I'm just getting into the world of photography, and all these prices and products are making my head spin. Just going to keep shooting in my old DSLR until I can learn more.
I agree in everything and would just add some points. - JPEGs straight out of the camera look better on the Fuji to me. They look so good like the raw files. On the Leica they look a little flatter, people look pale and the difference with raw files is noticeable. It’s just a color thing, B&W JPEGs look absolutely stunning on the Leica. - X100F is more customizable and to me it is easier to use in P mode. In general, you have more easy access buttons for some usual functions like changing profile, set the self shoot timer or exp.compensation and if you get used to it you are going to miss it on the Leica. Everything beyond changing speed, aperture and ISO just take a little longer wit it. - The integrated ND filter is great to have on the Fuji, as well as the macro function on the Leica. - If you take the Fuji after some days using the Leica you are going to say: „what the hell‘s happened with this evf??! Was it really so bad??!“ Nope...just the evf of the Q ist absolutely amazing. Really a big plus for the Leica - Manual focusing with the Q is a delicious experience. I thought it couldn‘t be better than the Fuji system (the system itself is actually the same) but...it is. The way it automaticaly zooms in when you slightly rotate the focus ring is great and combined with the gorgeous resolution of its evf, it makes you barely need the focus peaking to know wether things are in focus or not. - The most important thing: the results. There is not a huge difference between the images you get with both cameras. They look mostly the same but under some cincunstances threre is indeed a little difference. Also sometimes, when you are able to get all of its juice out of that Summicron lens...ooh man!...then you get this unique Leica look and you say: woow...so this is why...This is what I was looking for. It is just for these moments that you get a Leica. The rest of the time both are very very enjoyable and pretty similar.
I own and love the X100f and will continue to make that baby work for me. But I am purchasing the Q2 For the superior glass, craftsmanship, full sensor and most importantly, shooting in crappy weather. yes, Leica Q2 is weather sealed, and that to me is a huge reason to spend the extra $....The x100 will still be my everyday camera, but for serious, low-light and fine-art images I'll whip out the Q2.
@@carforumwanker Whether they are trying to move "Down" or "Up", they are still relatively expensive to buy for most people. Leica is a cool looking camera, and that's commonly agreed on by the "Joe public". Even my wife who hardly ever touch a camera knows what a Leica is. Leica is trying to get their name out there not with their cameras, but with their lens technology, like Leica lens in a Huawei phone, Leica Eyecare, and among other lens products they have.
I disagree. Rolex make ugly over priced watches that I a Have no interest in. Leica make equally overpriced cameras that have a mystique. I cannot justify buying either though. Can a Leica be better than the Panasonic that shares its components and is less that 25% of the price of the Leica
@@garmit61 : I have access to each and every current leica lens and body .The bodies seem to a lot cheaper made and the finish is not as good as years ago. Far too much input from Panasonic . In fact I believe panasonic own the copy rights to some of the best Leica lenses been sold .
I so much appreciate you showing photos straight out of camera. A lot of RUclipsrs will show edited photos and it drives me nuts! Show me what’s coming out of the camera that’s what I need to know-not how well you can use Lightroom.
I got both... except for the size, the Q blows the Fuji out of the water. Particularly sharpness and low light performance are worlds apart. Said that, I didn’t want to sell the Fuji. Such a lovely little camera.
The Leica has better color sooc, it seems. Also, the lens on the Q makes it easier to hold. I say this as an owner of the X100F - there's not much to hold on to, and it feels like I will drop it one day. But I like it nonetheless. It's nice to bring with me when going to events of the more social kind. Note that I'm no pro - I use the camera to capture memories.
@@mohammedsamsheer284 I shoot with both, and Velvia is way too hyper saturated. Classic Chrome with a boost in saturation and lowering of shadows gives a similar look to Leica.
@@DarrenLoveland You can always adjust the colors in Capture One and get whatever look you want. Can't really justify the huge price tag of a Leica based on their color science. I just bought an X100S and if I like that will buy the 100V. In fact you could pretty much purchase all five of the X100 models for the price of a Leica Q
I love my Leica Q. It's not the most capable/tackle everything camera but it is easily the most enjoyable/favorite camera I've ever used/owned. - I wish I had a ton of money and could get a full Leica set but for the foreseeable future I'll be rocking the Leica Q series. I bought mine used and it's actually great value at that point when you consider the full frame sensor/lens price.
The Q is a "Contrast Monster." The added contrast also brings up the color saturation. To use a term I really hate- The Q images have a lot more "pop." I do love the look of the Q images. OTOH, contrast is one of the easiest things to add in post. One might fairly argue, that it is indeed better to start out with a "flatter" and less contrasty image, which contains more shadow detail. As more contrast is very easily added in post. In any case, both wonderful cameras IMO. I am curious how much of the higher contrast is added vbia the Leica lens, vs. its internal processing engine.
Q has MUCH MUCH faster AF. I have both the X100F and the Q. The Leica has much better controls, granted it is much larger and more expensive so it should be better. The IQ is much better as well IMO. They are both excellent cameras but for me (Travel+Street) I prefer to use the Q.
tried the x100f as a supplement to my a7iii with largeish 1.4 primes. was not happy with handling two different systems at the same time and sharpness up close wide open. now have a sony zeiss 35 2.8 on my a7iii for that portability and not ruining social situations ...
leica has better micro contrast. This has always been a signature of their glass. If you had used your x-pro2 w/ the 35 f/1.4 or the 50 f/2 you would be more similar results. The lens needs to be engineered for micro contrast, typically at the expense of another quality of the lens. Lens with high micro contrast can convince the eye that a slightly soft image is a lot sharper than what it seems.
@Rich Clark Productions Sharpness and contrast aren't the same value. What happens when you shine three concentric circles of light through 50 panels of glass Rich? The colour becomes so diffused, you can only see one homogeneous colour. Sony makes lens for edge to edge sharpness and correction. To do this requires multiple elements in multiple groups with molded elements near the front and back. See the above example about contrast Rich..the more glass, the less contrast you're gonna get. This is the complete opposite design needed for contrast. This is why when you look at sony lens, all shadow umbra is poorly graduated. They have no acuity. Sigma has the same design philosophy. Edge to edge over acuity. I thought you would have known this, considering you have productions in your name. Sony make nice lens for people with poor knowledge. Much the same as huawei has leica on their branding..nice camera phone for people who get suckered by names over actually knowing what they are talking about. The cheap ass tamaron 35, beat every sony lens in sharpness...you know why? they don't make cinema lens, they have little relative history..they make lens for people who don't know better. This why 99% of photographers have no idea what a lens actually does by looking at its element formation and grouping. If you enjoy sony at the cost of contrast, colour fidelity and saturation and acuity..then good for you..you're exactly the customer sony is after.
Good video, thanks! I get what you're saying to a certain extent. I love my X100F (I've owned an X100S and T in the past) but there actually *is* a "better or worse" when it comes to picture quality between the two cameras: the Q is simply superior. Sure, it costs a ton more so you would expect that, but it's simply a fact that the Q *is* a better camera than the F and you shouldn't be afraid to say that. (I don't own a Q, btw). Note: that doesn't mean the F is a bad camera - this is a relative comparison!
How about picking a winner based on a criteria? Just state that the Leica has better overall image quality (or something else) and the Fuji is the better value, period. I don’t understand why people do comparison videos and then tell the audience that it’s up to them to pick a winner. If that’s the case, you could’ve just done two separate videos. State emphatically that I like product X. Also, why compare two totally different cameras. Most people are not cross-shopping those two cameras. One is full frame and the other cropped. One is small and portable and the other one much larger. One cost a $1000 and the other $5000. It like comparing a $20,000 Toyota Corolla to a $100,000 BMW (hey they’re both cars) and then telling the audience to select the one that fits their budget or driving style. Consumers don’t cross-shop those two cars.
I own a x100f and I can honestly say the low light is not an issue, considering the high ISO capabilities are great. And the grain is great as well... I love it and worth a shot. Images are smoth even in 3600 or higher.
Colours can be changed/edited either in camera or in lightroom, so photo comparisons and comparing colour is not really going to define why you would fork out 5 grand for a Leica.
I think with the Q2, you get slightly more versatility in focal length via the digital cropping.. To achieve same functionality in this area you would need to own the WCL and TCL adapters which is more cost and size..
Great video Evan. I own an X 100 T and F (love them both and couldn’t bring myself to sell the T). They just ,make we want to take pictures. Saying that I did walk in to the Leica store with $4000 in hand and was going to buy either a Q or Q2. I played with both for about an hour. As someone who is very tactile I just loved the way they feel and the build quality is superb. When it came to image quality there did not seem to be an appreciable difference. After much deliberation I left, went to the Fuji store, bought an XH1 with a battery grip for $1400 and had $2600 to put towards some glass. As you say both are great cameras and ultimately I am unashamedly a Fuji Fanboy, simply because of build quality, image quality and regular firmware updates. If only they would make the X100 as a pure monochrome. Now that would be something. Have really been enjoying your channel and great content. Regards Steve. Dubai.
@@matrajao Like most things in photography it is often down to the eye of the beholder and what one finds most pleasing. My understanding is that technically the removal of the colour filter array increases the resolution and improves micro-contrast. As a non-technical person, it removes the colour distraction and the need for lots of post processing but once again it is really down to the individual and personal taste. Given the cost of the Leica M it is way out of my price range. As a result I am happy to post process my Fuji Raw files or use the excellent ACROS film simultion which to my eye gives a very pleasing result. thankfully with modern digital cameras there is so much choice that there is something for everybody, another reason why I am happy to stay with my X100F.
As a sony a7iii user I'm waiting for the new x100 camera since it's time for an update. The X100 will be the perfect sized camera for me for everyday shooting. Even though the a7iii is small compared to a dslr, when you slap on lenses it's just too big to always be with you. Great video thanks!
Evan, Thanks for making this video. I enjoyed it very much. I am now happy I purchased the X100f. I love the results I’m getting and I saved myself a few thousand bucks. I’m not a professional so I think for me the Leica would be just a waste of money. I’ll use that money to buy myself a Xt2 or a xt3 and a few lenses to go with my new X100f.
Well there's another difference too - the sensor size. And for the stuff I do that's significant. I generally need to crop and you just can't escape the fact that physics has a role in this. I love my Fuji X-T3 and more often than not I can crop as much as I want without an issue but with the Leica Q (and deffo the Q2) you have the ability to crop a lot more. The Fuji and Leica can both produce great shots and are lovely to use but at the end of the day sensor size really is important. To me at any rate and I really wish Fuji did a full frame camera.
I originally wanted a Leica Q but settled for the X100T because I don't have Leica money 😭 I was initially disappointed with it on first use because it fell short of the Q in several ways but I've learned to work with its strengths and it's quite rewarding. I've been spoiled by its compactness as well which I can't find many cameras do especially with that level of image quality. Still want a Q though 😂
The crisper more saturated photos of the Q can be easily adjusted in the Fuji. I'm using a recipe that in a nutshell enhances blues and reds. The results are nice depending on the situation and most of the times. I also love the design of my Fujifilm X-E4 a lot better than the Leica. I'm German and the Leica design imo is just typically German design into your face. Very conservative and not much that refers to a typical range finder of the days. I have a lot of fun using vintage manual lenses on the Fuji and from the looks it's hard to tell it apart from an old analog range finder camera. It's not really important but well, yeah it really ads to the vintage look that I like. 8K for a Leica is insanely expensive imo especially when you can modify a Fuji that almost shoots in pretty much the same ball park. I might sound optimistic but so far I' reall happy w. Fuji
I rented both of them for about four days, then delayed purchasing anything until I really needed a travel camera. Because of the better value, I bought a used x100F and took it on a trip. Maybe it is just me as a historically Canon DSLR and now Sony a9 user but I found the APS-C and the Fuji rendering unsatisfying. I found the x100F lens a bit too soft for my liking wide open, not so noticable with portraits, but for abstracts and still life it drove me nuts. So I sold it for a downpayment on a used Leica Q which I find much more to more liking. I like the color rendering of the files much more and even the portraits seem better. I found neither of them so great with external flash. I think if you like and are used to the Fuji system and sensors, you will love the X100F. I really wanted to like the Fuji but it just wasn't enough for me despite the vast price difference.
Why didn't you use the 35mm mode on the Leica Q2 for the comparison? This would have brought the mp on the Q closer to the 100f. I was tempted to buy the Q2, but settled for a better upgrade, the GFX 50r.
I was a 35mm person until I got a Nikon Coolpix A...which I love even more than my XPro..The Coolpix is APS-C with a Nikon D7000 processor and it fits completely in my blue jean pockets!...and I love the color and the images it makes..
Great video, but one correction: Sensor size does not affect light gathering capabilities. Pixel pitch is the relevant factor. The Q has a pixel pitch of 5.97 whereas the x100f is 3.9. Interestingly, the Q2 has a lower pixel pitch (4.27) due to it's higher megapixel count. www.digicamdb.com/specs/leica_q-typ-116
I think if you underexposed the Fujifilm by -0.3 then darkened the yellow and reds in HSL, maybe shifted the yellow over to orange a little, and the blue away from cyan a little, you'd get the same image. Also, your X100 is auto balancing a touch green. R+1 or 2 could help.
at the beginning of the comparison part he said they were all straight out of camera raw...he just imported into Lightroom to export at the right file size
Why? To make it heavier, and cost more battery? Full frame adds almost nothing to the image. If it makes that much of a difference to you, get an RX1. Fujifilm is aps-c for good reason.
If you set the shadows a little harder and fix the color balance on the fuji - (a hair warmer, less green, more red) It would be pretty hard to tell the difference.
Interesting... the Q colors seemed richer & deeper... maybe b/c the Fuji was slightly over-exposing the scenes leading to a more washed out look in side by side comparison with the Q? Would have been nice to have an A/B test, where at the end you tell us which camera was A and which was B.
I own both Leica and Fuji. Kind of what I expected. Fuji has a greenish tint close to the old Fuji film colors. The Leica has a blueish tint close to a Kodachrome. I prefer the Leica color and the raw files are better to work with in Lightroom.
I bought one. It was fantastic. Compared to my a7RIII w/ 24 GM or 35 Zeiss, though.....ehh...decided to keep investing more in my current system. Returned the Fuji.
i just sold my x100f. my main camera is the A7III. Tbh, the fuji is amazing and makes you want to take photos. As a person that does loads of video I found myself leaving the fuji at home too much so I sold it. But its an amazing every day carry. Personally, my A7iii + 35mm f2,8 is small enough to be my every day carry apart from work camera.
I'm also a sony user.. Used the zeiss 35 2.8 with my a7iii for street but still got the x100f and since then i almost never used the zeiss.. i always pick up the fuji
@@gerikmd hah! that happened to me for street shooting but i've been doing way more videos lately so i had to take my sony along. but yea, the fuji is the chosen one when it comes to street, size, colors and how beautiful it it haha
Gerik Flor tried an x100f for a couple of weeks to use as daily camera alongside my a7iii with 24gm, 35 1.4za, 55za and 135batis. but the i always left the A7iii at home when going on casual outings. as hobbyist i reckoned it was too much money left at home and using two very different system at the same time adds complexity. but miss a small all-day solution, so now I am torn between getting the 100f again or getting the 35 f2.8 (and keeping the 1.4). main subjects are kids and family...
Loved this video! Man, if only fuji could squeeze a larger sensor and better glass into the x100, even if it'd be a little bigger I'd be SOLD. Leicas really have a special place in the market, and I really hope there will be some company that finally makes full frame ''Leica killer'' rangefinders while at a way lower pricepoint. We need some competition!
I have always loved your shots with the x100f. It's like your secret weapon. When I think Evan, I think Nikon for the big shoots and Fuji for the gritty shit where you're downtown, getting yelled at by security guards and still killing the game.
Damn. This video was perfection. Aside from the little softness from the Fuji, It really holds its own in this comparison. The Q definitely has more punchy contrast, but let’s be real, everybody is bringing their shots into Lightroom/Capture One so that’s not a $3k feature. Honestly, really happy you didn’t convince me to save up for a Leica. 👌🏽
I started my range finder hobby with Fuji, a damn good camera, but just as with my goal to buy a Porsche 911 some day, I had the same goal to own a Leica M body camera some day.
I also find the Leica's photos to be more pleasing. I think the Leica finds a better white balance and is a little more punchy with its color and contrast. However, these are all addressable with some settings adjustments. The one unchangeable difference is that full frame sensor, and the Q's images seeming to have finer color gradation and microcontrast. On second read, maybe I'm just proving your point here. But, for that much money, I'd rather opt for something like a Fuji GFX and get even better IQ. Or maybe a Sony A7 with good lenses (the sensors are top notch even though you may have to go to post if you like the looks Fuji and Leica produce).
I, like you, love the 35mm focal length. I will buy the Leica Q2 at some point because I have always wanted to shoot with/own a Leica, I have the money, and I figure that if I see a good deal used - I will pick it up (that way if I don't like it or don't use it - I can sell it an not lose a lot). For a Leica, it is a good deal (I need to be honest with myself - I can't justify an M body and 1 good lens, let alone multiple lenses). I figure I can still frame up 35mm shots at 30MP, but the 28mm with makes it that little bit more flexible for travel, and the 47MP just makes it that bit more flexible that the original Q.
Not saying anything differently than what you already stated, but i also used both, and now also a Q and a Q-P which is basically the same also, only that the Q-P looks as sexy as any camera i have ever owned and the shutter button actually making it even more of a robust camera in some ways than the already robust Q. When it comes to what is better, well first of all they are different in a few ways, so you can't really compare it when it comes to s target photographic tool for every person. Either you need one FL or you don't , but if you are ok with either FL you can compare the build and ergonomics and the IQ. The IQ is just better overall on the Q in my experience , it also has a unique look that i didn't find on the X100F.Not saying "better" look, just more unique, and for me thats "better" since i want to create something as different many times than everyone else, so you got a better chance of doing that right away just by the look of the images. The only way the Fuji is better when it comes to ergonomics is by size. The build is better and the ergonomics are better on the Q in my opinion, actually the Q is like no other smaller camera i have ever used, and i have used quite a few over the years. Having said all this i love the Fuji cameras overall , i have gone through the X-T1/2and3 plus the X100F. And sold and used same lenses twice because i liked them so much. But i sold it all also a second time to finance my Q-P just because i felt it was a better tool for me overall. I would never have known that having not tested the first Q i owned. But that made me love it so much that i wanted it again, and that sais a lot. If i wouldn't have tried the Q in the first place i would not have sold the Fuji gear and would be very happy with that for sure. I was more fond of the X-T1 and 2 and 3 though than the X100F, im not too keen on the 35 lens( hence the Q was also a better tool for me since i like the 28 more for the way i shoot ) also i found it little soft at times, and while i was ok with that the Q was just more crisp and i liked that better as well. The X100F was fun to use though, and the unbuild ND filter and flash was actually very cool and made it very versatile. When its all said and done its a tool we are buying, and can you afford a "better" tool for you and you can and want to afford that, why not? Its an expensive hobby or work we are doing, so none of us are getting off cheap when it comes to photography. Some of us feel its worth more and some less which is fine, when it comes to actually creating those photos the tool matter less than the creativity and expertise of the photographer anyhow:) For me a camera that inspires me is worth a lot as a tool, and the Q and now the Q-P does that ina away not many other cameras have, thats just a fact. /Rant off ;)
Hey Evan, great video. I think a video going over your lighting and camera set up that you use for your RUclips videos would be GREATLY appreciated all of us. I have finally decided to create a RUclips channel after putting if off for over 10 years and the look and feel of your videos is something I would like to model for my channel. Sorry for the "long-winded" comment and thanks in advance.
I am not shocked that the q has more bokeh, because of f1.7 instead of f2, the fact that it is a 28mm lens (vs 23mm of the fuji) and the fact that you need to get closer to have the same DOF (closer = less DOF)
Perfect video comparing them. I would have liked to see a few of the X100 images with the film filters to see if they could get any closer to the Q or bring anything else out of the x100F. For the price, portability, and quality the X100F should be a no brainer, frankly. I've been considering one for a while now-may have to make the jump...
make the jump!! it made me buy even more fujifilm products.. after shooting with the x100f i fell back in love with photo and bought the xt3 4months later.
You can get many many things for that price but this is not the point here. The gfx50r is a very different type of camera and you cannot compare it with these two. It is actually a huge brick in comparison. Those are pretty high performance cameras in very small and light packages. Furthermore, the Q-P cost about 200 more than the 50r with no lenses and almost 1000 less than the 50r + 63mm 2.8 (50mm equivalent, so the cheapest one). If you want a 35mm equivalent you have to add about 300 more to that difference. So gfx50r + 45mm is about 200 bucks more expensive than the Leica Q2. Moreover you don‘t have to buy a Q-P. The leica Q is basically the same in other colors and cost 600 cheaper. In any case I agree that any camera on the market gives you a better value for the money than a Leica (specswise). From this point of view the 50r is a better buy but a Leica gives you some very worthy aspects like having, by far, the best quality/size ratio (camera+lens) on the market and gives you also some others you cannot value in such a rational way. Nevertheless, I wouldn’t buy a Leica new but I think a second hand one can be a pretty good bussiness. Now you can get a Q second hand, in mint condition for less than 3 grand and at this price point maybe you can compare it with other cameras in a much more fair way.
Great video and conclusions Evan. I was amazed how well the Fuji did. With some editing even closer results can be achieved. If I had the income then Leica, heck why not, but otherwise what Fuji is achieveing with APSC is remarkable in my opinion.
It seems to be a negligible difference like Kodak vs Fujifilm. I think if he wanted to get those Leica colours on the X100, he just needs to shift the AWB to R+2ish, and underexpose by 0.3ev.
Given that the X100F is a crop sensor then the comparison between the F-stops should be adjusted. We're talking about an actual f2.8 for the Fuji as compared to F1.7 for the Leica.
Would love to see a version 2.0 of this video with the new lens on the x100v . Would be curious to see how it compares after the updates especially with the upgrades when wideopen.
The Leica Q is nice. I owned a Leica MP with 50mm summicron. But the image quality isn't that much better than the Fuji especially after post processing the raw files. It's a status symbol. That's it
For those who know cars this is the equivalent of comparing a Corvette vs a Ferrari.... while they may be pretty close in performance, it’s the experience that makes the extra $$ worth it. That’s fine if you don’t agree... cause everyone is entitled to their opinion, but those who buy the Leica for the right reasons will understand what I’m talking about
I don’t have the Fuji nor the Leica... and probably wouldn’t get any of them (because a fixed lens camera doesn’t work for me), but objectively I preferred the Leica images. They had more intense colors, more contrast. In a blind test I would have chosen those pictures not because they’re Leica’s...I just happen to like them more. The Fuji output just looks like every other camera. From my perspective both are overpriced in their respective segments.
That's always that question when the word "Leica" is mentioned....Is it worth it? My take is that if it's your JOB to take photos, ie selling photos or hanging them in galleries, then it's certainly worth having that Leica quality. If it's just to take photos to show on Instagram....I'm not sure, you can probably achieve the same goal at 1/4 of the price.
I'm not sure about that. First, I doubted anyone would buy a print because it was taking with a Leica (by brand or quality) and I had seen Instagram influencer used a Leica M 240 with a 50mm NOCT and many others owned a Q. My take is that buying a Leica is for a person being in a stage of his/her life that can afford such an expense without having to think about where the money is coming from. I'm sure that the homeless or the starving mass sees anyone buying (or owing) a camera is a waste of money, just as some people think of others buying a Leica. While others are questioning about what percentage of improvement in image quality will get from ?X increase in cost, but It is just one of the real world example of the term Diminishing Return or purely for emotion satisfaction, liked some kids urging their parents to buy them certain brands of clothing, shoes, earphones, toys, game box, etc.
Thank U. A huge amount of great info in a short film. A really excellent and extremely useful comparison betwn 2 cameras I’m considering (Oc the Leica wood req. a £ windfall; which I’m open to ..). The inclusion of some very revealing image comparisons brilliantly demo’d the advantages of the Leica lens n it’s 47mp vs the Fuji’s lens n tiny sensor. But is the difference - as the man asks - is the difference worth an extra £3-£4K. This film answered that Q, (sori, that Question) for me, at this time.The answer is; it ain’t !! Another factor that pushed me towards the fuiji was its ‘carryability’, the actusl ‘compactness’ of both cameras. Again, for me, the fuiji wins. Also the film mentioned the softness of the x100f’s ‘macro’ shots. But they - fuiji - say that that has bin addressed in the x100V. So I think that will b my choice. (Subject to more research and some hands-on use). But that doesn’t stop me dreaming that one day .. Thanks again.
Hey man I’m a regular viewer for years I think u would really love the Ricoh GRiii. 28mm, can crop to 35 and 50 and shoots Raws right to ur phone and like others have said it’s incredibly sharp edge to edge as well as much more pocketable then my Fuji
while the leica q has some fantastic image quality the fixed lens makes it a deal-killer for me at 4x the price of the fuji. the magic of leica is the lens quality and that's really what drives the price up. if i could re-use that lens on another body ... not sure i would buy the q, but it makes the purchase decision more interesting.
I find that I use my X100F more often than my Q, probably how easy and light it is to take street photography, where as Q is good but a lot chunkier to manoeuvre around.
The Q has much more punch to the color, especially the reds plus it is is a sharper lens when shooting wide open.........does this make it worth four grand more? well, it will last twenty years while the you drop the Fuji once odds are it will break.....I have both.....and an M8 and a Fuji xt2 - now the xt2 is built tough, and with fujinon prime lenses it is as close to any Leica you can find though, admittedly, you do pay a premium for that red dot........but I just love the feel of my M8 with my 28mm Elmarit lens.....which is about 35mm with the m8's cropped sensor but it is perfect for the street.
Big fan of this video as a X100F owner. Much better than the multiple videos only showing specs. ps. all the photo comparisons say FUJILM not FUJIFILM. Great video though
@Evan Ranft .... Have you ever seen the videos by Mattias Burling? .... His videos on the Q and X100f are toally different to everyone elses. My choice would be the Q everytime because of the build quality, lens ability, image quality and so much more.
But since the x100f has a smaller sensor, wouldn't it be fair to apply the equivalent apperture as well? Since the fuji had a 35mm f/2.0 lens then the equivalent for a full frame would be 53mm f/3.06 ! The video was very nice tho. Keep up the good work!
Sincere thank you for making videos like this. I’m considering both as my next walk around camera, as dumb as it may sound. This certainly helps towards it.
Do Fuji’s expose to the right a little bit automatically? Because I love the slight overexposed film look I get on my xt20 but it was never as noticeable as seeing these 2 comparisons. Unless the Leica is just underexposed to make it more punchy with the blacks
Did you develop your Fuji raw files direct in Lr or through iridient x-transformer first? If not, what are your views on the quality of fuji dng files through Lr and also do you ever use the film simulations or always Adobe color?
The reason that people compare x100 to lica tell us a lot about how good Fujifilm x100 is.
Or how useless Leica is. Could go either way.
@@samfisherdoubleagent because I don't waste my money It means I can't afford it? Do you know me?
@@samfisherdoubleagent Again, do you know what I've ever used? A better advice would be for you to stop taking opinions and hyperboles literally.
@@pedro0563 Again it's obvious what I stated. I'm still sticking to what I said
Or to really tell someone that they don't need to spend 4-5x then money.......
I'm just getting into the world of photography, and all these prices and products are making my head spin. Just going to keep shooting in my old DSLR until I can learn more.
The x100f has that classic Fuji color and look but the Leica has such bold colors that really pop! Awesome comparison!
I agree in everything and would just add some points.
- JPEGs straight out of the camera look better on the Fuji to me. They look so good like the raw files. On the Leica they look a little flatter, people look pale and the difference with raw files is noticeable. It’s just a color thing, B&W JPEGs look absolutely stunning on the Leica.
- X100F is more customizable and to me it is easier to use in P mode. In general, you have more easy access buttons for some usual functions like changing profile, set the self shoot timer or exp.compensation and if you get used to it you are going to miss it on the Leica. Everything beyond changing speed, aperture and ISO just take a little longer wit it.
- The integrated ND filter is great to have on the Fuji, as well as the macro function on the Leica.
- If you take the Fuji after some days using the Leica you are going to say: „what the hell‘s happened with this evf??! Was it really so bad??!“ Nope...just the evf of the Q ist absolutely amazing. Really a big plus for the Leica
- Manual focusing with the Q is a delicious experience. I thought it couldn‘t be better than the Fuji system (the system itself is actually the same) but...it is. The way it automaticaly zooms in when you slightly rotate the focus ring is great and combined with the gorgeous resolution of its evf, it makes you barely need the focus peaking to know wether things are in focus or not.
- The most important thing: the results. There is not a huge difference between the images you get with both cameras. They look mostly the same but under some cincunstances threre is indeed a little difference. Also sometimes, when you are able to get all of its juice out of that Summicron lens...ooh man!...then you get this unique Leica look and you say: woow...so this is why...This is what I was looking for. It is just for these moments that you get a Leica. The rest of the time both are very very enjoyable and pretty similar.
I own and love the X100f and will continue to make that baby work for me. But I am purchasing the Q2 For the superior glass, craftsmanship, full sensor and most importantly, shooting in crappy weather. yes, Leica Q2 is weather sealed, and that to me is a huge reason to spend the extra $....The x100 will still be my everyday camera, but for serious, low-light and fine-art images I'll whip out the Q2.
Leica is like a Rolex, you don't really need it but you know you want it.
Leica working there way "DOWN" the market not "UP" They just want to try and get the name known to "Jo public" who aspire to be cool or Posh
@@carforumwanker Whether they are trying to move "Down" or "Up", they are still relatively expensive to buy for most people. Leica is a cool looking camera, and that's commonly agreed on by the "Joe public". Even my wife who hardly ever touch a camera knows what a Leica is. Leica is trying to get their name out there not with their cameras, but with their lens technology, like Leica lens in a Huawei phone, Leica Eyecare, and among other lens products they have.
@@gdoe00 : Leica "|Approved and licensed" the Huawei lens . They had no other input .Next they will be selling training shoes !
I disagree. Rolex make ugly over priced watches that I a
Have no interest in. Leica make equally overpriced cameras that have a mystique. I cannot justify buying either though. Can a Leica be better than the Panasonic that shares its components and is less that 25% of the price of the
Leica
@@garmit61 : I have access to each and every current leica lens and body .The bodies seem to a lot cheaper made and the finish is not as good as years ago. Far too much input from Panasonic . In fact I believe panasonic own the copy rights to some of the best Leica lenses been sold .
I so much appreciate you showing photos straight out of camera. A lot of RUclipsrs will show edited photos and it drives me nuts! Show me what’s coming out of the camera that’s what I need to know-not how well you can use Lightroom.
Only 2 ads in a 9 minute video and no shoving merch down our throats. I for sure gave a thumbs up.
Absolutely right. Choice of camera is a personal preference. X100F or Q.. they're both great gears.
I got both... except for the size, the Q blows the Fuji out of the water. Particularly sharpness and low light performance are worlds apart. Said that, I didn’t want to sell the Fuji. Such a lovely little camera.
The Leica has better color sooc, it seems. Also, the lens on the Q makes it easier to hold. I say this as an owner of the X100F - there's not much to hold on to, and it feels like I will drop it one day. But I like it nonetheless. It's nice to bring with me when going to events of the more social kind. Note that I'm no pro - I use the camera to capture memories.
Those deep reds from the Leica is great looking
I think the fuji was shot in classic chrome hence the destaurated images,bump it to velvia and boom.
@@mohammedsamsheer284 I shoot with both, and Velvia is way too hyper saturated. Classic Chrome with a boost in saturation and lowering of shadows gives a similar look to Leica.
@@DarrenLoveland You can always adjust the colors in Capture One and get whatever look you want. Can't really justify the huge price tag of a Leica based on their color science. I just bought an X100S and if I like that will buy the 100V. In fact you could pretty much purchase all five of the X100 models for the price of a Leica Q
@@jimmason8502 Hi - I was replying to the comment about classic chrome and velvia.
I know what you mean about liking the 35mm focal point so much...only to discover that the 28mm focal point is even better!
I love my Leica Q. It's not the most capable/tackle everything camera but it is easily the most enjoyable/favorite camera I've ever used/owned. - I wish I had a ton of money and could get a full Leica set but for the foreseeable future I'll be rocking the Leica Q series. I bought mine used and it's actually great value at that point when you consider the full frame sensor/lens price.
Great value, er, big no to that.
The Q is a "Contrast Monster." The added contrast also brings up the color saturation. To use a term I really hate- The Q images have a lot more "pop." I do love the look of the Q images. OTOH, contrast is one of the easiest things to add in post. One might fairly argue, that it is indeed better to start out with a "flatter" and less contrasty image, which contains more shadow detail. As more contrast is very easily added in post. In any case, both wonderful cameras IMO. I am curious how much of the higher contrast is added vbia the Leica lens, vs. its internal processing engine.
Baruch Cohen you can add contrast but you can't add micro contrast in post...unfortunately. This drew me away from my X100F to the Leica Q and M10
I love my Q2 and the images that come out of it. It’s not a jack of all trades but what it does, it does well
Q has MUCH MUCH faster AF. I have both the X100F and the Q. The Leica has much better controls, granted it is much larger and more expensive so it should be better. The IQ is much better as well IMO. They are both excellent cameras but for me (Travel+Street) I prefer to use the Q.
You can get the WCL-100 for 28mm equiv., and the TCL-100 for 50mm equiv. for the X100F
I love my x100f, for family and quick trips i dont even bother with my a7riii
try p30 pro
I do the exact same.
tried the x100f as a supplement to my a7iii with largeish 1.4 primes. was not happy with handling two different systems at the same time and sharpness up close wide open. now have a sony zeiss 35 2.8 on my a7iii for that portability and not ruining social situations ...
I picked up a Q when it first released and it's still one of my favorite cameras. I love it.
leica has better micro contrast. This has always been a signature of their glass. If you had used your x-pro2 w/ the 35 f/1.4 or the 50 f/2 you would be more similar results. The lens needs to be engineered for micro contrast, typically at the expense of another quality of the lens. Lens with high micro contrast can convince the eye that a slightly soft image is a lot sharper than what it seems.
Your spot on right. Perceived sharpness with micro contrast. This wins every time
@Rich Clark Productions Sharpness and contrast aren't the same value. What happens when you shine three concentric circles of light through 50 panels of glass Rich? The colour becomes so diffused, you can only see one homogeneous colour. Sony makes lens for edge to edge sharpness and correction. To do this requires multiple elements in multiple groups with molded elements near the front and back. See the above example about contrast Rich..the more glass, the less contrast you're gonna get. This is the complete opposite design needed for contrast. This is why when you look at sony lens, all shadow umbra is poorly graduated. They have no acuity. Sigma has the same design philosophy. Edge to edge over acuity. I thought you would have known this, considering you have productions in your name. Sony make nice lens for people with poor knowledge. Much the same as huawei has leica on their branding..nice camera phone for people who get suckered by names over actually knowing what they are talking about. The cheap ass tamaron 35, beat every sony lens in sharpness...you know why? they don't make cinema lens, they have little relative history..they make lens for people who don't know better. This why 99% of photographers have no idea what a lens actually does by looking at its element formation and grouping. If you enjoy sony at the cost of contrast, colour fidelity and saturation and acuity..then good for you..you're exactly the customer sony is after.
Good video, thanks! I get what you're saying to a certain extent. I love my X100F (I've owned an X100S and T in the past) but there actually *is* a "better or worse" when it comes to picture quality between the two cameras: the Q is simply superior. Sure, it costs a ton more so you would expect that, but it's simply a fact that the Q *is* a better camera than the F and you shouldn't be afraid to say that. (I don't own a Q, btw). Note: that doesn't mean the F is a bad camera - this is a relative comparison!
How about picking a winner based on a criteria? Just state that the Leica has better overall image quality (or something else) and the Fuji is the better value, period. I don’t understand why people do comparison videos and then tell the audience that it’s up to them to pick a winner. If that’s the case, you could’ve just done two separate videos. State emphatically that I like product X.
Also, why compare two totally different cameras. Most people are not cross-shopping those two cameras. One is full frame and the other cropped. One is small and portable and the other one much larger. One cost a $1000 and the other $5000. It like comparing a $20,000 Toyota Corolla to a $100,000 BMW (hey they’re both cars) and then telling the audience to select the one that fits their budget or driving style. Consumers don’t cross-shop those two cars.
I own a x100f and I can honestly say the low light is not an issue, considering the high ISO capabilities are great. And the grain is great as well... I love it and worth a shot. Images are smoth even in 3600 or higher.
Colours can be changed/edited either in camera or in lightroom, so photo comparisons and comparing colour is not really going to define why you would fork out 5 grand for a Leica.
For a fine art photographer, that little difference is HUGE.
I think with the Q2, you get slightly more versatility in focal length via the digital cropping.. To achieve same functionality in this area you would need to own the WCL and TCL adapters which is more cost and size..
Great video Evan. I own an X 100 T and F (love them both and couldn’t bring myself to sell the T). They just ,make we want to take pictures. Saying that I did walk in to the Leica store with $4000 in hand and was going to buy either a Q or Q2. I played with both for about an hour. As someone who is very tactile I just loved the way they feel and the build quality is superb. When it came to image quality there did not seem to be an appreciable difference. After much deliberation I left, went to the Fuji store, bought an XH1 with a battery grip for $1400 and had $2600 to put towards some glass. As you say both are great cameras and ultimately I am unashamedly a Fuji Fanboy, simply because of build quality, image quality and regular firmware updates. If only they would make the X100 as a pure monochrome. Now that would be something. Have really been enjoying your channel and great content. Regards Steve. Dubai.
What would be the advantage of it being a pure monochrome camera?
@@matrajao Like most things in photography it is often down to the eye of the beholder and what one finds most pleasing. My understanding is that technically the removal of the colour filter array increases the resolution and improves micro-contrast. As a non-technical person, it removes the colour distraction and the need for lots of post processing but once again it is really down to the individual and personal taste. Given the cost of the Leica M it is way out of my price range. As a result I am happy to post process my Fuji Raw files or use the excellent ACROS film simultion which to my eye gives a very pleasing result. thankfully with modern digital cameras there is so much choice that there is something for everybody, another reason why I am happy to stay with my X100F.
Thanks for this. I have been seriously considering the Q in the future and own an x pro2.
As a sony a7iii user I'm waiting for the new x100 camera since it's time for an update. The X100 will be the perfect sized camera for me for everyday shooting. Even though the a7iii is small compared to a dslr, when you slap on lenses it's just too big to always be with you. Great video thanks!
THis is why i use M43. I know the trade-offs, but the quality trade off is small when compared to having the camera with me.
I’m in the exact same boat... afraid to drop the 1200 on something when a new one should be out soon
Buy a used as new Q as I did with a warranty for 2900..still a lot of money but not nearly as painful as 4-5K
I'd love the Leica as I prefer the colours it produces but I'd go Fuji every day for the value for money!
Thanks for that neutral comparison ... an update with the new X100V would be interesting now ...
Evan,
Thanks for making this video. I enjoyed it very much.
I am now happy I purchased the X100f. I love the results I’m getting and I saved myself a few thousand bucks.
I’m not a professional so I think for me the Leica would be just a waste of money.
I’ll use that money to buy myself a Xt2 or a xt3 and a few lenses to go with my new X100f.
Well there's another difference too - the sensor size. And for the stuff I do that's significant. I generally need to crop and you just can't escape the fact that physics has a role in this. I love my Fuji X-T3 and more often than not I can crop as much as I want without an issue but with the Leica Q (and deffo the Q2) you have the ability to crop a lot more. The Fuji and Leica can both produce great shots and are lovely to use but at the end of the day sensor size really is important. To me at any rate and I really wish Fuji did a full frame camera.
I originally wanted a Leica Q but settled for the X100T because I don't have Leica money 😭 I was initially disappointed with it on first use because it fell short of the Q in several ways but I've learned to work with its strengths and it's quite rewarding. I've been spoiled by its compactness as well which I can't find many cameras do especially with that level of image quality. Still want a Q though 😂
Jamil Jafri I own a Q recently and I still want an x100f just because of its compact size and stunning images
The crisper more saturated photos of the Q can be easily adjusted in the Fuji. I'm using a recipe that in a nutshell enhances blues and reds. The results are nice depending on the situation and most of the times. I also love the design of my Fujifilm X-E4 a lot better than the Leica. I'm German and the Leica design imo is just typically German design into your face. Very conservative and not much that refers to a typical range finder of the days. I have a lot of fun using vintage manual lenses on the Fuji and from the looks it's hard to tell it apart from an old analog range finder camera. It's not really important but well, yeah it really ads to the vintage look that I like. 8K for a Leica is insanely expensive imo especially when you can modify a Fuji that almost shoots in pretty much the same ball park. I might sound optimistic but so far I' reall happy w. Fuji
I rented both of them for about four days, then delayed purchasing anything until I really needed a travel camera. Because of the better value, I bought a used x100F and took it on a trip. Maybe it is just me as a historically Canon DSLR and now Sony a9 user but I found the APS-C and the Fuji rendering unsatisfying. I found the x100F lens a bit too soft for my liking wide open, not so noticable with portraits, but for abstracts and still life it drove me nuts. So I sold it for a downpayment on a used Leica Q which I find much more to more liking. I like the color rendering of the files much more and even the portraits seem better. I found neither of them so great with external flash. I think if you like and are used to the Fuji system and sensors, you will love the X100F. I really wanted to like the Fuji but it just wasn't enough for me despite the vast price difference.
Why didn't you use the 35mm mode on the Leica Q2 for the comparison? This would have brought the mp on the Q closer to the 100f. I was tempted to buy the Q2, but settled for a better upgrade, the GFX 50r.
I was a 35mm person until I got a Nikon Coolpix A...which I love even more than my XPro..The Coolpix is APS-C with a Nikon D7000 processor and it fits completely in my blue jean pockets!...and I love the color and the images it makes..
What to compare here? I use both Fujii and Leica, the Leica Q image is 2 levels higher.
Any comparison between the new fuji x100v vs. the Leica q?
Great video, but one correction: Sensor size does not affect light gathering capabilities. Pixel pitch is the relevant factor. The Q has a pixel pitch of 5.97 whereas the x100f is 3.9. Interestingly, the Q2 has a lower pixel pitch (4.27) due to it's higher megapixel count.
www.digicamdb.com/specs/leica_q-typ-116
You looked at the Ricoh GRiii? 28mm equivalent APS-C and actually pocketable 🔥 stealth mode 💯
dying to get one of those
ricoh is superior
@@akhyarrayhka4048 no its, its just smaller and that's pretty much it.
Mark Stephenson agree: had the q, loved it but the griii is something special - IQ superb and pocketable, stealth etc.
Ben Bolton I picked one up 2 weeks ago and I’m so impressed so far. Love how inconspicuous it is. And the sharpness 🔪
I think if you underexposed the Fujifilm by -0.3 then darkened the yellow and reds in HSL, maybe shifted the yellow over to orange a little, and the blue away from cyan a little, you'd get the same image.
Also, your X100 is auto balancing a touch green. R+1 or 2 could help.
at the beginning of the comparison part he said they were all straight out of camera raw...he just imported into Lightroom to export at the right file size
@@TheThirdErnest you can apply these fixes to the raw file too. To get to the same base.
Fujifilm should release a fullframe X100.
Why? To make it heavier, and cost more battery? Full frame adds almost nothing to the image. If it makes that much of a difference to you, get an RX1. Fujifilm is aps-c for good reason.
That was a great comparison, so much more interesting and informative than listening to a list of specs. Thanks Evan!
If you set the shadows a little harder and fix the color balance on the fuji - (a hair warmer, less green, more red) It would be pretty hard to tell the difference.
Leica photos look pretty darned good!
The colours are so much kore satisfying
How the Sony Rx1r2 gets ignored in the fixed lens camera question is mind boggling. It smokes both of the these cameras in IQ.
Interesting... the Q colors seemed richer & deeper... maybe b/c the Fuji was slightly over-exposing the scenes leading to a more washed out look in side by side comparison with the Q? Would have been nice to have an A/B test, where at the end you tell us which camera was A and which was B.
I own both Leica and Fuji. Kind of what I expected. Fuji has a greenish tint close to the old Fuji film colors. The Leica has a blueish tint close to a Kodachrome. I prefer the Leica color and the raw files are better to work with in Lightroom.
I’m a Sony user. But that X100f is really screaming to me.
I bought one. It was fantastic. Compared to my a7RIII w/ 24 GM or 35 Zeiss, though.....ehh...decided to keep investing more in my current system. Returned the Fuji.
i just sold my x100f. my main camera is the A7III. Tbh, the fuji is amazing and makes you want to take photos. As a person that does loads of video I found myself leaving the fuji at home too much so I sold it. But its an amazing every day carry. Personally, my A7iii + 35mm f2,8 is small enough to be my every day carry apart from work camera.
I'm also a sony user.. Used the zeiss 35 2.8 with my a7iii for street but still got the x100f and since then i almost never used the zeiss.. i always pick up the fuji
@@gerikmd hah! that happened to me for street shooting but i've been doing way more videos lately so i had to take my sony along. but yea, the fuji is the chosen one when it comes to street, size, colors and how beautiful it it haha
Gerik Flor tried an x100f for a couple of weeks to use as daily camera alongside my a7iii with 24gm, 35 1.4za, 55za and 135batis. but the i always left the A7iii at home when going on casual outings. as hobbyist i reckoned it was too much money left at home and using two very different system at the same time adds complexity. but miss a small all-day solution, so now I am torn between getting the 100f again or getting the 35 f2.8 (and keeping the 1.4). main subjects are kids and family...
Loved this video! Man, if only fuji could squeeze a larger sensor and better glass into the x100, even if it'd be a little bigger I'd be SOLD.
Leicas really have a special place in the market, and I really hope there will be some company that finally makes full frame ''Leica killer'' rangefinders while at a way lower pricepoint. We need some competition!
I have always loved your shots with the x100f. It's like your secret weapon. When I think Evan, I think Nikon for the big shoots and Fuji for the gritty shit where you're downtown, getting yelled at by security guards and still killing the game.
Damn. This video was perfection. Aside from the little softness from the Fuji, It really holds its own in this comparison. The Q definitely has more punchy contrast, but let’s be real, everybody is bringing their shots into Lightroom/Capture One so that’s not a $3k feature. Honestly, really happy you didn’t convince me to save up for a Leica. 👌🏽
I started my range finder hobby with Fuji, a damn good camera, but just as with my goal to buy a Porsche 911 some day, I had the same goal to own a Leica M body camera some day.
I like Fuji a lot but the Leica Q photo's look much better, if you're loaded definitely opt for the Q. If not, the Fuji will do.
I also find the Leica's photos to be more pleasing. I think the Leica finds a better white balance and is a little more punchy with its color and contrast. However, these are all addressable with some settings adjustments. The one unchangeable difference is that full frame sensor, and the Q's images seeming to have finer color gradation and microcontrast.
On second read, maybe I'm just proving your point here. But, for that much money, I'd rather opt for something like a Fuji GFX and get even better IQ. Or maybe a Sony A7 with good lenses (the sensors are top notch even though you may have to go to post if you like the looks Fuji and Leica produce).
Alok Somani on
I, like you, love the 35mm focal length. I will buy the Leica Q2 at some point because I have always wanted to shoot with/own a Leica, I have the money, and I figure that if I see a good deal used - I will pick it up (that way if I don't like it or don't use it - I can sell it an not lose a lot). For a Leica, it is a good deal (I need to be honest with myself - I can't justify an M body and 1 good lens, let alone multiple lenses). I figure I can still frame up 35mm shots at 30MP, but the 28mm with makes it that little bit more flexible for travel, and the 47MP just makes it that bit more flexible that the original Q.
Not saying anything differently than what you already stated, but i also used both, and now also a Q and a Q-P which is basically the same also, only that the Q-P looks as sexy as any camera i have ever owned and the shutter button actually making it even more of a robust camera in some ways than the already robust Q. When it comes to what is better, well first of all they are different in a few ways, so you can't really compare it when it comes to s target photographic tool for every person. Either you need one FL or you don't , but if you are ok with either FL you can compare the build and ergonomics and the IQ.
The IQ is just better overall on the Q in my experience , it also has a unique look that i didn't find on the X100F.Not saying "better" look, just more unique, and for me thats "better" since i want to create something as different many times than everyone else, so you got a better chance of doing that right away just by the look of the images.
The only way the Fuji is better when it comes to ergonomics is by size. The build is better and the ergonomics are better on the Q in my opinion, actually the Q is like no other smaller camera i have ever used, and i have used quite a few over the years. Having said all this i love the Fuji cameras overall , i have gone through the X-T1/2and3 plus the X100F. And sold and used same lenses twice because i liked them so much. But i sold it all also a second time to finance my Q-P just because i felt it was a better tool for me overall. I would never have known that having not tested the first Q i owned. But that made me love it so much that i wanted it again, and that sais a lot.
If i wouldn't have tried the Q in the first place i would not have sold the Fuji gear and would be very happy with that for sure. I was more fond of the X-T1 and 2 and 3 though than the X100F, im not too keen on the 35 lens( hence the Q was also a better tool for me since i like the 28 more for the way i shoot ) also i found it little soft at times, and while i was ok with that the Q was just more crisp and i liked that better as well. The X100F was fun to use though, and the unbuild ND filter and flash was actually very cool and made it very versatile.
When its all said and done its a tool we are buying, and can you afford a "better" tool for you and you can and want to afford that, why not? Its an expensive hobby or work we are doing, so none of us are getting off cheap when it comes to photography. Some of us feel its worth more and some less which is fine, when it comes to actually creating those photos the tool matter less than the creativity and expertise of the photographer anyhow:)
For me a camera that inspires me is worth a lot as a tool, and the Q and now the Q-P does that ina away not many other cameras have, thats just a fact.
/Rant off ;)
.i hope my clients start demanding brand and lenses for their weddings
Hey Evan, great video. I think a video going over your lighting and camera set up that you use for your RUclips videos would be GREATLY appreciated all of us. I have finally decided to create a RUclips channel after putting if off for over 10 years and the look and feel of your videos is something I would like to model for my channel. Sorry for the "long-winded" comment and thanks in advance.
I am not shocked that the q has more bokeh, because of f1.7 instead of f2, the fact that it is a 28mm lens (vs 23mm of the fuji) and the fact that you need to get closer to have the same DOF (closer = less DOF)
Perfect video comparing them. I would have liked to see a few of the X100 images with the film filters to see if they could get any closer to the Q or bring anything else out of the x100F.
For the price, portability, and quality the X100F should be a no brainer, frankly. I've been considering one for a while now-may have to make the jump...
make the jump!! it made me buy even more fujifilm products.. after shooting with the x100f i fell back in love with photo and bought the xt3 4months later.
Great video ))) Would be cool to compare the X100V with the Q or Q2.
For the same price as the Leica QP you can get the Fuji GFX50R plus a lens!
You can get many many things for that price but this is not the point here. The gfx50r is a very different type of camera and you cannot compare it with these two. It is actually a huge brick in comparison. Those are pretty high performance cameras in very small and light packages. Furthermore, the Q-P cost about 200 more than the 50r with no lenses and almost 1000 less than the 50r + 63mm 2.8 (50mm equivalent, so the cheapest one). If you want a 35mm equivalent you have to add about 300 more to that difference. So gfx50r + 45mm is about 200 bucks more expensive than the Leica Q2.
Moreover you don‘t have to buy a Q-P. The leica Q is basically the same in other colors and cost 600 cheaper.
In any case I agree that any camera on the market gives you a better value for the money than a Leica (specswise). From this point of view the 50r is a better buy but a Leica gives you some very worthy aspects like having, by far, the best quality/size ratio (camera+lens) on the market and gives you also some others you cannot value in such a rational way.
Nevertheless, I wouldn’t buy a Leica new but I think a second hand one can be a pretty good bussiness. Now you can get a Q second hand, in mint condition for less than 3 grand and at this price point maybe you can compare it with other cameras in a much more fair way.
theory8sf U didn't get the point of this video lol
Great video and conclusions Evan. I was amazed how well the Fuji did. With some editing even closer results can be achieved. If I had the income then Leica, heck why not, but otherwise what Fuji is achieveing with APSC is remarkable in my opinion.
The Leica is the first camera I have seen that exposes darker than the Fuji.
Got to keep that gain noise down somehow. Shh..
I’ve actually been waiting for this video. 😂
Haha glad to finally get it out then!
Wait, doesn't the x100F have a macro mode too? I know the x100T has it...
Robert Allen True, it does and I use it often on my dated but great X100s.
X100v for €1500 or used Q for €2000.....?
You should make a similar video but with the Sony RX1R!!
Great video Evan. I have to say re the images shown I prefer the X100F in nearly every case.
It seems to be a negligible difference like Kodak vs Fujifilm. I think if he wanted to get those Leica colours on the X100, he just needs to shift the AWB to R+2ish, and underexpose by 0.3ev.
Given that the X100F is a crop sensor then the comparison between the F-stops should be adjusted. We're talking about an actual f2.8 for the Fuji as compared to F1.7 for the Leica.
If you want to match DOF on booth lenses then F2 on Fuji ~= F2.8 on Leica. In terms of light gathering F2 on Fuji should match F2 on Leica.
Would love to see a version 2.0 of this video with the new lens on the x100v . Would be curious to see how it compares after the updates especially with the upgrades when wideopen.
I think Fuji X100F also hs the macro mode, just not a physical switch, you can turn in on/off from the menu.
loving the placement of your key light. Looks really good!
The Leica Q is nice. I owned a Leica MP with 50mm summicron. But the image quality isn't that much better than the Fuji especially after post processing the raw files. It's a status symbol. That's it
For those who know cars this is the equivalent of comparing a Corvette vs a Ferrari.... while they may be pretty close in performance, it’s the experience that makes the extra $$ worth it. That’s fine if you don’t agree... cause everyone is entitled to their opinion, but those who buy the Leica for the right reasons will understand what I’m talking about
I don’t have the Fuji nor the Leica... and probably wouldn’t get any of them (because a fixed lens camera doesn’t work for me), but objectively I preferred the Leica images. They had more intense colors, more contrast. In a blind test I would have chosen those pictures not because they’re Leica’s...I just happen to like them more. The Fuji output just looks like every other camera. From my perspective both are overpriced in their respective segments.
That's always that question when the word "Leica" is mentioned....Is it worth it? My take is that if it's your JOB to take photos, ie selling photos or hanging them in galleries, then it's certainly worth having that Leica quality. If it's just to take photos to show on Instagram....I'm not sure, you can probably achieve the same goal at 1/4 of the price.
I'm not sure about that. First, I doubted anyone would buy a print because it was taking with a Leica (by brand or quality) and I had seen Instagram influencer used a Leica M 240 with a 50mm NOCT and many others owned a Q. My take is that buying a Leica is for a person being in a stage of his/her life that can afford such an expense without having to think about where the money is coming from. I'm sure that the homeless or the starving mass sees anyone buying (or owing) a camera is a waste of money, just as some people think of others buying a Leica. While others are questioning about what percentage of improvement in image quality will get from ?X increase in cost, but It is just one of the real world example of the term Diminishing Return or purely for emotion satisfaction, liked some kids urging their parents to buy them certain brands of clothing, shoes, earphones, toys, game box, etc.
Thank U. A huge amount of great info in a short film. A really excellent and extremely useful comparison betwn 2 cameras I’m considering (Oc the Leica wood req. a £ windfall; which I’m open to ..). The inclusion of some very revealing image comparisons brilliantly demo’d the advantages of the Leica lens n it’s 47mp vs the Fuji’s lens n tiny sensor. But is the difference - as the man asks - is the difference worth an extra £3-£4K. This film answered that Q, (sori, that Question) for me, at this time.The answer is; it ain’t !! Another factor that pushed me towards the fuiji was its ‘carryability’, the actusl ‘compactness’ of both cameras. Again, for me, the fuiji wins. Also the film mentioned the softness of the x100f’s ‘macro’ shots. But they - fuiji - say that that has bin addressed in the x100V. So I think that will b my choice. (Subject to more research and some hands-on use). But that doesn’t stop me dreaming that one day ..
Thanks again.
Hey man I’m a regular viewer for years I think u would really love the Ricoh GRiii. 28mm, can crop to 35 and 50 and shoots Raws right to ur phone and like others have said it’s incredibly sharp edge to edge as well as much more pocketable then my Fuji
while the leica q has some fantastic image quality the fixed lens makes it a deal-killer for me at 4x the price of the fuji. the magic of leica is the lens quality and that's really what drives the price up. if i could re-use that lens on another body ... not sure i would buy the q, but it makes the purchase decision more interesting.
I have both along with the Q2 yet I still use the Ricoh GR 3 more haha. It blows them all out of the water.
Nice video mate. I have wondered about the difference in output. You explained very well with examples.
I’m at work so I can’t watch rn BUT YOU KNOW this is gonna be a heater of a video 👏🏻
MVP moves all day!! Thanks for watching!
If we could combine the color reproduction/tones/profile of fuji and the microcontrast of leica we'd have perfection lol
Thanks for this great comparison Evan!
I find that I use my X100F more often than my Q, probably how easy and light it is to take street photography, where as Q is good but a lot chunkier to manoeuvre around.
The Q has much more punch to the color, especially the reds plus it is is a sharper lens when shooting wide open.........does this make it worth four grand more? well, it will last twenty years while the you drop the Fuji once odds are it will break.....I have both.....and an M8 and a Fuji xt2 - now the xt2 is built tough, and with fujinon prime lenses it is as close to any Leica you can find though, admittedly, you do pay a premium for that red dot........but I just love the feel of my M8 with my 28mm Elmarit lens.....which is about 35mm with the m8's cropped sensor but it is perfect for the street.
Big fan of this video as a X100F owner. Much better than the multiple videos only showing specs.
ps. all the photo comparisons say FUJILM not FUJIFILM. Great video though
that x100f got those classic faded fuji film colors...its def got a unique vibe to them.
You feeling cold....in Atlanta June????
Great video! So do YOU find any major differences in image quality? Thx!
@Evan Ranft .... Have you ever seen the videos by Mattias Burling? .... His videos on the Q and X100f are toally different to everyone elses. My choice would be the Q everytime because of the build quality, lens ability, image quality and so much more.
But since the x100f has a smaller sensor, wouldn't it be fair to apply the equivalent apperture as well?
Since the fuji had a 35mm f/2.0 lens then the equivalent for a full frame would be 53mm f/3.06
!
The video was very nice tho. Keep up the good work!
Makis Metaxas the fuji doesn’t have a 35mm lens it has a 23mm lens. The full frame equivalent is 35mm .
What a wonderful commentary. It was very helpful. Thank you. I also like Leica on RUclips.
Sincere thank you for making videos like this. I’m considering both as my next walk around camera, as dumb as it may sound. This certainly helps towards it.
Do Fuji’s expose to the right a little bit automatically? Because I love the slight overexposed film look I get on my xt20 but it was never as noticeable as seeing these 2 comparisons. Unless the Leica is just underexposed to make it more punchy with the blacks
Did you develop your Fuji raw files direct in Lr or through iridient x-transformer first? If not, what are your views on the quality of fuji dng files through Lr and also do you ever use the film simulations or always Adobe color?