What a great video and congratulations. You are one of the few that doesn’t come with the recent trend of making the same video “why I switched from Fujifilm to Leica” 🙏. I’m a happy owner of a xpro3 for recreative/enthusiastic shooting. I would consider it (after 3 years using it) a more versatile x100v because those share the sensor but the xpro3 can change lenses and has some more tech specs but not by much far. The truth is the optical view finder grid starts on 23mm so, any lens wider than that will not show the grid. Personally I do think that those lenses that “shine” on the xpro3 are the fujicrons trio. The 23, 35 and 50mm f/2. The Fuji 18mm f/1.4 is (for me) one of the best lenses from Fuji optically wise but, I find it heavy, bulky and expensive for a 26mpx sensor (arguable). For me looks more for a xt-5 body and sensor. The xpro3 is my street photography body where for this type of action we do shoot mostly between f/5.6 to f/8. It’s important small and discrete lenses and the fact that the fujicrons are weather sealed (as the xpro3) is a plus. So I get perfectly your point and agree with the comparison but even in 18mm, I would go for the “older” xf18 f/2. Smaller, equally efficiency (for what I do) and cheaper. I would like to highlight what for me was the most important part of choosing the xpro3: using the optical view finder with manual lenses and what an amazing experience. Just buy a M42 adapter and try an SMC Takumar 24mm or an Helios 44-2 or even a more recent TTArtisan 25mm f/2 pancake or the Mitakon 35mm f/0.95 (those last two on x mount). Is such a joy to use the focus peaking with manual lenses on the OVF. The Leica Q3 must be an amazing camera but in my opinion is really far from the experience that a xpro3 allows and which I do recognize that is not for everyone’s taste. The xpro3 is the nearest one can be to real film photography without selling a kidney (or two if compared to a Leica). I really loved your video for the explanations and by the topic 💪 keep bringing on english please.
Thanks man! I really appreciated your articulated comment. And I get your point. The beauty of this is that each one of us has different needs and can find its own preferred gear.
Good to see you Luca. Very interesting (comparison) and well thought out video. You didn’t ask me, but I’m going to tell you anyway, as an amateur/hobbyist I’m more than happy with my X-T4 (two of them actually) and I don’t like (or want) cameras with fixed lenses such as this Leica or the X100V, so for now I’ll wait to see what the Xpro4 has to offer, no, I don’t need another camera, but I do want a new toy. Be well and stay safe.
A very honest take, I really enjoyed this video. Being a fuji user for 5 years and recently switching to leica I can definitely tell that in terms of built quality and image output the leicas are on another level. The depth and the clarity in the images are second to none. I still appreciate fuji and I think that as a user experience it is as close to owning a leica as it gets. But the Q3 is definitely worth twice the price of the xpro3
@@dirk.4711 the issue is not the Fuji part, but the Leica one. I don't have one, I tried it for mi review and had to give it back. I'm trying to request one for a longer test, but I haven't had the chance yet
Great video as always! Isn't the aperture in the Leica still faster than the 1.4 in the 18mm Fuji lens? I personally don't own a Leica or other full frame cameras, but I've read the 1.4 is equivalent to f2.1 in full frame terms, since you have to multiply it × 1.5. Cheers!
You are right, the equivalent aperture is still faster, but what I meant is that the difference isn't as striking as one might think. Thanks for commenting
I think the value of the X-Pro3 screen is not the avoid skimping thing, but that it's the fastest most efficient waist-level viewfinder solution to any digital camera. Personally I only ever use the back screen of cameras for low shots and in X-Pro3 I can bring it out incredibly quickly in one single motion. *This* in my view is what makes the X-Pro3 LCD so special. Interesting video though. Thanks for making it!
I never pushed that screen greater than 120 degrees to avoid trouble. I was made to understand that if you register your unit, they would replace it for free if it snaps.
@@LucaPetraliaPhotography I agree... This lens stands out even compared to 33 mm f1.4 lm wr. Fuji's chef-d'ouevre. The image is not just sharp, it has a special dreamy feel. Impressive semi macro capabilities. Zero compromises and still a compact unit.
You're right, that's why I said the difference is minimal, and you will find differences only if you look for them. In the end it's basically half a stop difference
You wouldn't be able to tell anyways on RUclips. However the reason is I didn't shoot those shots to compare them, I shot those based on my mood and what I had in mind. Ultimately that's the real field use, not shooting the same scene with both trying to match them
Having owned both cameras I think they're incredibly different. The main advantage of the Leica is being to crop into any image you take and have enough resolution for it to still look incredible. For everything else, the Xpro3 is superior. The Xpro3 is much better feeling and built camera than the Leica with its titanium body and scratch resistant coating. The Leica while being built like an aluminum tank, is a surprisingly fragile camera with the back LCD and viewfinder easily scratching and dinking. I ended up selling the Leica for 3 reasons. The first is that the Leica digitally crops raw images which distorts corner sharpness significantly- an unacceptable design flaw that makes the 28mm Summilux have worse corner sharpness than my Viltrox lenses. The second is that autofocus is quite poor- Again totally unacceptable on a 6k camera and lens combo. Finally, the JPEG performance is quite poor, especially when compared to a Fuji camera- not a big deal if you shoot only raw, but again this camera should not have such poor Jpegs. Facts aside, I still prefer the Xpro3 in terms of shooting experience as well. While I really loved the convenience of the Leica, the Xpro3 is more fun camera to shoot with if you like Jpeg shooting (film simulations) or if you like taking your time to compose shots and think about your photography.
@LucaPetraliaPhotography Yea don't get me wrong, I really like Leica and wanted to love this camera (hence dropping 6k+). But it's just not great and I feel that the they're really falling behind in terms of their digital cameras in general. The best way to look at it is that this camera is hardly different from the q2, which shows that in 4 years leica hasn't really innovated in its most popular line of digital cameras. Lets consider it from your perspective, where the xpro3 is 80% of the q3 experience. The xpro 3 came out in the same year the q2 did. If the xpro4 comes out this year it's almost guaranteed to smoke the q3 at a sub 2k price point. Which is my point that as great a company that Leica is, they're falling behind and shouldn't be praised for it. They need to innovate, or they will die.
@@LucaPetraliaPhotography Since you asked… and I know Leica fans (and I am one with my M Series cameras ) will hate my comments but… 1. Crappy auto-focus. I get that Leica photographers are historically manual shooters but this is not an M3. It is 2024 and it should just be great in hitting its focus targets. The vaunted Leica engineering should at least have a decent AF. The “if you want tack sharp focus get a Sony” argument is stupid and irrelevant. The fact is that Leica licensed Panasonic’s focusing system for the Q3 which was a move in the right direction 2.) no dual card slots like any other camera in this price range. The JPEG and RAW files are the same card and no options for backup or separating files 3. The video sucks and has no mic input. They should just have left the video out entirely and gone for a pure stills camera. I would be cool with that. Better to not do the hybrid camera approach on a half-assed basis rather than this. A $400 GoPro has better video. 4. the I/O connections are none existent. Obviously this has been fixed in the Q3 to some degree. 4. No compatibility with standard TTL flash/strobe. I get that Henri Cartier Bresson didn’t use flash but that was 80+ years ago and there should simply be that option besides only supporting the crappy re-branded Leica flash units. 5. Film simulations are very limited. Either get rid of them or go the route of the Fuji X Pro line with both a rich set of options as well as the ability for custom recipes. 5. The “3 lenses in 1 argument is silly because the crop factors cut the resulting down to almost nothing. I could go on but $6K for a new Q2 it is simply not a value proposition. The “Leica look” is a myth like the Emperor’s New Clothes and can be matched by most all of the high end mirrorless cameras in tests if you do a deep dive on the issue. I know we owners paint over these short comings with the “Louis Vuitton ” luxury brand argument (“Leica can just have mediocre features because it is a luxury brand and can charge for it” - which is essentially a stupid argument) but that is no excuse for the engineering shortfalls (which several generations behind other cameras that sell for 1/3 of the price.) If Leica’s reputation is based on minimalist superior engineering, this camera is off brand. That said, I love the ergos but regret leaving my Fuji X Pro 3. I will get the XPro-4 when it comes out. I wanted to downsize to a single camera and initially the Q2 ticked boxes. But I am not an insecure person who needs to get status with a red dot. I have other M line cameras. Problem is that many Leica users are rabid fans, as I am with all the other cameras in their line and rationalize these short comings and blindly give Leica a pass on the Q2 like religious zealots. I will throw up if I see another social media post with a new owner who says “I just joined the exclusive club”. I have owned M’s and feel they are the finest in the world. Yeah, I get the “it’s a great lens with a free camera attached for the price” argument. But I will trade the Q2 and go back to an M10 and, as I stated, a Fuji XPro 4 when they are out as well. At a minimum I will only shoot in manual mode with the Q2 going forward until the X Pro 4 shows up. People compare the X Pro 3 to the Q2/Q3 but I don’t think that is a valid approach since the Fuji is a range finder system like the Leica M series and the Q2/3 is a whole other design. So it is not remotely an apples-to-apples comparison. That said I enjoyed your video and keep on making them!
Thanks for being so descriptive. I get your points, and I agree with some of them, but I still think the Q3 is better in some areas. Granted I don't own it, so this may be one of the reasons, but I really can't find my groove with the X-Pro3. And I started my journey with Fuji with an x100 and an Xpro1
Not sure how you review a camera you have never used but whatever. And as I said, you are comparing 2 different types of cameras. The X Pro 3 was designed as a knockoff of the Leica M series and both are range-finder cameras so that is the only valid comparison to make. The real question if you are going to review the X Pro 3 is "how much is the X Pro 3 a Leica killer or not, at less than 1/5th. the cost of a Leica M10. @@LucaPetraliaPhotography
I used both, I don't own them. For as much as I'd love to own each and every camera... I just can't. As for the comparison with the M, I think that despite the visual similarities, their targeted user is different. 99% of the X-Pro3 users would not choose the Leica because of the autofocus, as much as Leica users would not easily give up on the rangefinder
What a great video and congratulations. You are one of the few that doesn’t come with the recent trend of making the same video “why I switched from Fujifilm to Leica” 🙏. I’m a happy owner of a xpro3 for recreative/enthusiastic shooting. I would consider it (after 3 years using it) a more versatile x100v because those share the sensor but the xpro3 can change lenses and has some more tech specs but not by much far. The truth is the optical view finder grid starts on 23mm so, any lens wider than that will not show the grid. Personally I do think that those lenses that “shine” on the xpro3 are the fujicrons trio. The 23, 35 and 50mm f/2. The Fuji 18mm f/1.4 is (for me) one of the best lenses from Fuji optically wise but, I find it heavy, bulky and expensive for a 26mpx sensor (arguable). For me looks more for a xt-5 body and sensor. The xpro3 is my street photography body where for this type of action we do shoot mostly between f/5.6 to f/8. It’s important small and discrete lenses and the fact that the fujicrons are weather sealed (as the xpro3) is a plus. So I get perfectly your point and agree with the comparison but even in 18mm, I would go for the “older” xf18 f/2. Smaller, equally efficiency (for what I do) and cheaper. I would like to highlight what for me was the most important part of choosing the xpro3: using the optical view finder with manual lenses and what an amazing experience. Just buy a M42 adapter and try an SMC Takumar 24mm or an Helios 44-2 or even a more recent TTArtisan 25mm f/2 pancake or the Mitakon 35mm f/0.95 (those last two on x mount). Is such a joy to use the focus peaking with manual lenses on the OVF. The Leica Q3 must be an amazing camera but in my opinion is really far from the experience that a xpro3 allows and which I do recognize that is not for everyone’s taste. The xpro3 is the nearest one can be to real film photography without selling a kidney (or two if compared to a Leica). I really loved your video for the explanations and by the topic 💪 keep bringing on english please.
Thanks man! I really appreciated your articulated comment. And I get your point. The beauty of this is that each one of us has different needs and can find its own preferred gear.
Good to see you Luca. Very interesting (comparison) and well thought out video. You didn’t ask me, but I’m going to tell you anyway, as an amateur/hobbyist I’m more than happy with my X-T4 (two of them actually) and I don’t like (or want) cameras with fixed lenses such as this Leica or the X100V, so for now I’ll wait to see what the Xpro4 has to offer, no, I don’t need another camera, but I do want a new toy. Be well and stay safe.
Love your comments as always! I want the new toy too
A very honest take, I really enjoyed this video. Being a fuji user for 5 years and recently switching to leica I can definitely tell that in terms of built quality and image output the leicas are on another level. The depth and the clarity in the images are second to none. I still appreciate fuji and I think that as a user experience it is as close to owning a leica as it gets. But the Q3 is definitely worth twice the price of the xpro3
Thanks for sharing!
What if you compare only image quality of both lenses? Which lens has better image quality if you adjust the resolution in the Q3?
It's hard to tell, I should try to take the same picture and compare them... And I don't have this option right now.
@@LucaPetraliaPhotography Would be great if you could try that. No matter whether with XPro3 or XE3/XE4 etc.
@@dirk.4711 the issue is not the Fuji part, but the Leica one. I don't have one, I tried it for mi review and had to give it back. I'm trying to request one for a longer test, but I haven't had the chance yet
Great video as always! Isn't the aperture in the Leica still faster than the 1.4 in the 18mm Fuji lens? I personally don't own a Leica or other full frame cameras, but I've read the 1.4 is equivalent to f2.1 in full frame terms, since you have to multiply it × 1.5. Cheers!
You are right, the equivalent aperture is still faster, but what I meant is that the difference isn't as striking as one might think.
Thanks for commenting
You are talking about depth of field, right?
I think the value of the X-Pro3 screen is not the avoid skimping thing, but that it's the fastest most efficient waist-level viewfinder solution to any digital camera. Personally I only ever use the back screen of cameras for low shots and in X-Pro3 I can bring it out incredibly quickly in one single motion. *This* in my view is what makes the X-Pro3 LCD so special.
Interesting video though. Thanks for making it!
Thanks! I get your point on the screen, but to me it is still too limiting in any other scenario.
Thanks for this comparison. I would love to see the X-Pro 4 with the 18 1.4 and the HR sensor compared to the Q3 some day. Maybe you will do it.
I'll try to do that comparison for sure
I do love my XPro3, but I've been disappointed in reports that the LCD ribbon has broken thus making the LCD inoperable.
I've heard those too, I hope it was just a bad batch. However that kind of hinge on the display is in a position where it's super easy to snap it
I never pushed that screen greater than 120 degrees to avoid trouble. I was made to understand that if you register your unit, they would replace it for free if it snaps.
That optical viewfinder is great for a limited number of small prime lenses
Exactly
I can only say that 18 mm f1.4 is an outstanding lens, it will be legendary in the Fuji system.
That is 100% facts. That lens alone makes it worth investing in Fuji
@@LucaPetraliaPhotography I agree... This lens stands out even compared to 33 mm f1.4 lm wr. Fuji's chef-d'ouevre.
The image is not just sharp, it has a special dreamy feel. Impressive semi macro capabilities. Zero compromises and still a compact unit.
That money difference is important for me. If it did not, I would probably get both.
Oh well, if money was no object I would too
1.4 on a crop camera is equivalent to 2.1 on FF for DOF
You're right, that's why I said the difference is minimal, and you will find differences only if you look for them. In the end it's basically half a stop difference
@@LucaPetraliaPhotography ah I must have misunderstood you. Stay blessed
@@longrider9551 thanks!
ciao falli in italiano i video visto che sei bravo....non mi piace leggere la traduzione grazie
Ciao, li faccio in entrambe le lingue, il video in italiano esce sempre un'ora dopo quello in inglese😉
why fuji in b&w and why leica colors? can't differentiate qualities 😃
You wouldn't be able to tell anyways on RUclips. However the reason is I didn't shoot those shots to compare them, I shot those based on my mood and what I had in mind. Ultimately that's the real field use, not shooting the same scene with both trying to match them
Having owned both cameras I think they're incredibly different. The main advantage of the Leica is being to crop into any image you take and have enough resolution for it to still look incredible. For everything else, the Xpro3 is superior. The Xpro3 is much better feeling and built camera than the Leica with its titanium body and scratch resistant coating. The Leica while being built like an aluminum tank, is a surprisingly fragile camera with the back LCD and viewfinder easily scratching and dinking.
I ended up selling the Leica for 3 reasons. The first is that the Leica digitally crops raw images which distorts corner sharpness significantly- an unacceptable design flaw that makes the 28mm Summilux have worse corner sharpness than my Viltrox lenses. The second is that autofocus is quite poor- Again totally unacceptable on a 6k camera and lens combo. Finally, the JPEG performance is quite poor, especially when compared to a Fuji camera- not a big deal if you shoot only raw, but again this camera should not have such poor Jpegs.
Facts aside, I still prefer the Xpro3 in terms of shooting experience as well. While I really loved the convenience of the Leica, the Xpro3 is more fun camera to shoot with if you like Jpeg shooting (film simulations) or if you like taking your time to compose shots and think about your photography.
I guess the Leica just wasn't your thing. I get some of your points but not all of them.
As for the jpeg you're right, Fuji is ahead of the game here
@LucaPetraliaPhotography Yea don't get me wrong, I really like Leica and wanted to love this camera (hence dropping 6k+). But it's just not great and I feel that the they're really falling behind in terms of their digital cameras in general. The best way to look at it is that this camera is hardly different from the q2, which shows that in 4 years leica hasn't really innovated in its most popular line of digital cameras.
Lets consider it from your perspective, where the xpro3 is 80% of the q3 experience. The xpro 3 came out in the same year the q2 did. If the xpro4 comes out this year it's almost guaranteed to smoke the q3 at a sub 2k price point. Which is my point that as great a company that Leica is, they're falling behind and shouldn't be praised for it. They need to innovate, or they will die.
I own the X3 and the Q3. My mistake was getting the Leica.
Can you tell me why?
@@LucaPetraliaPhotography Since you asked… and I know Leica fans (and I am one with my M Series cameras ) will hate my comments but… 1. Crappy auto-focus. I get that Leica photographers are historically manual shooters but this is not an M3. It is 2024 and it should just be great in hitting its focus targets. The vaunted Leica engineering should at least have a decent AF. The “if you want tack sharp focus get a Sony” argument is stupid and irrelevant. The fact is that Leica licensed Panasonic’s focusing system for the Q3 which was a move in the right direction 2.) no dual card slots like any other camera in this price range. The JPEG and RAW files are the same card and no options for backup or separating files 3. The video sucks and has no mic input. They should just have left the video out entirely and gone for a pure stills camera. I would be cool with that. Better to not do the hybrid camera approach on a half-assed basis rather than this. A $400 GoPro has better video. 4. the I/O connections are none existent. Obviously this has been fixed in the Q3 to some degree. 4. No compatibility with standard TTL flash/strobe. I get that Henri Cartier Bresson didn’t use flash but that was 80+ years ago and there should simply be that option besides only supporting the crappy re-branded Leica flash units. 5. Film simulations are very limited. Either get rid of them or go the route of the Fuji X Pro line with both a rich set of options as well as the ability for custom recipes. 5. The “3 lenses in 1 argument is silly because the crop factors cut the resulting down to almost nothing. I could go on but $6K for a new Q2 it is simply not a value proposition. The “Leica look” is a myth like the Emperor’s New Clothes and can be matched by most all of the high end mirrorless cameras in tests if you do a deep dive on the issue. I know we owners paint over these short comings with the “Louis Vuitton ” luxury brand argument (“Leica can just have mediocre features because it is a luxury brand and can charge for it” - which is essentially a stupid argument) but that is no excuse for the engineering shortfalls (which several generations behind other cameras that sell for 1/3 of the price.) If Leica’s reputation is based on minimalist superior engineering, this camera is off brand. That said, I love the ergos but regret leaving my Fuji X Pro 3. I will get the XPro-4 when it comes out. I wanted to downsize to a single camera and initially the Q2 ticked boxes. But I am not an insecure person who needs to get status with a red dot. I have other M line cameras. Problem is that many Leica users are rabid fans, as I am with all the other cameras in their line and rationalize these short comings and blindly give Leica a pass on the Q2 like religious zealots. I will throw up if I see another social media post with a new owner who says “I just joined the exclusive club”. I have owned M’s and feel they are the finest in the world. Yeah, I get the “it’s a great lens with a free camera attached for the price” argument. But I will trade the Q2 and go back to an M10 and, as I stated, a Fuji XPro 4 when they are out as well. At a minimum I will only shoot in manual mode with the Q2 going forward until the X Pro 4 shows up. People compare the X Pro 3 to the Q2/Q3 but I don’t think that is a valid approach since the Fuji is a range finder system like the Leica M series and the Q2/3 is a whole other design. So it is not remotely an apples-to-apples comparison. That said I enjoyed your video and keep on making them!
Thanks for being so descriptive. I get your points, and I agree with some of them, but I still think the Q3 is better in some areas. Granted I don't own it, so this may be one of the reasons, but I really can't find my groove with the X-Pro3. And I started my journey with Fuji with an x100 and an Xpro1
Not sure how you review a camera you have never used but whatever. And as I said, you are comparing 2 different types of cameras. The X Pro 3 was designed as a knockoff of the Leica M series and both are range-finder cameras so that is the only valid comparison to make. The real question if you are going to review the X Pro 3 is "how much is the X Pro 3 a Leica killer or not, at less than 1/5th. the cost of a Leica M10.
@@LucaPetraliaPhotography
I used both, I don't own them. For as much as I'd love to own each and every camera... I just can't.
As for the comparison with the M, I think that despite the visual similarities, their targeted user is different. 99% of the X-Pro3 users would not choose the Leica because of the autofocus, as much as Leica users would not easily give up on the rangefinder