Ccoppola82
Well-known
I’ve been toying with selling me Xpro2 and lenses to get the x100v. Something about the fixed lens is making me timid to do that, but the camera seems to tick all the boxes as an everywhere carry camera. Decisions decisions.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I haven’t carried a camera around with me since the GR1v now that the phone can do it all. Have you looked into the Ricoh GRIII? Seems it is closer in spirit to the Q. I am also considering these 3 options.
Lss
Well-known
There is no such Leica camera.
Ste_S
Well-known
Don't forget there's the TCL (50mm equiv) and WCL (28mm equiv) conversion lenses.
cboy
Well-known
Thank you all for your wonderful input. As a newbie I find this forum really has some dedicated and passionate enthusiasts!
As much as many would like a Leica Q or even a Q2 for it superb IQ and simplified user experience/workflow it's a bit difficult to justify the price to performance ratio.
The x100v in its fifth iteration of the series has IMHO matured to point to provide a refined product that rivals closer to the Leica Q in terms of IQ and handling since it has upgraded the lens and simpler layout.
One could say Fuji could have taken design points off Leica with the x100v
Give this and its more attractive price point the x100v is more of a promising option. Obviously Leica still has an edge for ultimate IQ in a compact form, but unless one requires this for their own work I think the x100v is the best alternative for a fix lens camera. Anything more it'd be better to move to medium format or interchangeable FF. But we're talking about rangefinder 'like' camera here aren't we haha
Sent from my F5122 using Tapatalk
As much as many would like a Leica Q or even a Q2 for it superb IQ and simplified user experience/workflow it's a bit difficult to justify the price to performance ratio.
The x100v in its fifth iteration of the series has IMHO matured to point to provide a refined product that rivals closer to the Leica Q in terms of IQ and handling since it has upgraded the lens and simpler layout.
One could say Fuji could have taken design points off Leica with the x100v
Give this and its more attractive price point the x100v is more of a promising option. Obviously Leica still has an edge for ultimate IQ in a compact form, but unless one requires this for their own work I think the x100v is the best alternative for a fix lens camera. Anything more it'd be better to move to medium format or interchangeable FF. But we're talking about rangefinder 'like' camera here aren't we haha
Sent from my F5122 using Tapatalk
Archlich
Well-known
I don't think that's self-explanatory.
Take this for example:
To an uninformed audience, whoosh, they all look the same. They can't make out the difference between a Nikon S3 and Leica M3 as well.
But here at the RFF, where people would bicker over whether button or lever, self-timer or not, M3 or M4 style crank look better, such superficial resemblance can't fool us - the informed connoisseurs with a sharp eye for detail.
Which always made me wonder why there's still this recurring sentiment that the X100 being a "knock-off" of the M - and it's the X100 alone, which functions vastly different to a Leica M (like I said before, it's essentially a Hexar). Why there haven't been more condemning the S3, P, or anything that's silver boxy looking with dials and levers and works pretty much the same to the M (manual focus, interchangeable lens, coupled rangefinder) being knock-offs as well?
I digress though.
Better than your example of me too dslrs below though...
Take this for example:
To an uninformed audience, whoosh, they all look the same. They can't make out the difference between a Nikon S3 and Leica M3 as well.
But those cameras are all contemporary to each other... the X100 / M3 are 50+ years apart and the X100 clearly owes its design to the M... I mean look at the self-timer switch... it is now a EVF/OVF selector on the X100. That is telling of where it gets its design from...
narsuitus
Well-known
When I said I viewed the Fuji X100 as a knock-off of the Leica M, I did not mean that as an insult.
Just as the 6x7 medium format Fuji rangefinder is known as the "Texas Leica" and the Canon Canonet is known as the "Poor Man's Leica," I viewed the Fuji X100 as a "digital Leica." To quote Oscar Wilde, I considered imitation to be "the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.”
When Leica finally produced a digital rangefinder that I liked (the M10), I bought it. However, I had to return it because my copy was defective.
Rangefinders by Narsuitus, on Flickr
Just as the 6x7 medium format Fuji rangefinder is known as the "Texas Leica" and the Canon Canonet is known as the "Poor Man's Leica," I viewed the Fuji X100 as a "digital Leica." To quote Oscar Wilde, I considered imitation to be "the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.”
When Leica finally produced a digital rangefinder that I liked (the M10), I bought it. However, I had to return it because my copy was defective.
Rangefinders by Narsuitus, on Flickr
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I don't think that's self-explanatory.
Take this for example:
To an uninformed audience, whoosh, they all look the same. They can't make out the difference between a Nikon S3 and Leica M3 as well.
But here at the RFF, where people would bicker over whether button or lever, self-timer or not, M3 or M4 style crank look better, such superficial resemblance can't fool us - the informed connoisseurs with a sharp eye for detail.
Which always made me wonder why there's still this recurring sentiment that the X100 being a "knock-off" of the M - and it's the X100 alone, which functions vastly different to a Leica M (like I said before, it's essentially a Hexar). Why there haven't been more condemning the S3, P, or anything that's silver boxy looking with dials and levers and works pretty much the same to the M (manual focus, interchangeable lens, coupled rangefinder) being knock-offs as well?
I digress though.
How about audience just capable to notice design details?
From audience paying attention to details, Citroen and Toyota are two different cars. Without specifications.
Even at yours example, Pentax clearly stud out. So, then FujiNoFilm wanted to make first digital camera which feel like from Pentax on your picture time, they didn't choose Optima Sensor, Retina or Contax. They went after design which is recognized in some museums as great example of industrial design. Which is Leica. Manual focus, interchangeable lens mount, rangefinder has nothing to do with it. It was the look and feel FujiNoFilm was after. And it was the key for success. People switched and ditched to X100 just because it has retro and right feel. Most din't know anything what is inside of the camera. By the time it was released it was totally nothing special on final results.It was successful Leica rangefinder design FujiNoFilm used to have success. Everyone who looked at specifications wasn't impressed. My Canon 500D was giving me similar pictures.
I bought the X100 on the first day of availability ... and I certainly knew what I was getting. Of course the results were nothing special vs. DSLRs that used 12mp APSC sensors. However, it was a lot smaller and offered an OVF/EVF combo. That was new. The only thing close to it was the Leica X1. The X100 was a success and 5 models later it still is. The only people who were disappointed were people who wanted a $7,000 digital M for $1299 or expected M style manual focus. Both were not realistic.
gaheris
Established
For people who have used both X100F abd X100V, can you tell me if V really is more prone to body heating up than F?
I keep hearing people say for the V, even playing with the menus and playing back photos will cause the grip and body to heat up considerably, to the point of discomfort. It's the only thing stopping me from getting the V. I really loved the F and carried it around Asia with me, but stupidly sold it.
I keep hearing people say for the V, even playing with the menus and playing back photos will cause the grip and body to heat up considerably, to the point of discomfort. It's the only thing stopping me from getting the V. I really loved the F and carried it around Asia with me, but stupidly sold it.
Yokosuka_Mike
Abstract Clarity
I had the “F” and now I have the “V”.
In all my use of the X100V I have never experienced any overheating. Not even a bit of excessive warmth. It has not even gotten a bit warm. Nothing.
The way I use my camera is this: I see something I want to take a picture of, I turn on the camera, I take the picture, when the moment has passed I turn the camera off. This is how I use all my digital cameras, not just the X100V.
All the best,
Mike
In all my use of the X100V I have never experienced any overheating. Not even a bit of excessive warmth. It has not even gotten a bit warm. Nothing.
The way I use my camera is this: I see something I want to take a picture of, I turn on the camera, I take the picture, when the moment has passed I turn the camera off. This is how I use all my digital cameras, not just the X100V.
All the best,
Mike
selahsean
Member
Have owned both and would choose the x100v everyday of the week and twice on Sunday...
x100v significantly smaller/lighter faster AF and better IQ particularly with closeups (Leica Q has terrible distortion/field curvature). Great film simulations and lens adapters for wide angle (28mm) and tele (50mm) that work really well without impacting IQ.
I owned the Q first hoping it could be an everyday carry but it's a really heavy camera. In general the IQ is great but especially for people you can't get very close or they end up looking wildly cartoonish. I more recently got the x100v and it's got everything I could want in an everyday digital camera. The only negative it's that it's so small you probably need to add a grip to make it ergnomic.
x100v significantly smaller/lighter faster AF and better IQ particularly with closeups (Leica Q has terrible distortion/field curvature). Great film simulations and lens adapters for wide angle (28mm) and tele (50mm) that work really well without impacting IQ.
I owned the Q first hoping it could be an everyday carry but it's a really heavy camera. In general the IQ is great but especially for people you can't get very close or they end up looking wildly cartoonish. I more recently got the x100v and it's got everything I could want in an everyday digital camera. The only negative it's that it's so small you probably need to add a grip to make it ergnomic.
Brian Atherton
Well-known
I don’t own the X100F or the X100V, so I can't give you a comparison.
But before lockdown and after the X100V was released I handled and played around with a silver and black X100V during a couple of separate visits over a month or so to Fujifim’s London shop. I think the shop had two silver and one black body on show.
While I was in the shop all three cameras were getting a lot of continual attention with people coming in and handling them one after the other.
Neither of the X100Vs I handled felt hot.
However, on my second visit to see the X-Pro3 I again looked at a black X100V while I was waiting (I think it’s a gorgeous looking camera). The X100V I picked up had a completely whited-out EVF and was unusable - broken I was told - although everything else appeared to work via the OVF and rear screen.
peterm1
Mentor
I do not know how good the Fujifilm is in terms of IQ. Though I do not doubt that the IQ is excellent, I know from my experience that the Leica Q is too. Specifically I do not think you can really be critical of the Leica Q lens (or for that matter any 28mm lens) when it is used for photographing faces (especially at a close range). It is a well known optical feature of any wide angle lens that if you take a photo of a face at close range it is inclined to create unattractive facial distortions in the resulting image. Including an overly large nose and weirdly small ears. It's a part of the optical characteristic of a WA lens that this occurs and the closer you are to the subject the worse it looks. A longer lens like an 85mm or a 105mm lens creates some compression which which is attractive when shooting faces. This does not mean that the 28mm lens on the Q is a bad example - it just means that like any WA lens it does what can be expected of any other WA lens of like focal length.
One criticism I would agree with though is that the Q, like the Fujifilm camera really needs an accessory handgrip to make it ergonomically acceptable to hold.
This is totally subjective... I have big hands and hate big grips.
peterm1
Mentor
Fair comment. I had not thought that some might prefer it "au naturelle"
gaheris
Established
Thank you @Brian Atherton and @Yokosuka Mike for the info. It sounds to me (also getting some feedback from other fellow photographers and the comments on fujirumors) a batch of x100v seems to suffer from some QC issue and some got recalled.
Anyway, I spent my x100v fund on an impulse ga645w buy today. May come back to this a year later.
Anyway, I spent my x100v fund on an impulse ga645w buy today. May come back to this a year later.
selahsean
Member
I've used both extensively and the barrel distortion/correction on the Q is completely unusable closeup and also doesn't work well for any architecture/lines. It's been pretty well documented:
https://diglloyd.com/prem/s/LEICA/LeicaM/LeicaQ-distortion-Dolls.html?dglyPT=true
The x100v has the natural perspective distortion inherent in any wide angle lens but it has no noticeable barrel distortion. I got rid of the Q because of the barrel distortion (particularly at close focus) and the weight (thought I could use it as 2nd camera to a film camera).