X100v vs Leica Q

C

cboy

Well-known
Local time
7:24 PM
Joined
Jun 9, 2020
Messages
238
Hi all,

I was opting to buy the X100v since the IQ has improved from previous iterations but I was wondering how does it stack against the IQ of the Leica Q. What do you think of the IQ between both and is it worth getting a new X100v vs a used Leica Q?
 
Even used the Q is almost double the price of a new X100V, so a lot is going to depend on your wallet.

Outside of that..
28mm vs 35mm equiv focal length
Full frame vs crop
Leica colours vs Fuji colours
etc

Depends what matters to you?

For me I'd buy Fuji. I prefer the focal length and a crop sensor (larger dof at a given aperture) and I love Classic Chrome and Pro Neg Hi profiles.
I can also put the £1k I've just saved into a holiday (Covid-19 permitting) to take photos!
 
I cannot compare them as I have not had both but I can say I love certain things about the Q. But first I should say personally I wish it did not have a 28mm lens. Thirty five is plenty wide enough for me. Yes you can crop but by the time you crop to 50mm equivalent the pixel count is tiny. Unless you can splurge on the Q2 which starts with double the pixel count. Many people will not feel this way of course as most like wide angle lenses.

Now for the positives - to put your mind at rest and answer your specific question, image quality is really, really excellent.

Plus AF is superb - fast and accurate making it easy to nail those images and make use of all that beautiful IQ. And BTW manual focusing is implemented brilliantly. Take the lens out of AF mode by turning the distance ring (no separate buttons to push or dials to twiddle)and as you focus the image enlarges and focus peaking kicks in to make the focus point so obvious even I could not miss it. And it has the lens mounted aperture ring. Just like a "real" camera (HAHA).

In short the handling and haptics are wonderful making it a joy to use. Even for curmudgeons like me who naturally prefer a longer focal length. It is the kind of camera I do not think I would easily grow tired of as even when I am not using it I just want to sit in front of a fire stroking it like the family cat.
 
The IQ on both are great and neither will ruin your great photo (nor would the X100F for that matter). You have decide what is important to you... we can't. Do you know if you like 28mm over 35mm? To me that is where the debate begins and ends. For me, the 28mm is a non-starter. I have the X100V on order...

Both are great cameras IMO, you cannot go wrong unless you are a snob that thinks Fuji isn't good enough.
 
jsrockit said:
Both are great cameras IMO, you cannot go wrong unless you are a snob that thinks Fuji isn't good enough.
Click to expand...

As someone who has lusted after more expensive, rarified cameras--and then gone back to my Fujis--I have to agree. Neither camera is better for great photos, and the benefits of the full-frame sensors can be marginal depending on your use.
 
You are trying to compare two different things. FF and Cropper. And camera with one of the best colors and OK colors.
I have tried both at same day. Can't see tiny letters in VF and in magnified mode Fuji was "smart" enough to remove distance scale.
And after Q EVF my eye was kind of sore or something. It wasn't too bright or too dark, but after use my eye still kind of feel it.
Decided to skip on both.
 
In 2018, I viewed a photographic exhibit at an art gallery and was very impressed by one of the black & white images on display. When I asked the photographer (Nicholas Pinto) about his image, he told me he shot it with a Leica Q. Since I was not that familiar with the Leica Q, the next day, I researched it.

I was surprised that it was an expensive 28mm f/1.7 fixed-lens Leica full-frame 24MP digital autofocus mirrorless that was similar to the less expensive 23mm f/2 fixed-lens Fuji APS-C 12MP digital autofocus mirrorless that I had considered buying when it was first announced in 2010.

The only reason I did not buy the X100 when it finally came to market was because I decided I did not want a fixed-lens camera. Years later, I purchased a Fuji X-Pro1 with a 23mm f/1.4 lens that was interchangeable.

Today, if forced to choose between a new Fuji X100v and a used Leica Q, I would choose the Fuji because of the big difference in price.
 
narsuitus said:
I was surprised that it was an expensive 28mm f/1.7 fixed-lens Leica full-frame 24MP digital autofocus mirrorless that was similar to the less expensive 23mm f/2 fixed-lens Fuji APS-C 12MP digital autofocus mirrorless that I had considered buying when it was first announced in 2010.
Click to expand...

May I ask why you were surprised?
 
I'm not a fan of the Q at higher ISO. There's quite a bit of banding and with the fairly significant in-camera lens distortion correction the banding ends up being "bent", which to me adds insult to injury. The Q2 is probably a different story, but is also much more expensive. Lower ISO shots on the Q can look beautiful though. On the other hand I've never had an X-trans sensor display any banding at any ISO setting, the sensors seem to give a very pleasant noise structure.
 
A couple of advantages for the Q2: 1)it is weather sealed -- granted, it won't save your Q2 if dropped in a river, but fine again light rain and 2)it has build-in digital crop for 35mm, 50mm, and for emergency 75mm frame lines. Its 47mp sensor will easily hold up the 35mm crop. Orthogonal has mentioned its disadvantage -- price.
 
I found the Q's primary advantage to be the manual focus implementation. It's the best in market by a long shot - so if it's really important in your process, there's no other choice around.

Other than that I hated the Q (as much as I'd like to love it) for its extreme lack of customization, chaotic menu (just 3 messy, uncategorized pages), field-sequential viewfinder (not unlike the ones in contemporary Panasonics like the GX7 and LX100 - lots of color tearing) and some other quirks that are downright eccentric. Still. It had improved a bit with the 2.0 firmware. For an electronic Leica it's also quite robust, so you can always unload it with peace of mind.

The X100V is a "normal" camera. Somewhat fiddly, with too much buttons, dials and customization, but won't get in your way once set. Not much to worry about. A bit of "me too", but safe.

IQ wise I even believe the later X100 cameras have the edge. The Q has a killer lens, but that banding. Ugh.
 
JMQ said:
A couple of advantages for the Q2: 1)it is weather sealed -- granted, it won't save your Q2 if dropped in a river, but fine again light rain and 2)it has build-in digital crop for 35mm, 50mm, and for emergency 75mm frame lines. Its 47mp sensor will easily hold up the 35mm crop. Orthogonal has mentioned its disadvantage -- price.
Click to expand...

JM, good to see you... the X100V is weather sealed too. And also offers crops, but you are right in that the Q2 has the sensor to make those crops more painless.

Archlich said:
I found the Q's primary advantage to be the manual focus implementation. It's the best in market by a long shot - so if it's really important in your process, there's no other choice around.
Click to expand...

Very good point...

The X100V is a "normal" camera. Somewhat fiddly, with too much buttons, dials and customization, but won't get in your way once set. Not much to worry about. A bit of "me too", but safe.
.
Click to expand...

Come on... this is being a bit hard on it... it is the only camera of its kind.
 
narsuitus said:
I guess the main reason I was surprised was that I viewed the Fuji X100 as a knock-off of the Leica M rangefinder. I was surprised that Leica made a knock-off of the Fuji X100 mirrorless.
Click to expand...

X100 was mimicking M, but with honest OVF in the right place.
Leica made knock-off from Sony A7 series. And later on another knock-off from Olympus digital Pef-F body.
 
narsuitus said:
I guess the main reason I was surprised was that I viewed the Fuji X100 as a knock-off of the Leica M rangefinder. I was surprised that Leica made a knock-off of the Fuji X100 mirrorless.
Click to expand...

I always thought the X-Pro/X100 are what Leica should of done with the M series if they hadn't got scared of trying new things after the M5.

How long until Leica bring out a M with a hybrid viewfinder?
 
narsuitus said:
I guess the main reason I was surprised was that I viewed the Fuji X100 as a knock-off of the Leica M rangefinder. I was surprised that Leica made a knock-off of the Fuji X100 mirrorless.
Click to expand...

I view the X100 as a digital Konica Hexar since day 1. The later descended from the fixed lens rangefinders of the previous decades - which ran parallel to the Leica M.

The X-Pro is Contax G, of which the concept was novel, done right.

The Q feels more like a response to the Sony RX1, with a magnificent focus ring and tonnes of Leica quirks. It's interesting that all cameras in this "premium fixed length camera with large sensor" category are essentially unique.
 
cboy said:
Hi all,

I was opting to buy the X100v since the IQ has improved from previous iterations but I was wondering how does it stack against the IQ of the Leica Q. What do you think of the IQ between both and is it worth getting a new X100v vs a used Leica Q?
Click to expand...

The Q is the better shooter, looking at basics: sharper on center and in corners wide open and stopped down, better manual focus implementation, simpler menu, novel macro capability.

The V is not very far behind the Q’s acuity, and has a feature set that makes the Q seem pedestrian: flip screen, fill flash, film sims, great jpgs sooc, multiple exposure, ND filter, to name several. The V is the Usain Bolt of fun, compact shooters - it just pulls away from the pack.

I have both, like both, but want to pare down to just one in a few months. No idea which will go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top