Leica Q3 or Fujifilm GFX 100RF

[Phatcat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, setuporg said:

Should have been the actual name of this forum.

Can’t disagree. 

[Dazzajl]

On 4/9/2025 at 12:39 PM, Chris W said:

By a 'large margin'? I highly doubt it.

I took an X1D2 on tour documenting people, places and events. The images were stunning. The only weakness was focussing in low light. But then the Fuji's f4 lens is going to be a low light handicap too.

 

On 4/9/2025 at 12:37 PM, Chris W said:

Based on my experience of several Fuji lenses, plus several Hasselblad and Leica lenses. The Fuji is a distant third.

 

I stand by the large margin. As long as a photographer is happy with their kit and getting the results they want, all is good. That doesn't mean it's the right tool for the job though, it just means that you're happy to work around the shortcomings for the system that you enjoy. The X system obviously makes incredible images, It also large, has extremely slow AF and lacks a precise focus point. As a documentary camera, MF is really not a big gain and almost any other modern camera will respond faster and give you more keepers.

There is a great photographer who made a series of Formula One images with a large format camera. A lot of them are what we'd call technically flawed but I think they're fabulous. I still wouldn't say that a LF camera is a good choice for action.

 

As for Fuji Lenses, if you don't like them and prefer Leica or Hassy that's great. Again, in this era of so many amazing camera systems and choice, we are spoilt and should use what suits us best. To suggest that they are in some way inferior though is way off the mark. I don't have any brand loyalty and I've shot with just about every brand and format over the last 35 years. I use GFX now because it currently suits my business the best. When that changes, I'll move. I have looked again at the Hassy X in the last few weeks, largely due to the singing praises on here and while I'd enjoy using it (it's undeniably the most gorgeous camera in the hand) I really wouldn't gain anywhere and I would lose functionality. I don't need a leaf shutter, my lights are more than powerful enough for me to use high speed sync and I do sometimes need the far better AF on the GFX100.

I've done some heavy pixel peeping on some lens comparisons (RAW files of course) and I had to get to 300% to see any discernible difference between Fuji and Hassy offerings. At that point, the Hassy had better line definition, the Fuji had better texture definition.  I'd say that in real terms, if you have to look that hard to split them, that's a distinction without a difference. I'd be very happy using either, they're fabulous. This doesn't surprise me at all, both companies are giants of medium format. Both started making MF cameras in the 1940s and while Hassy stuck to refining one incredible design, Fuji made dozens of different camera and lens types for different professional applications. This is what has made them peerless lens designers going into the digital era. That's not just my opinion. Clearly the bods as Hasselblad agree as it's Fuji they turned to for help in lens design when they entered the digital arena.

 

Jumping tracks a little, I completely agree with you about digital cropping. It's brilliantly implemented in the 100RF and quite possibly the future of camera design but I can't quite get behind the idea, it feels wrong to me and I think it would take away some of my shooting enjoyment. Maybe I need to drag myself up to date a bit? Maybe I should just stick to enjoying the manual focus, simple life of an M rangefinder

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, Dazzajl said:

 

 

I stand by the large margin. As long as a photographer is happy with their kit and getting the results they want, all is good. That doesn't mean it's the right tool for the job though, it just means that you're happy to work around the shortcomings for the system that you enjoy. The X system obviously makes incredible images, It also large, has extremely slow AF and lacks a precise focus point. As a documentary camera, MF is really not a big gain and almost any other modern camera will respond faster and give you more keepers.

There is a great photographer who made a series of Formula One images with a large format camera. A lot of them are what we'd call technically flawed but I think they're fabulous. I still wouldn't say that a LF camera is a good choice for action.

 

As for Fuji Lenses, if you don't like them and prefer Leica or Hassy that's great. Again, in this era of so many amazing camera systems and choice, we are spoilt and should use what suits us best. To suggest that they are in some way inferior though is way off the mark. I don't have any brand loyalty and I've shot with just about every brand and format over the last 35 years. I use GFX now because it currently suits my business the best. When that changes, I'll move. I have looked again at the Hassy X in the last few weeks, largely due to the singing praises on here and while I'd enjoy using it (it's undeniably the most gorgeous camera in the hand) I really wouldn't gain anywhere and I would lose functionality. I don't need a leaf shutter, my lights are more than powerful enough for me to use high speed sync and I do sometimes need the far better AF on the GFX100.

I've done some heavy pixel peeping on some lens comparisons (RAW files of course) and I had to get to 300% to see any discernible difference between Fuji and Hassy offerings. At that point, the Hassy had better line definition, the Fuji had better texture definition.  I'd say that in real terms, if you have to look that hard to split them, that's a distinction without a difference. I'd be very happy using either, they're fabulous. This doesn't surprise me at all, both companies are giants of medium format. Both started making MF cameras in the 1940s and while Hassy stuck to refining one incredible design, Fuji made dozens of different camera and lens types for different professional applications. This is what has made them peerless lens designers going into the digital era. That's not just my opinion. Clearly the bods as Hasselblad agree as it's Fuji they turned to for help in lens design when they entered the digital arena.

Much written above is wrong or misleading.

Hasselblad switched from Zeiss to Fuji for their H series (initially film) because of the cost. Fuji's involvement was finalizing lens designs and producing the glass for lenses and viewfinders.

[Dazzajl]

3 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Much written above is wrong or misleading.

Hasselblad switched from Zeiss to Fuji for their H series (initially film) because of the cost. Fuji's involvement was finalizing lens designs and producing the glass for lenses and viewfinders.

That depends on the conclusion you want to draw. As you state, Hasselblad went to Fuji for design and manufacturing. And why would you not, like Leica, they are not a large enough company to handle new tech projects on their own. I’d much rather see those two great names of the photography world collaborate with others than disappear. 
 

Although now Hasselblad are under the giant DJI umbrella, I’m hoping/expecting them to leapfrog just about everyone in merging optics with the best technology. 

[SrMi]

29 minutes ago, Dazzajl said:

That depends on the conclusion you want to draw. As you state, Hasselblad went to Fuji for design and manufacturing. . 

I did not state that. The design was by Hasselblad, Fuji finalized it so that they can produce the glass as specified. I do not know whether the lenses were assembled in Sweden or Japan. The central shutters were made in Sweden.

[Dazzajl]

11 minutes ago, SrMi said:

I did not state that. The design was by Hasselblad, Fuji finalized it so that they can produce the glass as specified. I do not know whether the lenses were assembled in Sweden or Japan. The central shutters were made in Sweden.

We can alter the wording back and forth but the essence remains. What Hasselblad could't accomplish in house, they could in a collaboration with Fuji. In the same way that what Leica couldn't do alone, they have together with Panasonic and Sigma. And of course all the above are getting sensors from Sony. This is the way now and if you're not Canon or Sony, you're not making a camera completely in house.

Some folks seem to get upset by the idea their Leica or Hasselblad are not the best there is but even the notion that there can be a best camera or lens is bizarre. Only a favourite or a best for the job in front of you. Both Leica and Hasselblad make living works of art that you can hold and make photographs with. If you enjoy the act of photography, can afford the entry price and live within what they offer, I think a person would be mad not to use them. Clients needs aside, I always value the journey as much, if not more than the destination. But to suggest that either of these companies offer products that technically match those of companies like Canon, Sony, Fuji etc that have arms dedicated to providing the best professional tools available is a little absurd.

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, Dazzajl said:

We can alter the wording back and forth but the essence remains. What Hasselblad could't accomplish in house, they could in a collaboration with Fuji. In the same way that what Leica couldn't do alone, they have together with Panasonic and Sigma. And of course all the above are getting sensors from Sony. This is the way now and if you're not Canon or Sony, you're not making a camera completely in house.

Some folks seem to get upset by the idea their Leica or Hasselblad are not the best there is but even the notion that there can be a best camera or lens is bizarre. Only a favourite or a best for the job in front of you. Both Leica and Hasselblad make living works of art that you can hold and make photographs with. If you enjoy the act of photography, can afford the entry price and live within what they offer, I think a person would be mad not to use them. Clients needs aside, I always value the journey as much, if not more than the destination. But to suggest that either of these companies offer products that technically match those of companies like Canon, Sony, Fuji etc that have arms dedicated to providing the best professional tools available is a little absurd.

I own and use Canon, Sony, and Fuji and they cannot touch Hasselblad or Leica, in my experience. For many people, however, a Canon, Nikon, Sony, or Fuji may be a better choice.

[steve edmunds]

On 3/26/2025 at 11:06 AM, Smogg said:

Q3/Q3 43 is a great camera, judging solely by the quality of the photos. However, the ergonomics, design and usability are somewhat specific and will not suit everyone. I always have the feeling that Q3 wants to change my habits, this camera is a little different from other cameras, I always experience minor inconveniences. In addition, in appearance, due to the unusual proportions, it reminds me of a pregnant woman in about 8 months 😂

with the hood and the filter adaptor on the fuji has the same proportions as the Q 

[Smogg]

26 minutes ago, steve edmunds said:

with the hood and the filter adaptor on the fuji has the same proportions as the Q 

Same depth but not proportions.

[steve edmunds]

2 hours ago, Smogg said:

Same depth but not proportions.

i wish you well with your new camera , i will be sticking with my Q2 but please let us know how you get on with the fuji because its a ground breaking camera of great interest.

[setuporg]

I’ve found Q343 to be a great focal length.  As much as I’ve enjoyed the original X100 and the Q2, there’s no going back to iPhonesque 28mm.

[Smogg]

6 hours ago, steve edmunds said:

i wish you well with your new camera , i will be sticking with my Q2 but please let us know how you get on with the fuji because its a ground breaking camera of great interest.

I will receive my GFX100RF tomorrow and will write my impressions in a week.

[Chris W]

20 hours ago, Dazzajl said:

We can alter the wording back and forth but the essence remains.

You effectively say all modern cameras are fantastic and each person will make a personal choice based on their needs. Which I agree with, but doesn't equate with this Fuji being better than an X2D by 'a large margin'. You may personally prefer one by a large margin?

[Chris W]

20 hours ago, Dazzajl said:

 

Some folks seem to get upset by the idea their Leica or Hasselblad are not the best there is but even the notion that there can be a best camera or lens is bizarre. Only a favourite or a best for the job in front of you.

Again, I don't think Leica or Hasselblad are 'the best'. You keep calling out people on stating their opinion on camera quality, then make your own unbalanced statement: by a large margin. You can't have it both ways.

[Smogg]

My camera arrived today. First impression: very light, but not very small. Something in between the Q3 and X2D in terms of feel. At the same time, the Fuji feels more compact than the A7RV with 40 2.5. The single-point focus is quite fast, but loses out to the Q3 in tenacity in low light significantly (which is not surprising due to the difference in maximum aperture). The build quality is very high, but it is not yet a Leica and certainly not a Hasselblad. It reminds me of the first Lexus cars, but there is still a lot of Toyota. You could say that the GFX100RF is modestly knocking on the lobby of the VIP box, where Leica and Hasselblad have long been comfortably located. The digital zoom is implemented fantastically conveniently!

[Dazzajl]

58 minutes ago, Smogg said:

My camera arrived today. First impression: very light, but not very small. Something in between the Q3 and X2D in terms of feel. At the same time, the Fuji feels more compact than the A7RV with 40 2.5. The single-point focus is quite fast, but loses out to the Q3 in tenacity in low light significantly (which is not surprising due to the difference in maximum aperture). The build quality is very high, but it is not yet a Leica and certainly not a Hasselblad. It reminds me of the first Lexus cars, but there is still a lot of Toyota. You could say that the GFX100RF is modestly knocking on the lobby of the VIP box, where Leica and Hasselblad have long been comfortably located. The digital zoom is implemented fantastically conveniently!

Will be very interesting to see what you think over the next few days/weeks. Many reviews out there but yours is the first opinion I’ve seen from someone who’s bought one with their own hard earned money. 

[Smogg]

1 hour ago, Dazzajl said:

Will be very interesting to see what you think over the next few days/weeks. Many reviews out there but yours is the first opinion I’ve seen from someone who’s bought one with their own hard earned money. 

One thing I can say with confidence already: X2D and M11 are head and shoulders above GFX100RF ergonomically. With Q3 28/43 the situation is not so clear for me yet.

[Dazzajl]

42 minutes ago, Smogg said:

One thing I can say with confidence already: X2D and M11 are head and shoulders above GFX100RF ergonomically. With Q3 28/43 the situation is not so clear for me yet.

This doesn’t surprise at all. Except the part about the Q cameras, which potentially speaks well for the RF. 

What I’ll be most interested to hear, is if you enjoy shooting with the Fuji? The GFX cameras have always been impressive in what they can achieve but, to me at least, never inspiring or much fun to shoot. 

[hexx]

On 4/12/2025 at 2:14 AM, setuporg said:

I’ve found Q343 to be a great focal length.  As much as I’ve enjoyed the original X100 and the Q2, there’s no going back to iPhonesque 28mm.

That’s something I’m pondering… should I try Q3 43? I have Q3 and before had M240 with 28 Summicron and 50 1.5 Nokton but also enjoyed shooting with good old Sigma DP2 Merrill (around 45mm) and really like photos from it - it’s the only Merrill I decided to keep. M240 and 28/2 were replaced by Q3.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[hexx]

15 hours ago, Smogg said:

My camera arrived today. First impression: very light, but not very small. Something in between the Q3 and X2D in terms of feel. At the same time, the Fuji feels more compact than the A7RV with 40 2.5. The single-point focus is quite fast, but loses out to the Q3 in tenacity in low light significantly (which is not surprising due to the difference in maximum aperture). The build quality is very high, but it is not yet a Leica and certainly not a Hasselblad. It reminds me of the first Lexus cars, but there is still a lot of Toyota. You could say that the GFX100RF is modestly knocking on the lobby of the VIP box, where Leica and Hasselblad have long been comfortably located. The digital zoom is implemented fantastically conveniently!

How is the manual focus implemented? Really hated the one on the original X100 - haven’t tried models that followed it.