Q3 vs fuji

[luisdent]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ok  i got a q3 28. Been using it a while. I like it a lot! But it's created a new dilemma.

I had anticipated that if i loved it i might replace a few fuji primes with it. I've done some detailed comparisons and side by side the q3 can easily replace the fuji 18 1.4 and 23 1.4. no question for my needs. It matches or exceeds the sharpness and background separation. The 33 1.4 is where it gets a bit tough. The 33 has a bit more separation and at the crop equivalent the q3 is lower resolution even if similar in sharpness. So maybe it's good enough, but I'd say the 33 is the upper limit and probably a bit better for what it is vs the q3.

So... The q3 28 really has me considering the q3 43 as a 2nd camera, amazing lens, weather sealed solution. 2 q3 cameras and nothing else! Ha. But I'd have to give up all my fuji gear to get one.

However, that means no telephoto lenses! Even if it's only a small percentage of my shots, they are some of my favorite. I know the q3 43 crops well too. But realistically it isn't going to give me a high res 200mm f2 lens. 😛

Anyhow, that makes me think i need to keep my fuji gear. But with the new xe5, I'm hesitant to keep ANY q3. Yes, i like it more. But the 18 1.4 and 33 1.4 are reasonably comparable if you aren't cropping. And then i can throw on a 50, 90, 200, whatever...

I'm going to give the q3 28 at least 6 months to see what i think. However, for me the goal was as small and compact a camera setup i can get with the most versatility and quality. Q3 is it. Xe5 and one or two lenses is second best. Sony a7cr is third best (lenses are all bigger or slower). So i guess the dilemma is whether i should keep the leica q3, xe5 and a set of lenses, or sell the q3 and stick with one camera and a few small lenses so that i have the option for other lenses when needed.

Some things i didn't expect is that the editing is very different. Not even better or worse. But adjustments on the q3 look nothing like the same adjustments on the fuji, even with matched color profiles. So workflow is a bit less ideal as i need to account for two system's looks. Also  when i want more zoom and i grab my fuji, it takes up a lot more space to have the q3 and fuji than it does to have the fuji and simply add the 18 1.4 lens.

I could just use the q3 when i only have one camera, and that's a valid option. But if I'm keeping my wider lenses I'm tempted to just use the xe5 instead and add lenses as needed. Less choices. Less swapping gear.

Anyhow, this might just be a flow of thought to help myself. Ha. Anyone else have this dilemma? And what did you do? Obviously on a leica forum you probably kept the q3. Haha. Or went m11. But that is price prohibitive and lacks some features i desire.

Edited September 26 by luisdent

[Advertisement]

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

[LocalHero1953]

Answering your questions "what would you do?" or "what did you do?" in the broadest possible sense, I started by thinking about photography, not gear: what photos do I really, really want to take, and what photos are unimportant? Is it just FOMO that makes me want a long telephoto or very wide lens? And what is it that makes my photos actually better? Beyond a certain base quality, do the cameras and lenses make any difference at all? Wouldn't I be better getting kit that makes me want to use it, and then gets out of the way and lets me capture the images I want? Then look at my photos and ask: what do I have to do to make these photos better?

Once I started thinking this way, having the full range of kit became less important; starting with something simple, like the Q3 28, and trying to take the best photos I could with it, avoiding looking at the grass in the other brand's garden, and keeping going until I realised that the next milestone in my photography could only be reached by another item (not the full range of all possible lenses or cameras).

Perhaps you could start by telling us what sort of photography you have done, what you want to do now, and what is wrong with your photos that a new camera or lens would help with? 

[Chris W]

The Q system produces fantastic image quality and having owned a few Fuji I preferred the Q files to the Fuji. Nicer colours, more detail.

I'm not a fan of 28mm, so have moved away from a Q. I don't think any Fuji lens is a match for the Q 28mm or 43mm.

The M system is a whole different ball game and seems like it wouldn't suit your way of working.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

The Q is not a system camera, and despite the cropping hype from Leica, it is unlikely to cover a full range of focal lengths if you want to use your files beyond the web and quite small prints. The Q works best for photographers who tend to stick to one lens for all the work they want the Q to do, be it a 28 or 43. It sounds like from what you are describing that the Q is the wrong camera for you. Adding a Q3 43 doesn't really fit with your compact argument...what's more compact: 2 full cameras and lenses, or one system camera with an extra lens or two? 

Edited September 27 by Stuart Richardson

[Dazzajl]

If it’s possible, I’d probably keep both. They are two fantastic cameras and offer a very different proposition to the user. The Q makes you adapt your shooting to what is it is and the X will adapt to whatever you’re shooting. There is definitely an equal place for both ways. 

[Oxfordian]

I would try to keep both, whilst I use my Q3 for most of my photography there are times when I need the adaptability of a zoom, or wide angle greater than 28mm, and even a telephoto on occasions, so my SL2 kit is invaluable.

[jlnevill]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been inside the Fuji ecosystem since 2012, only bought a Q3 this year and had a similar dilemma. I have owned and used most Fuji glass and agree the Q3 is premium at 28-35mm and maybe 50mm at a pinch (~19mpx). So after much deliberation, I now use Q3 and XT5 with XF14 and XF50 f2 for 90% of my travel/landscape needs. If needs must, I'll add in a XF55-200 for lighter tele duties or a 100-400 for wildlife. 

[costa43]

It depends on your genre of photography really. If you just need a walk around everyday camera to document life/family/travels then one Q is enough in my opinion, either Q will be perfect for this type of photography, just pick the focal length you prefer. I could live with just a 35mm or 40mm as my only lens. In fact, I would suggest it to people as a way to really improve composition.

I’m not a big fan of heavy cropping as I think you lose tonal quality and not just resolution so if I wanted reach, I would retain a system camera with a set of lenses for those occasions. What sort of photos do you enjoy taking?

[luisdent]

.

Ok. Many replies. I'll try to respond to them all.

First of all, the purpose of all of this is 75% size and weight and 25% quality.

Been doing photography since the 90s and have been on fuji x system for about 7 years now. With fuji I've been spoiled by the small size but there were always times the quality didn't cut it for me. To each their own, but f2 on apsc is not to my desired quality in low light or background separation. So i bought into - and love - the new 1.4 fuji lenses. But over time i have second guessed the size of the faster lenses in an attempt to keep things compact and light.

To give an idea of my preferences, I love the 18 and 33. I have many other fuii lenses as well including:

16 2.8
23 1.4 mk1
35 1.4
50 f2
56 1.2 mk2
90 f2
55-200
16-55 2.8 mk2
18-55 2.8-4

...And i can easily say i like the faster glass a lot and the others only reasonably well. I also did a report of all my focal length and aperture usage from the last few years. Specifically the keepers after culling. And the breakdown is roughly:

18mm - 51%
33mm - 19%
56mm - 20%
90mm - 5%
200mm - 5%

Only 10% above 90mm... But things aren't that simple. The shots from my 90 and 55-200 are some of my favorite shots ever.

Anyhow, over time I've been learning my favorite focal lengths and how i shoot. And I've also been finding i much prefer limitations to a degree and keeping things as small and light as possible as i often carry my gear for long periods. So that got me looking around at all the possible options that might be more compact or all-in-one. Since 70% of my shots are 18-33mm I figured if i could find a solution that covered that in one lens/camera i could have an awesome compact setup. enter the q3...

As to what i shoot. Everything. Really. I will walk a city and take street photos. Professional portraits. Event photography (weddings, airshows, ren fests, car shows, etc.) Astrophotography. Landscapes. Animals. Kids. Products. And just plain whatever i see that catches my eye, which is why i carry a camera 24/7.

Now if i had to focus on what i love the most it would be portraits (mainly environmental), landscapes, and general edc stuff i happen to see..

So over time I've gravitated towards the most minimal fuji kit i could with 2 lenses - the 18 and 33 1.4. i can edc the 18 alone and add the 33 for short travel and add longer lenses for longer travel and specific use cases. For a while i also had the x100v and then the x100vi. I had a love hate relationship with them. Love the size. Hate the f2 and 23 mm lens attributes. Not a big 23 guy (35 ff). Tried the wcl. Was ok. But I'd rather use the 18 1.4 on the xe5 for the major quality gains.

Long story short, after coming to all of these conclusions, awareness of the Q3 started growing, and I was always intrigued but thought it was out of my price range. But the more I saw it, the more I considered possibly trying one. Ultimately I decided maybe if it could replace at least two of my Fuji lenses such as the 18 and 33 with one single lens camera that is also higher quality, then selling those lenses and buying a used Q3 wouldn't be such a bad proposition. And that's precisely what I did. Although I haven't sold those lenses yet, as I'm still considering the options and wanted to try it first before letting go of two excellent lenses.

So there are ups and downs. In the end I just started considering all use cases together. Having the Q3 as my EDC camera and my fuji cameras as my travel and more dedicated camera is a valid option. But if I'm going to travel and need longer lenses, taking the Q3 and a Fuji body with lenses seems to be more bulky and is a different shooting experience swapping cameras rather than lenses. I'm still not sure if I like that more or less. Sticking with fuji and multiple lenses keeps things compact and simple, but as an edc one camera option it isn't as flexible as the q3 for when i keep things super compact.

Forgive the long post, but again some of this is just more stream of thought as I think about these things. 

In an ideal world if the Q3 had interchangeable lenses, I would keep the 28 and add a 50 and perhaps an 85 or something tele and that would probably suffice. Even the q3 43 isn't that far from 28 so i question how beneficial having both would be... Butthere is no interchangeable Q3. So do I stick with the Q3 and just sacrifice all tele shots? Do i use the q3 and fuji? Or just stick with fuji?

I would give anything for a dlux 8 that was q3 quality and a 1.7 28-50 summilix. Or perhaps a q3 16-200 1.2  apo 🤣 Haha. A man can dream.

Anyhow. I appreciate the comments. Anything is helpful to get me thinking. And i will continue to use the q3 for a while. i have a trip to the Adirondacks coming up soon to give it a good run... I think i'll take the q3 and my xe5 with 50 and 90mm. see how it goes.

 

Edited September 28 by luisdent

[Mr Perceptive]

6 months ago, I had a Q3 and a brace of X-T3s with a bucketload of lenses. I was using the 35mm F1.4 a lot but finding significant chromatic aberation wide open (very nociteable on motorports decals). I went to WEX in the UK and tried the 33mm F1.4, and was surprised to see that on hard back/white edges wide open this had teh same effect, not quite as bad as the older lens but still there. Went for some food, and thinking, went back and left with a Q3 43

Since then I have sold almost all the Fuji gear, have kept an X-T3 and XF100-400 for motorsport use, but an very happy with teh Q3 and Q3 43 as a two camera setup.

Now I know this is an expensive solution, and one I feel very fortunate to own (and I have sold about £3ks worth of Fuji kit to get here), but I have abolsutely no regrets, and have options of taking one camera or both cameras dpending on what I'm shooting. Just a general hike or citybreak I'll take the Q3, motorsports event, I'll take the Q3 43 and the Fuji+100-400, etc,etc

I have 4 digital cameras but each one only has one lens!!

Edited September 28 by Mr Perceptive

[Chris W]

I'm ok with adapting a 35mm equivalent to most situations.

When I bought my first M6 I only had the 35mm f2 Summicron lens and used that for landscape, street, portraits etc when I traveled the world for a year.

By 2017 I only had an X100T and shot all the above (again) while I was traveling abroad. Later I could have used the original Q as my only camera, but found 28mm too wider what I wanted to do.

Most of the famous photographers had one lens that was their favourite and which they became known for; 28mm, 35mm or 50mm. 

I think you can do a ton with two lenses - something for wider shots, street and landscape, and something for portrait.

 

Edited September 28 by Chris W

[RQ44]

Not even going to start with an answer...........................................

[luisdent]

2 hours ago, RQ44 said:

Not even going to start with an answer...........................................

? Thanks? Lol

[luisdent]

3 hours ago, Chris W said:

I'm ok with adapting a 35mm equivalent to most situations.

When I bought my first M6 I only had the 35mm f2 Summicron lens and used that for landscape, street, portraits etc when I traveled the world for a year.

By 2017 I only had an X100T and shot all the above (again) while I was traveling abroad. Later I could have used the original Q as my only camera, but found 28mm too wider what I wanted to do.

Most of the famous photographers had one lens that was their favourite and which they became known for; 28mm, 35mm or 50mm. 

I think you can do a ton with two lenses - something for wider shots, street and landscape, and something for portrait.

 

This is the sort of idea i was leaning towards if the q3 ends up staying. Why keep the 18 and 33 fuji if the q3 is basically better in every way?

You don't find the 43 too close to the 28?

Fwiw the fuji 35 was/is my favorite fuji lens ever. I love the portraits it makes and the fov and rendering. So the q3 43 is closer to that but probably better in most ways... I got the 28 only because as you saw i jse 18mm on fuji a lot and it's more versatile. I can always crop 28. I can't uncrop 43...

[Chris W]

44 minutes ago, luisdent said:

 

You don't find the 43 too close to the 28?

 

I'm not shooting with a fixed lens currently. If they had done a Q35 or Q50 I might have been tempted, but 28 is too wide and 43 is neither here nor there.

Maybe in a few years when they've come down in price.

[Ivan M]

On 9/26/2025 at 6:06 PM, luisdent said:

Ok  i got a q3 28. Been using it a while. I like it a lot! But it's created a new dilemma.

I had anticipated that if i loved it i might replace a few fuji primes with it. I've done some detailed comparisons and side by side the q3 can easily replace the fuji 18 1.4 and 23 1.4. no question for my needs. It matches or exceeds the sharpness and background separation. The 33 1.4 is where it gets a bit tough. The 33 has a bit more separation and at the crop equivalent the q3 is lower resolution even if similar in sharpness. So maybe it's good enough, but I'd say the 33 is the upper limit and probably a bit better for what it is vs the q3.

So... The q3 28 really has me considering the q3 43 as a 2nd camera, amazing lens, weather sealed solution. 2 q3 cameras and nothing else! Ha. But I'd have to give up all my fuji gear to get one.

However, that means no telephoto lenses! Even if it's only a small percentage of my shots, they are some of my favorite. I know the q3 43 crops well too. But realistically it isn't going to give me a high res 200mm f2 lens. 😛

Anyhow, that makes me think i need to keep my fuji gear. But with the new xe5, I'm hesitant to keep ANY q3. Yes, i like it more. But the 18 1.4 and 33 1.4 are reasonably comparable if you aren't cropping. And then i can throw on a 50, 90, 200, whatever...

I'm going to give the q3 28 at least 6 months to see what i think. However, for me the goal was as small and compact a camera setup i can get with the most versatility and quality. Q3 is it. Xe5 and one or two lenses is second best. Sony a7cr is third best (lenses are all bigger or slower). So i guess the dilemma is whether i should keep the leica q3, xe5 and a set of lenses, or sell the q3 and stick with one camera and a few small lenses so that i have the option for other lenses when needed.

Some things i didn't expect is that the editing is very different. Not even better or worse. But adjustments on the q3 look nothing like the same adjustments on the fuji, even with matched color profiles. So workflow is a bit less ideal as i need to account for two system's looks. Also  when i want more zoom and i grab my fuji, it takes up a lot more space to have the q3 and fuji than it does to have the fuji and simply add the 18 1.4 lens.

I could just use the q3 when i only have one camera, and that's a valid option. But if I'm keeping my wider lenses I'm tempted to just use the xe5 instead and add lenses as needed. Less choices. Less swapping gear.

Anyhow, this might just be a flow of thought to help myself. Ha. Anyone else have this dilemma? And what did you do? Obviously on a leica forum you probably kept the q3. Haha. Or went m11. But that is price prohibitive and lacks some features i desire.

Owned 2 fujis, the XPRO3 and the XT5, Along with 7 of fujis top lenses, sold it all and went to the Q3 and never looked back. I also shoot with an M6 which i had way before the Q3, There is something sooooo different that i love about LEICA. If i could afford an M10R or even the M11 i would in a heartbeat. 

[RQ44]

Ok, going to answer

 

I own a Q3 28mm, my choice to get that camera was that I am a wide shooter ( for personal work ). I have travelled overseas a few times since owning the Q3 and 28mm what superb, because I like it wide. There was one time only I wished I had 200mm on it and that was for a bird shot!

So what do I do? I also travel with a point and shoot with 200mm focal length zoom. Sure it's not the same quality as a Q3 but it means I still have the shot with less hassles of larger gear.

My Wide vs Zoom ratio is 98:2. I would not purchase the Q3 43 because the need extra zoom, I would purchase a cheaper compact camera that helps, perhaps a Sony RX100 vii, which I have been told is a superb compact camera. You still get the shot and the bonus is save lots of $$$$$$$$$$$

 

Hope this helps

 

 

[DavidJohn]

It would be easier answering "What is the meaning of life" than your question.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q