Leica Q3 or Fujifilm GFX 100RF

[Me Leica!]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As someone who's currently considering a Q2 (not 3) and who has used one of Fuji's GFX cameras in the past (the original 50s), I was certainly curious about the 100RF when I heard about it. And Jonas Rask, who's an ex Fuji ambassador type and still seems to be involved in some of their marketing, always makes a good case for Fuji.

However, using the 50S left me cold. It produced fantastic files, absolutely no question, but the user experience was pretty...meh.

OTOH, when I tried out a Q2 in a local store recently, it instantly "felt right". That's obviously a completely subjective matter, but to me if you don't enjoy a camera, you're not going to use it.

There's also the difference in approach; I would imagine that the Fuji includes every trick in the book stuffed into that body, whereas Leica's more about "this is what you need to take a picture, and that's what you get, now you can go out and shoot without reading a 200 page manual".

I'm a Mac user, and when I looked up the currently supported RAW files for the IOS I'm on, it did list the GFX100s but with the caveat "uncompressed raw only", i.e. huge files to work with. If I shot landscape and nothing else, that might be worth it, but I live in one of the most urban areas on the planet, so as much as I enjoy a good landscape, I can't just walk outside and see one.

 

[colonel]

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

Edited April 3 by colonel

[JNK100]

12 hours ago, Me Leica! said:

As someone who's currently considering a Q2 (not 3) and who has used one of Fuji's GFX cameras in the past (the original 50s), I was certainly curious about the 100RF when I heard about it. And Jonas Rask, who's an ex Fuji ambassador type and still seems to be involved in some of their marketing, always makes a good case for Fuji.

However, using the 50S left me cold. It produced fantastic files, absolutely no question, but the user experience was pretty...meh.

OTOH, when I tried out a Q2 in a local store recently, it instantly "felt right". That's obviously a completely subjective matter, but to me if you don't enjoy a camera, you're not going to use it.

There's also the difference in approach; I would imagine that the Fuji includes every trick in the book stuffed into that body, whereas Leica's more about "this is what you need to take a picture, and that's what you get, now you can go out and shoot without reading a 200 page manual".

I'm a Mac user, and when I looked up the currently supported RAW files for the IOS I'm on, it did list the GFX100s but with the caveat "uncompressed raw only", i.e. huge files to work with. If I shot landscape and nothing else, that might be worth it, but I live in one of the most urban areas on the planet, so as much as I enjoy a good landscape, I can't just walk outside and see one.

 

I agree: a camera you love using will always be better than one you merely respect.

[Smogg]

5 hours ago, 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

For me, everything is completely different and I have already put my Q3 43 up for sale, waiting for the GFX100RF to arrive. I practically do not need open apertures, I like the form factor and control of the RF much more. The focus in all modes on the GFX100SII seemed better to me than on the Q3 and I hope that it will be no worse on the RF.

It is good when there are cameras on the market that satisfy different needs. 
Only M11 is an irreplaceable camera for me because of the rangefinder (until M12 comes out😉).

[steve edmunds]

going to stick with my Q2 and wait for the Q4 before i upgrade , good video from three blind men and a donkey or something which made sense to me and was very thorough,

Edited April 4 by jaapv
vulgarism removed

[batian]

 

Hi together,

Interesting question... if the GFX100RF had come earlier, I might have considered it. Now that I've had the Q3 for a year, I see it as more suitable for my purposes. There are three things that would prevent me from getting a GFX100RF:

1. The rather slow lens
2. The lack of IBIS/OIS
3. The data volumes are too large for an ‘always-with-you camera’

The third point is perhaps a bit strange, but it is crucial for me. I can still imagine using a GFX100S/II or something like that for certain things. But a GFX100RF would be like the Q3 for me, the only camera. And I don't want to always have 200MB files. The RAWs from the Leica are large enough.

It's a cool camera, somehow, but after 13 years with Fujifilm, I have completely said goodbye to them and will stick with a Leica Q3 as my only camera.

Whoever is interested in more details and wants to read more about the reasons, I have written more than enough about it... puh... 😉

Initial review: https://peterpoete.de/leica-q3-an-immoral-temptation/

After six months: https://peterpoete.de/my-first-six-months-with-the-leica-q3/

After one year: https://peterpoete.de/one-camera-one-lens-one-year-leica-q3/

 

[JNK100]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, batian said:

 

Hi together,

Interesting question... if the GFX100RF had come earlier, I might have considered it. Now that I've had the Q3 for a year, I see it as more suitable for my purposes. There are three things that would prevent me from getting a GFX100RF:

1. The rather slow lens
2. The lack of IBIS/OIS
3. The data volumes are too large for an ‘always-with-you camera’

The third point is perhaps a bit strange, but it is crucial for me. I can still imagine using a GFX100S/II or something like that for certain things. But a GFX100RF would be like the Q3 for me, the only camera. And I don't want to always have 200MB files. The RAWs from the Leica are large enough.

It's a cool camera, somehow, but after 13 years with Fujifilm, I have completely said goodbye to them and will stick with a Leica Q3 as my only camera.

Whoever is interested in more details and wants to read more about the reasons, I have written more than enough about it... puh... 😉

Initial review: https://peterpoete.de/leica-q3-an-immoral-temptation/

After six months: https://peterpoete.de/my-first-six-months-with-the-leica-q3/

After one year: https://peterpoete.de/one-camera-one-lens-one-year-leica-q3/

Interesting article. I am of the same opinion!

[Smogg]

5 hours ago, batian said:

 

Hi together,

Interesting question... if the GFX100RF had come earlier, I might have considered it. Now that I've had the Q3 for a year, I see it as more suitable for my purposes. There are three things that would prevent me from getting a GFX100RF:

1. The rather slow lens
2. The lack of IBIS/OIS
3. The data volumes are too large for an ‘always-with-you camera’

The third point is perhaps a bit strange, but it is crucial for me. I can still imagine using a GFX100S/II or something like that for certain things. But a GFX100RF would be like the Q3 for me, the only camera. And I don't want to always have 200MB files. The RAWs from the Leica are large enough.

It's a cool camera, somehow, but after 13 years with Fujifilm, I have completely said goodbye to them and will stick with a Leica Q3 as my only camera.

Whoever is interested in more details and wants to read more about the reasons, I have written more than enough about it... puh... 😉

Initial review: https://peterpoete.de/leica-q3-an-immoral-temptation/

After six months: https://peterpoete.de/my-first-six-months-with-the-leica-q3/

After one year: https://peterpoete.de/one-camera-one-lens-one-year-leica-q3/

 

If you use Compressed Lossless, the files will be much smaller (about 135Mb).

[batian]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb Smogg:

If you use Compressed Lossless, the files will be much smaller (about 135Mb).

Hi,

you are right, of course. I had somehow suppressed that. I just looked at my files from the GFX100S (which I no longer have), which were also between 115 and 125 MB in size when compressed. Somehow, I only remembered the uncompressed format as the size. But to be honest, even that would still be too big for me... even the 80 MB of the Q3 I find borderline. But of course it is very individual how you can handle it.

[Jskywalker]

How’s the low light performance of the Gfx100RF compared to Q2 or Q3 ?

couldn’t find any reviews on this…

[Le Chef]

3 hours ago, Jskywalker said:

couldn’t find any reviews on this…

Wait for DPR or PetaPixel to publish a trustworthy review. 

[Dazzajl]

3 hours ago, Jskywalker said:

How’s the low light performance of the Gfx100RF compared to Q2 or Q3 ?

couldn’t find any reviews on this…

It should be very similar to the Q3. Both cameras use essentially the same sensor from Sony, the Fuji just has a bigger slice of it.

[batian]

vor 13 Stunden schrieb Jskywalker:

How’s the low light performance of the Gfx100RF compared to Q2 or Q3 ?

couldn’t find any reviews on this…

I agree with Dazzajl... it should be very similar. If you want to check it out a little bit, you already can.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison

They already have the Q3 43 and the GFX100S in the database... if you compare the RAWs, this should be good enough to estimate...

[SrMi]

15 hours ago, Jskywalker said:

How’s the low light performance of the Gfx100RF compared to Q2 or Q3 ?

couldn’t find any reviews on this…

It should be the same as between GFX100 and Q2/Q3. GFX100RF should be better for the same exposure than Q2 or Q3 (GFX has a larger sensor). However, Q cameras have stabilization, which allows longer exposures. If a slower shutter speed is possible (subject movement), Q cameras should have better low-light performance.

GFX100 vs Q3 43 at ISO 6400.

[Qwertynm]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

It should be the same as between GFX100 and Q2/Q3. GFX100RF should be better for the same exposure than Q2 or Q3 (GFX has a larger sensor). However, Q cameras have stabilization, which allows longer exposures. If a slower shutter speed is possible (subject movement), Q cameras should have better low-light performance.

GFX100 vs Q3 43 at ISO 6400.

I know this wasn't the aim but it was interesting to see how the skin tones compare in this test. Looks much too yellow for the fuji and more natural on the Q3 on my display (Apple Studio Display). For the uninitiated: is this test image comparing at pixel level? because if so, the Q3 image should show a wider FoV because of the lower resolution, no? Seems not apples to apples at first glance but I'm not familiar with this comparison tbh.

[SrMi]

2 minutes ago, Qwertynm said:

I know this wasn't the aim but it was interesting to see how the skin tones compare in this test. Looks much too yellow for the fuji and more natural on the Q3 on my display (Apple Studio Display). For the uninitiated: is this test image comparing at pixel level? because if so, the Q3 image should show a wider FoV because of the lower resolution, no? Seems not apples to apples at first glance but I'm not familiar with this comparison tbh.

In the link provided, you can compare at pixel level or the same size (buttons on top right).

I do not think that conparison is useful for color comparison, but you van download the raw and jpegs to compare.

[Forty3]

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!

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Thanks for the chart.

Personally, I’ve never been into *cropping*, except for aspect ratio changes and very rarely in post. This is because I print. I do thin k that this is what Fuji intend for this camera and that’s great for those that really do see this way. I don’t. I’m far more likely to stitch than crop. The X100 has some lens adaptors and I wouldn’t be entirely shocked if some appeared for this camera as well.

Generally, including me as a printer, we don’t really need more IQ or pixels often. Fuji is betting on this, with the GFX-RF. When Leica said the differences between brands was really handling and interface (SL3 release) they were right. If you get on with the focal length, UI and menus you’ll love this. In all three cases I have another camera or two I’d prefer. With the IBIS of the X2D and OIS of the Q3 and Q3 43 I’d find the RF limiting not liberating. I have three GFX cameras and I know I’m not super keen on the menus.

Matt Granger just dropped his video and while I often think his videos lack any real substance, I basically feel like he does on the RF. Cool. Interesting. Intriguing.But there are other options and you really need to want the small differences the RF offers over the Q3 or X2D.

Gordon

[Smogg]

I don't think it makes sense to compare the technical characteristics of the Q3, X2D and GFX100RF head-on. The RF offers digital zoom in a very convenient form and with sufficient quality. This is the most attractive feature of this camera, making it very versatile as a daily camera. The Q3 has digital zoom, but the implementation is very primitive. The X2D offers various crop options, but does not offer digital zoom (I would have dreamed of it) and weighs 500 grams more with the 38V, which is a noticeable difference in weight.

Edited April 7 by Smogg

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[ckern]

1 hour ago, Smogg said:

The RF offers digital zoom in a very convenient form and with sufficient quality. This is the most attractive feature of this camera, making it very versatile as a daily camera. The Q3 has digital zoom, but the implementation is very primitive.

This is one of the most significant advantages of the Fuji—and, I suspect, one that would be easy for Leica to erase because the basic functionality to zoom the viewfinder image is already present in the Q3 as a focusing aid.  I would like to think that Leica would incorporate a similar feature in a firmware patch (although I'm not holding my metaphorical breath).