So, i recently put up a thread asking if i should take the plunge and buy the XF or wait. I have also been reading up on the Leica Q a lot. And i know they have some differences some obvious ones Still for me the goal with the camera i buy now is to get something to compliment the X-T2 and act like a street camera more or less or a camera i can grab and take with me everywhere. It has a lot of allure for me in other ways though, but im not sure it will be enough to tilt me from getting the Fuji instead this weekend.
For me, the primary difference is the focal length.
Fujifilm X100F vs Leica Q Typ 116
Try your mm at 18mm and 23mm and see which you prefer. I have never liked the former. If you like the Q focal length, get some gaffer tape. Depending where you shoot, you might not want to advertise that it's a Leica. Skin tones are neutral and unsaturated to the point of being unflattering, when compared with pretty much any camera you choose to compare it to.
And even in this carefully white balanced scene, there's a slight green tinge to everything. Auto White Balance takes itself very seriously - neutralizing tones to a greater extent than any of its contemporaries, though still leaving that tiny hint of green.
Also if you're happy with the focal length personally I like better 35 eq. If all good and you don't care about the price than go for Q. I went to a franchised "official" Leica store Leica gear only and tried the Q. They let me put my own SD card in the camera and even take the camera out the door while they held ID. So I had a couple of shots to play with in post processing.
Fujifilm X100F vs Ricoh GR III vs Leica Q and More
Excellent files but not outside the current Fuji league. Later online there was discussion about banding more often than you like, and posted raw files seemed to confirm that.
The Q is a fine camera, but I passed. I went with a Fuji X-Pro 2, and it is great. When the occasion calls for it, mount a compact lens, for example the underrated 27mm pancake or an adapted manual focus prime. Haha, yes Yes im a bit worried about that size, because i already own the x-t2 which in the beginning was supposed to be my carry around camera but now with the grip and heavier lenses i thought something lighter would be a great add to my gear.
Also it seems that the quality of the Leica files is not that much better from what i have read, so the price difference is mostly because of the brand obviously and the build quality which seems very nice.
Might not be worth it, i dont know.Fuji X100F in 2019 - More than a poor man's Leica
In no way discouraging the Q as I've lusted after it myself, but once you bring weight and size into it your options expand. As mentioned above a used XP2 could be a good choice. A fine adapted lens with it would be near to well under half the price and you'd keep the synergy with your T2. All depends on the experience you're after separate from the T2.Camera comparison algorithm was kindly provided by CameraVS.
Mac Star Photography. Sensor Size Actual size is set to screen. Difference: Pixel pitch. Pixel area. Relative pixel sizes:. Pixel density. Compare various cameras vs. Most trendy comparisons:. Surface area Surface area is calculated by multiplying the width and the height of a sensor. Sensor resolution Sensor resolution is calculated from sensor size and effective megapixels. It's slightly higher than maximum not interpolated image resolution which is usually stated on camera specifications.
Sensor resolution is used in pixel pitch, pixel area, and pixel density formula. For sake of simplicity, we're going to calculate it in 3 stages. First we need to find the ratio between horizontal and vertical length by dividing the former with the latter aspect ratio. It's usually 1. Crop factor Crop factor or focal length multiplier is calculated by dividing the diagonal of 35 mm film More popular comparisons of Leica Q2: Leica Q2 vs.
Sony a Leica Q2 vs. Sony Alpha a Leica Q2 vs. Fujifilm X-T Actual size is currently adjusted to screen.
If your screen phone, tablet, or monitor is not in diagonal, then the actual size of a sensor won't be shown correctly. Information about products is taken from the manufacturer.
Leica Q2. Fujifilm XF.Below is an overview of the main specs of the two cameras as a starting point for the comparison. Going beyond this snapshot of core features and characteristics, what are the differences between the Fujifilm XF and the Leica Q Typ ? Which one should you buy? Read on to find out how these two cameras compare with respect to their body size, their imaging sensors, their shooting features, their input-output connections, and their reception by expert reviewers.
An illustration of the physical size and weight of the Fujifilm XF and the Leica Q Typ is provided in the side-by-side display below. The two cameras are presented according to their relative size.
Three consecutive perspectives from the front, the top, and the back are available. All width, height and depth dimensions are rounded to the nearest millimeter. If the front view area width x height of the cameras is taken as an aggregate measure of their size, the Leica Q Typ is notably larger 9 percent than the Fujifilm XF.
The power pack in the XF can be charged via the USB portso that it is not always necessary to take the battery charger along when travelling. The table below summarizes the key physical specs of the two cameras alongside a broader set of comparators.
If you would like to visualize and compare a different camera combination, just use the right or left arrows in the table to switch to the respective camera.
Alternatively, you can also navigate to the CAM-parator app and make your selection from the full list of cameras there. The price is, of course, an important factor in any camera decision. Usually, retail prices stay at first close to the launch price, but after several months, discounts become available.
Later in the product cycle and, in particular, when the replacement model is about to appear, further discounting and stock clearance sales often push the camera price considerably down. Then, after the new model is out, very good deals can frequently be found on the pre-owned market. The imaging sensor is at the core of digital cameras and its size is one of the main determining factors of image quality.
A large sensor will tend to have larger individual pixels that provide better low-light sensitivity, wider dynamic rangeand richer color-depth than smaller pixel-units in a sensor of the same technological generation. Moreover, a large sensor camera will give the photographer more control over depth-of-field in the image and, thus, the ability to better isolate a subject from the background.Advertisement gone after registration.
This is my very first post to the forum. I am Kaan from Istanbul and already shooting with xf. But especially on the street xf isn't sharp enough at the sudden shots. Xt was much sharper and the IQ was much more better. And from all these reasons, I want to get into the world of Leica. So some say xf and the Q are almost the same cameras.
But IMHO leica must be much better camera. Yes, I've read all the tests and comments. But you; being the users of the Q, I wanted to hear from you why should I buy the Q or why shouldn't.
I have found one in stock at Brussels. Thank you very much. The Q excels at IQ for street images. The Fuji is very good and has more options but APS-c sensors have limits. I prefer 28mm for street but some prefer 35mm perspective like X I often leave the aperture at 1. I have gaffer's tape over red dot and camera top plate -- no one knows it is Leica and damp weather can't seep into microphones. I shoot raw but many choose jpeg. I agree with all your comments.
I owned the Fuji X and the XT. I enjoyed both cameras but found focusing especially on the original X to be slow. I thoroughly enjoy the ergonomics on the Q. It's returned fun to my photography experience. I also had the X and XT before the Q and find the Q better in pretty much every way except weight it's noticeably heavier — but I don't consider that much of a problem. The Q is incredibly fast, accurate, and the image quality is just beautiful.
I don't think you'd be disappointed with it. I moved from XS to Q. If you can deal with 28mm lens that requires to move much closer to your subject, the Q is the perfect street camera. It took me 30 years to find it, now its the only camera I still own and I do all my photography with it.I decided to make it clear right from the title that this is not a scientific comparison between two cameras with almost identical specs.
Since they both have a full-frame sensor, it made perfect sense. Unfortunately, due to a number of circumstances involving scheduling and the non-availability of the two cameras at the same time, that comparison had to be cancelled. However, when I grabbed the Fujifilm camera again after sending the Q back to Leica, I realised just how fond I am of both. So, yes, in a way this is an apples vs.
We were not asked to write anything about these cameras, nor were we provided any other compensation of any kind. Within the article, there are affiliate links. If you decided to buy something after clicking the link, we will receive a small commission. Thank you! The two cameras feature different sensors with different sizes and resolution, as well as two different fixed prime lenses with different focal lengths. Both cameras offer manual controls with dials and rings that will please advanced photographers.
They both have a good autofocus system although the Leica Q is faster and more reliable despite not having phase detection technology.
Premium compacts twin test – Leica Q (Typ 116) vs Fujifilm X100T
Another relevant difference concerns the viewfinder. It is bright, very sharp and very easy to use when manual focusing with or without peaking. It is one of the key features of this camera.
It also has an electronic rangefinder that allows you to display a smaller electronic screen inside the OVF. The Q has a modern design while remaining very elegant. Which looks better is a question of personal taste. The Leica Q is slightly larger and definitely heavier. However the indented thumb rest on the rear and the larger lens on the front make it easier to hold and use. I solved the problem with the Lensmate Thumb Rest that you can attach to the hot-shoe on top.
Fuji X100F or Leica q?
The Leica Q definitely feels stronger and more well-built.Advertisement gone after registration. I recently purchased my first Leica, the M10, and a few Leica lenses. Look here: Leica L-Mount. I got an 18mm for my CL specifically to attempt to replicate the experience size, shape, usability of the X I ended up selling the 18mm and getting the 23mm instead.
Key findings:. The 23mm is nicer but a bit deeper size-wise. If you just wanted 35mm then a Q or RX1 or X is a more focused tool. Bit too close to the CL I have now. I also have the medium and long zooms which are excellent if a little slow. For me I find that the Fuji is nice when you want a very light camera to go.
The fuji film simulations was one of the deciding factors for me. I have done just that recently. Like you I have an M10 and that is my main camera I replaced the XF for a few reasons If you like, I am happy to compare these cameras for you with a few samples and share them in Dropbox?
I really do think the single most important aspect of camera choice now, is buy the camera that inspires you to go out and shoot, or take it with you. I have both the XF and since some days the CL. My approach is to have the CL with mm lens, meaning "below" the Fuji.
I use the Fuji for family and street, everyone loves the old style, that is an opener in street the Q is a too large black block. And the CL with is wide-angle for landscape, architecture, and street.
For me a perfect fit, which inspires me, they both do. The dng quality from Leica is by far better, there is less to do in Lightroom especially when it comes to colors, I like my Fuji xf but I still struggle with post processing. I moved from the XF to the CL but with the 23mm and zoom.
The 18mm is too wide for me as a "standard". The main reason was I wanted a simpler camera - the CL is the simplest advanced digital camera I've found. I have no wish to have to delve into pages of menus, I'd rather just take photographs without being hampered by dozens of options.Been spending the last week plus one more week to go in Sri Lanka, at the southern coastal town of Galle.
This is my second trip to Sri Lanka this year - I really like this place, its wonderful, friendly people and the island lifestyle.
As always, my trusted Fuji Xs, a constant travel companion of circa four years, accompanied me. However, having also recently acquired a new Leica Q, I was interested in seeing which one of these tools suit me best. Admittedly, my heart layed with the Fuji before the trip, as my short time with the Leica has been slightly unimpressive to date.
Much have been written by other infinitely more experienced tech-heads about both of these cameras, so for me this is only a personal accessment based on my own real life user experiences and not necesserily the technical qualities. My close acquaintance with the Xs obviously made for a most comfortable experience, while the Q needed some getting used too. In terms of usability and travel-ability, the Q is a significantly larger, bulkier and heavier camera.
Much has been written about the beautifully designed thumb rest, but I still find that the slight bulge grip, lighter weight and smaller dimensions make the Xs a more comfortable travel companion. I use only wrist straps on both, hence I have to grip both in my hand at all times. The 28mm F1. Over the years I found that a 28mm suits me better, and even with my 28mm equivalent adapter lens almost permanently fitted to the Fuji, the Fuji still takes the crown for general ease of companionship.
My fondness for the Fuji is further enhanced by highlighting a few irritations that I have with the Leica. Despite both cameras sporting rather solid, positive top plate control dials, for some unknown reason the Leica exposure compensation dial turns unintentionally.
This frustrates me, as in street photography, it's mostly about capturing a moment. I don't want to be checking, resetting and fiddling with dials before shooting. Another annoyance is that the Leica's power switch toggles from "off" to "single shoot" S to "continious shoot" C. When flicking the switch to "on", one invariably almost always push it to "continious" mode instead of carefully stopping at "single shot". These two settings should've been the other way round to make it less fiddly.
I'm not a "chimper"' so would prefer to have access to the screen only when I choose to do so. I'm not going to analize the highly technical, pixel peeping qualities of both, other than just mentioning that the Leica sports a However, I don't really mind that too much, as the Fuji packs more than enough punch for my purpose.
What I do observe though is that when pushed under certain post-processing conditions, the Leica DNG files are more prone to "banding" than the Fuji files.
The more clever people will probably know why, but I suspect it has something to do with Fuji's unique pixel arrangement. Whatever the case, I feel that I can push the Fuji files much harder without loss of quality. Having said all that, my opinion finally scewed in favor of the Leica Q when I encountered a rather contrasty beach scene.
I immediately reached for the Xs first before swopping it for the Q after a few shots. The quality of the Leica's electronic viewfinder just bowled me over! Under these contrasty conditions, the shooting experience with the Leica just completely excelled, and coupled with that ultra-sharp lens, litterally opened my eyes to its many benefits.
It was a pleasant experience! The Fuji still is a more pocketable day-to-day companion and I will continue to hold the X-series of cameras in the highest esteem as arguably THE finest tools around today. Dollar for dollar, the Fuji is unbeatable and remains the best choice. The Leica has won the battle for my more serious travel and street work, but only just.
Where is he