Leica Q3 or Fujifilm GFX 100RF

[Chris W]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 minutes ago, Dazzajl said:

Pretty much. The version in the GFX and Hasselblad cameras is just a larger slice of chip. The construction and pixel density are equal. 
 

When Sony make and supply such great tech, there’s little point in the smaller companies trying to match it on their own. 

There are other important factors, such as the way the system processes the sensor information, AND the quality of the lenses.

[Dazzajl]

17 minutes ago, Chris W said:

They all resolve differently though. Firstly there is the lens, then there is the way the software handles the sensor.

The Hasselblad is noted for it's amazing colour. Between the Hassy X system (which I own) and this Fuji, I would definitely choose the Hassy. It's just as ergonomic and the colours are fabulous. 

This is all very true and part of why I shoot with the GFX system. If it was for my own personal pleasure I’d much more likely have chosen the hasselblad but for commercial work I don’t want an artificially enhanced colour palette, I need a realistic and malleable file to process to my clients requirements.

Again, all comes back to how lucky we are to be in this golden age of choice. 

Edited March 22 by Dazzajl

[Smogg]

9 minutes ago, Chris W said:

They all resolve differently though. Firstly there is the lens, then there is the way the software handles the sensor.

The Hasselblad is noted for it's amazing colour. Between the Hassy X system (which I own) and this Fuji, I would definitely choose the Hassy. It's just as ergonomic and the colours are fabulous. 

Of course, you are right. I wrote about the sameness, meaning the basic sensor that Sony produces. There are many other factors that influence the final image. However, the common sensor also gives the files common properties, such as elasticity in post-processing, noise, and so on.

[JNK100]

15 minutes ago, Dazzajl said:

This is all very true and part of why I shoot with the GFX system. If it was for my own personal pleasure I’d much more likely have chosen the hasselblad but for commercial work I don’t want an artificially enhanced colour palette, I need a realistic and malleable file to process to my clients requirements.

Again, all comes back to how lucky we are to be in this golden age of choice. 

I believe there are more differences . Otherwise Nikon, Sony and Leica output would be the same which they are not.

 

[M11 for me]

vor 10 Minuten schrieb JNK100:

I believe there are more differences . Otherwise Nikon, Sony and Leica output would be the same which they are not.

 

I never really understand these things. Did we not repeatedly learn that the design (is this the right term?) of the sensor is made by Leica. Is it meant the Bayer Filter and its lens design etc? What really does Leica contribute?

Edited March 22 by M11 for me

[Chris W]

27 minutes ago, Dazzajl said:

I’d much more likely have chosen the hasselblad but for commercial work I don’t want an artificially enhanced colour palette, I need a realistic and malleable file to process to my clients requirements.

 

That's odd, because the Hasselblad colours are widely regarded as the best of any camera system, requiring the least amount of work to look real life, almost the exact opposite of an 'artificially enhanced colour palette'.

[Dazzajl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 minutes ago, JNK100 said:

I believe there are more differences . Otherwise Nikon, Sony and Leica output would be the same which they are not.

 

Using the same sensor is like three chefs using the same beef in a stew. You’re not going to get the same stew. 
 

However, how confident are you that you’d pick correctly in a blind test of the same shot, with the same lens on those three cameras? I’ve played this game lots of times with cameras, lenses, guitars and amps etc and the main thing I’ve learned is how much we see and hear through our preconceptions. 

[Chris W]

2 minutes ago, M11 for me said:

I never really understand these things. 

Each sensor design is processed slightly differently in camera according to the manufacturer's philosophy.

 

[Dazzajl]

1 minute ago, Chris W said:

That's odd, because the Hasselblad colours are widely regarded as the best of any camera system, requiring the least amount of work to look real life, almost the exact opposite of an 'artificially enhanced colour palette'.

They might be regarded as such in marketing material and via web content but that’s not my experience in the real world. I don’t know any commercial snappers that use Hasselblad and that’s for a variety of reasons. It’s not a fully rounded and mature system, like you get from Canon, Nikon, Sony or Fuji. It’s a bespoke, niche, designer and boutique system. Which is very wonderful and offers something different to the main crowd. In much the way that Leica does too. 
 

I should be very clear that because the GFX kit is much better for my needs, that does not mean I consider it the best system there is. It’s a truly fabulous work tool and I appreciate it hugely. I never reach for it when I’m not at work though. My current love is a M246 which couldn’t be further from a fully rounded and capable camera. 

[M11 for me]

vor 18 Minuten schrieb Chris W:

Each sensor design is processed slightly differently in camera according to the manufacturer's philosophy.

 

🤔 . . .

But it's ok. I believe that the subject is complex. If I understand you correctly you mean that only in the camera software there are differences. I wonder if that would be correct. Did not Leica alter (or design) the lenses on top of the sensels (pixels) especially to anticipate the special situation in the M cameras?

[LocalHero1953]

31 minutes ago, Dazzajl said:

They might be regarded as such in marketing material and via web content but that’s not my experience in the real world. I don’t know any commercial snappers that use Hasselblad and that’s for a variety of reasons. It’s not a fully rounded and mature system, like you get from Canon, Nikon, Sony or Fuji. It’s a bespoke, niche, designer and boutique system. Which is very wonderful and offers something different to the main crowd. In much the way that Leica does too. 

All those sound like very valid reasons for choosing systems other than Hasselblad for commercial work. Add price to those. But that's nothing to do with colours and whether Hasselblad's are 'artificially enhanced' as you say, which is why the question was asked.

Edited March 22 by LocalHero1953

[JNK100]

25 minutes ago, M11 for me said:

🤔 . . .

But it's ok. I believe that the subject is complex. If I understand you correctly you mean that only in the camera software there are differences. I wonder if that would be correct. Did not Leica alter (or design) the lenses on top of the sensels (pixels) especially to anticipate the special situation in the M cameras?

Yes, this is the case and has been discussed in the LFI magazine.

[JNK100]

44 minutes ago, Dazzajl said:

They might be regarded as such in marketing material and via web content but that’s not my experience in the real world. I don’t know any commercial snappers that use Hasselblad and that’s for a variety of reasons. It’s not a fully rounded and mature system, like you get from Canon, Nikon, Sony or Fuji. It’s a bespoke, niche, designer and boutique system. Which is very wonderful and offers something different to the main crowd. In much the way that Leica does too. 
 

I should be very clear that because the GFX kit is much better for my needs, that does not mean I consider it the best system there is. It’s a truly fabulous work tool and I appreciate it hugely. I never reach for it when I’m not at work though. My current love is a M246 which couldn’t be further from a fully rounded and capable camera. 

I cannot believe that no one uses a Hasselblad commercially.

[algrove]

Even though I own GFX cameras, I will stick with my Q's for a fixed lens camera option. The lenses alone are my main reason.

[Dazzajl]

12 minutes ago, JNK100 said:

I cannot believe that no one uses a Hasselblad commercially.

I’m absolutely sure they do. I’m saying I don’t know anyone who does. Of all the working snappers I know or meet out in the field, Canon and Sony are by far the market leaders. Nikon and Fuji make up pretty much all of the rest. It’s very hard to make a commercial case for buying Leica or Hasselblad when other companies make more robust and technically advanced product, with equal or better optics for less money. 
 

We use a lot of DJI kit on the video side of the business and they have become a real industry leader. Now they own Hasselblad, this could all change very quickly when they’re ready to do more than just put the name on the front of drones. 

[Smogg]

37 minutes ago, algrove said:

Even though I own GFX cameras, I will stick with my Q's for a fixed lens camera option. The lenses alone are my main reason.

It's funny, I have the opposite. Even though I don't like the Fuji colors (I have to mess around with it longer in post-processing), I really like the new camera based on the reviews. First of all, because of the compact lens and ergonomics. It all depends on the application. I rarely shoot with an aperture wider than f8 and slower than 1/125.

[Phatcat]

2 hours ago, Chris W said:

Each sensor design is processed slightly differently in camera according to the manufacturer's philosophy.

 

Yeah while the sensor designs are the same, the processors and SW are not the same. Sensors just take in the information, it’s up to the processors and SW to interpret the information. 

 

Edit: forgot about lens, plays a role too. 

Edited March 22 by Phatcat

[Telemetric]

Good afternoon,  
Right now I’m in Prague testing the Fuji GFX 100 RX, as the brand invited me to the launch and has lent me a unit for a few months. After using it intensively for two days, I’m starting to form an opinion about it.

However, I’d like to clarify that I’m not an influencer or a YouTuber. I’m a professional photographer and I use Sony for work (A7RV and A7CR) and Leica for my personal photos (M10-P and M11-P). I’ve also tested the SL and Q range from Leica.

In fact, I’m a Sony collaborator and I’m also currently in talks with Leica to become one, since I’m a travel and documentary photographer and both brands are interested in photographers who give talks on those topics.

So, I’m not a Fuji ambassador, nor has the brand paid me.

They invited me to the presentation because back in 2019 — if I remember correctly — they lent me a 50R to do a photographic report in Berlin. That camera turned out to be a disaster: terrible autofocus, very ugly noise from ISO 2000 upwards, and it was also big and heavy. I ended up returning it, stating that there were better cameras for my professional work. So I went to this new model's presentation with low expectations.

Here are my thoughts so far.  
I'm going to talk about the camera from the perspective of the kind of photography I do: documentary and reportage (mainly travel). First, the visual aspect. It’s subjective, of course, but while the black version is discreet and elegant, the silver one seems too eye-catching and bulky. I don’t think the silver color does it any favors. That’s why, when I saw them, I chose a black unit. It feels comfortable in hand and is not heavy at all.

It doesn’t have IBIS, but the leaf shutter is among the best I’ve seen. It makes ZERO noise. None. It feels like an electronic shutter. Also, it causes no vibrations in the camera, which largely compensates for the lack of IBIS. Yesterday I took photos inside a nuclear bunker here in Prague with very little light, at 1/5s, and they turned out fine. It also helps that the lens is the full-frame equivalent of a 28mm. Speaking of the lens, I think it’s a great choice because with 102 MP you can crop and still get files with excellent resolution. In fact, you can crop directly in-camera using a selector, so it’s almost like having multiple focal lengths. But be careful: even if you crop, the depth of field remains that of a 28mm. I don’t mind it being f/4 either — it's roughly the equivalent of f/2.8 on full frame. For my type of photography (again, documentary and reportage), I prefer a compact lens over a very fast one if the latest has to be bigger.

This lens isn’t really meant for close-up portraits with heavy bokeh, although it does a decent job if needed. While there are better cameras for this, you can also do some street photography with it, since the autofocus — finally — is good for a medium format. It’s not my A7RV, which is a focusing marvel, but it’s not fair to compare them, as the Fuji’s sensor is larger, so it has to work harder to focus. Still, it holds up well against Leica’s Q and SL in terms of focusing speed.

I personally really like the chosen focal length — more than a 35mm. It’s my “natural” focal length for documentary and reportage because being a bit wider than 35mm makes it more comfortable for storytelling and interiors. So for me, a 10/10 on that front. If it were a 35mm, I’d probably disregard it entirely. The viewfinder is good, the screen too, the menus are easy and customizable, and the RAW files aren’t larger than my A7RV’s if I shoot using lossless compressed RAW.

One thing that needs improvement (seriously) is the rear joystick. It’s a bit stiff to operate, which isn’t a big issue in itself, but the problem is that it has anti-slip ridges that, when you're walking with the camera hanging from your neck or shoulder, end up literally tearing your sweater. Several of us came back with ripped sweaters in the front or on one side (depending on how you carry the camera) because of that. It rubs like sandpaper and destroys the fabric.

As for image quality, it seems good so far, and the colors too, but I’ll let you know more on Monday when I see the files on a big screen. For now, I’m working on a MacBook Air and not really processing in the hotel — I’m just using the laptop to offload images to an external drive.

I’m using the camera intensively, about 8 hours a day, and I’ll keep sharing more details.

Is it better than the Leica Q?  
For what I do, yes. Again — for what "I" do. It’s a camera clearly designed for documentary photography, both in terms of focal length and performance. Honestly, it’s the first Fuji I’d seriously consider buying, and I’d choose it over the Leica Q without hesitation.

Cheers!

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!

 

 

 

 

[BobsFirstLeica]

1 hour ago, Dazzajl said:

I’m absolutely sure they do. I’m saying I don’t know anyone who does. Of all the working snappers I know or meet out in the field, Canon and Sony are by far the market leaders. Nikon and Fuji make up pretty much all of the rest. It’s very hard to make a commercial case for buying Leica or Hasselblad when other companies make more robust and technically advanced product, with equal or better optics for less money. 
 

We use a lot of DJI kit on the video side of the business and they have become a real industry leader. Now they own Hasselblad, this could all change very quickly when they’re ready to do more than just put the name on the front of drones. 

I use GFX professionally over Hassy or Leica for one reason: Service/Repair.  If a problem arises I can get my gear serviced within days.  What I’ve read and heard about the 2 mentioned are long waits.  I am not dependent on my Q3’s so service is not a big issue.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Dazzajl]

9 minutes ago, BobsFirstLeica said:

I use GFX professionally over Hassy or Leica for one reason: Service/Repair.  If a problem arises I can get my gear serviced within days.  What I’ve read and heard about the 2 mentioned are long waits.  I am not dependent on my Q3’s so service is not a big issue.  

Fuji service is excellent and efficient. I know this because I’ve used it as much in 5 years as I did Canon in 20. Read into that what you will folks……