.

How would you know what the people at Leica 'deliberately' left out?

This is just my guess. Many products have a Lite version, the main purpose of which is to involve the buyer in their ecosystem.
If they made 2.8, the camera would not be compact and buyers would choose the GFX100S II.

Leica's crop is well thought out, but poorly implemented, there are two serious drawbacks:

1. there is no option for full screen zoom.

2. there is no zoom out, so you have to scroll through all the options every time, it quickly gets boring.

Edited March 29 by Smogg

[Mr Perceptive]

43 minutes ago, Smogg said:

 

1. there is no option for full screen zoom.

 

Absolutely agree with this, trying to track cars at a motor-racing event on the 90mm crop was challenging to say the least!!

[steve edmunds]

Very few of the reviewers have talked about how the lens performs say against similar fuji GFX lenses or hasselblad equivalent glass , some vague comments about being a bit soft at F4 aside.

Unless the lens is very high quality it does not matter much about the bigger sensor does it? as long as the lens is a great piece of glass it would be an amazing camera in my view.

[Dazzajl]

22 minutes ago, steve edmunds said:

Very few of the reviewers have talked about how the lens performs say against similar fuji GFX lenses or hasselblad equivalent glass , some vague comments about being a bit soft at F4 aside.

Unless the lens is very high quality it does not matter much about the bigger sensor does it? as long as the lens is a great piece of glass it would be an amazing camera in my view.

I think if you like the characteristics of a pancake lens, then you should be very happy. My experience with previous compact lenses from Fuji has been very good. They lack the smoothness of larger and faster lenses but they have always been very sharp and balanced for colour. The softness wide open is likely to be mostly with very close focusing. Mid distance to infinity will probably be very good. They have learnt a lot from the X100’s evolution. 

[steve edmunds]

47 minutes ago, Dazzajl said:

I think if you like the characteristics of a pancake lens, then you should be very happy. My experience with previous compact lenses from Fuji has been very good. They lack the smoothness of larger and faster lenses but they have always been very sharp and balanced for colour. The softness wide open is likely to be mostly with very close focusing. Mid distance to infinity will probably be very good. They have learnt a lot from the X100’s evolution. 

Define a pancake lens? do all pancake lenses perform the same? none of the reviewers have mentioned a pancake lens

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[JoshuaR]

11 hours ago, Smogg said:

This is just my guess. Many products have a Lite version, the main purpose of which is to involve the buyer in their ecosystem.
If they made 2.8, the camera would not be compact and buyers would choose the GFX100S II.

Leica's crop is well thought out, but poorly implemented, there are two serious drawbacks:

1. there is no option for full screen zoom.

2. there is no zoom out, so you have to scroll through all the options every time, it quickly gets boring.

I think you're exactly right. At f/2.8 the lens would be too big. And the crop-to-zoom implementation on the RF is definitely better, both because of the view through the EVF and because of a dedicated hardware lever that lets you go both in and out.

What I would've liked, on the Q, is a lever in the location where the frame line selector is on M cameras. That would've been a natural spot, I think.

That said, what I really really like about the Q cameras is the manual-focus design. I've never used a camera that transitions between AF and MF in such a satisfying way. I think that, for me, deciding between a Q3 and GFX100RF might come down to deciding which one I prioritize -- the manual-focus experience or the crop-to-zoom experience. 

If the feel of the MF focus ring on the GFX100RF is good, and if the focus-mode switch is easy to use without looking, it will work well for me. But that's the kind of thing I'll only be able to evaluate for myself, in person.

[hdmesa]

I looked at RAW sample files from the 100RF available online. Cancelled my preorder and ordered a Q3 43 (different FOV, I know). Maybe these initial RAW samples were subpar due to pre-production unit issues such as less than optimal lens element alignment, lens coatings not finalized, software distortion correction values that were not perfected, etc.