Leica Q3 or Fujifilm GFX 100RF

[Qwertynm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

[Advertisement]

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

[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

[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).

[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

[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]

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.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[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.