MCTuomey
Veteran
I have the Q and X100V, will be using both for awhile with an eye to letting one go. Some early observations:
X100V is feature-rich, while Q is much simpler. E.g. fill flash, film sims, flip screen, onboard ND
Q files show more detail, richer native microcontrast. But the X100V is not far behind at all, surprisingly (to me anyway).
Need more shooting time to be certain, but the Q's AF seems faster, surer. But again, the X100V is not far behind.
Q's manual focus is just leagues ahead of the X100V.
No comment on sensor/file differences because I'm going back and forth with LR and C1 on both cameras and don't know what I think comparatively yet.
The freedom to shoot jpgs, print to instax, quick sharing to web brings a significant fun factor to the X100V. Especially with its feature set. I didn't think this factor would matter to me. It does. Think passing out grandkid square polaroids, etc. Peeps love 'em.
To shoot just a 28mm, I like the Q over the X100V+W/C, foregoing the Fuji features. But if I were primarily a 35mm shooter, only occasionally needing a 28mm, the X100V+W/C makes great sense.
X100V is feature-rich, while Q is much simpler. E.g. fill flash, film sims, flip screen, onboard ND
Q files show more detail, richer native microcontrast. But the X100V is not far behind at all, surprisingly (to me anyway).
Need more shooting time to be certain, but the Q's AF seems faster, surer. But again, the X100V is not far behind.
Q's manual focus is just leagues ahead of the X100V.
No comment on sensor/file differences because I'm going back and forth with LR and C1 on both cameras and don't know what I think comparatively yet.
The freedom to shoot jpgs, print to instax, quick sharing to web brings a significant fun factor to the X100V. Especially with its feature set. I didn't think this factor would matter to me. It does. Think passing out grandkid square polaroids, etc. Peeps love 'em.
To shoot just a 28mm, I like the Q over the X100V+W/C, foregoing the Fuji features. But if I were primarily a 35mm shooter, only occasionally needing a 28mm, the X100V+W/C makes great sense.
Ste_S
Well-known
1399 X100V + 349 WCL-X100 II= 1748. At this price used Q with 2200 USD not so rare price is even more tempting.
Older X100 series, for some reason I never liked their build and first generation of lens seems to be not impressive @f2.
Is X-E4 on horizon?
I never buy camera stuff new, the depreciation is just too high.
Used X-E3 £379, Used 18mm f2 £259 = £638. Both excellent condition on MPB.
Likely no X-E4, the rumour mill is saying the X-E range has been caned.
Quite. Relatively new into Fuji and Classic Chrome and Pro Neg High profiles have made me put down film cameras for the first time.
Contrasty but relatively subtle colour
phrons
Established
What do you mean is the film simulation just as good?
This is subjective to your taste.
From what I’ve seen I do like the q files better, but it isn’t a huge gap between Fuji files. It definitely isn’t close to $1,500 better.
I feel you can’t go wrong, but you might want a more metal feeling body. Xt or xpro series feel much better in hand than the xe series. Xt2 I’ve seen under $500 it’s an insane value.
This is subjective to your taste.
From what I’ve seen I do like the q files better, but it isn’t a huge gap between Fuji files. It definitely isn’t close to $1,500 better.
I feel you can’t go wrong, but you might want a more metal feeling body. Xt or xpro series feel much better in hand than the xe series. Xt2 I’ve seen under $500 it’s an insane value.
hap
Well-known
Appreciate the thoughts. Fuji is a very nice alternative to Sony unless you want real sports action. But Q not that kind of camera either. I know people like the x trans sensor....they've been at it a long time and the software is on par with CMOS bayer sensors. Frankly, if can get really good JPEG SOOC I would be happy. I've come very close to going with Olympus lately....but air out of balloon with the press release.
The LX100II is still an alternative for me. But price is pretty high and not all that different from an X E3 with a good prime.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
If you're getting the results you want, that's all that matters. But I capture only raw files, never even look at in-camera JPEG files. I do my own processing and rendering.
G
No, the latest is that it is back on the table...
https://www.fujirumors.com/hooray-fujifilm-x-e4-shows-up-in-internal-fujifilm-roadmap-again/
Ccoppola82
Well-known
Give Helen a box with a pinhole and some film and she will make a thought provoking image. Lol. Well done
I can show B&W acros from X100F jpegs ... SORRY I do not have the X100V
hangin...subway life 1:1 by Helen Hill, on Flickr
waiting... by Helen Hill, on Flickr
Godfrey
somewhat colored
As I said before, I do my own rendering from raw, only. The issues with Fuji XTrans sensors stem from the different pixel color balance and organization: it requires differently calibrated raw conversion algorithms and techniques that are more prone to hitting the boundaries in common lighting situations. A good Bayer matrix sensor seems to always have an edge in processing flexibility and a touch more latitude, although is a bit more sensitive to moiré effects. It's a trade off that I prefer. The raw conversion algorithms for XTrans have been developed much further over the past few years, but this baseline remains the same.
As I've often said, if you get the results you want from a particular camera, nothing else really matters and there's nothing wrong with the Fujis for many people because of that. I just don't really like the way I have to fuss the rendering adjustments, compared to the ease with which I can get what I want out of my other cameras.
G
doubledan
Member
Hi, I happen to be up to date on all that. Owned a Q for several months but found that 28mm is not a natural focal length for me, and also, the Q is a load to carry if used as a backup. Sold it for virtually the same price I'd paid for it, so can't fault Leica as an investment.
Just recently rented a Fuji X100V for a week and it suited me better than the Q. I might have bought it except I saw that the X-E3 with 27mm f2 lens was on sale for $749. Could not resist, and I have been very pleased with this combo over the two weeks i've been using it. In fact, I added a Fuji 14mm to the kit -- a magnificent lens that has sealed the deal for me.
I do believe the X100V is somewhat better than the X-E3 when it comes to film simulations, but that's not to say there's anything wrong with the X-E3. I especially like the Acros b/w with yellow filter. Using that, the 1:1 format and 14mm (equiv 21mm), I'm getting images that rival those from the Hasselblad SWC that I foolishly sold several years ago.
Dan
I've been using Fuji X cameras for 9-10 years now...and I only use RAW. The X-Pro1 was the first X-Trans camera... and yes, it had artifacts and Lightroom showed the watercolor effects in green foliage. Since then, it has gotten better to the point of being a non-issue.
Honestly, I've used FF cameras from Leica, Sony, and Nikon... many bayer sensors of all sizes... and the Fuji files are just as flexible. Not only that, but the high ISO noise looks better than most sensors due to with way less banding and false colors than Bayer sensors. I'm not sure what common lighting situations you are speaking about, but I heavily process my files and have not hit any of the issues you're referring to. It just sounds like more of the common Fuji misconceptions based on the early X-Trans sensors. These days, there doesn't seem to be a bad sensor out there... size considered.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I'll disagree with you. I test files with various camera sensors regularly (using Lightroom and three other raw processors) and I still see the same problems with current raw processors that I mentioned, albeit in a less significant way since the raw processors have been tuned for handling Xtrans now since the first generations. It's okay, we don't have to like the same cameras or sensors. And if you're getting results that you like, and like working with the camera, be happy and enjoy it.
BTW, my issue with Fuji raw files isn't my only reason for not being particularly fond of Fuji digital cameras. There are a few other things that I'm not enthusiastic about as well beyond the sensor issues. And again, all of these things are a matter of personal fit and preferences... They're good cameras, just not to my taste.
G
Ste_S
Well-known
Great, I only shoot RAW also. I use the Fuji camera specific profiles in Lightroom as a starting point.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Sounds good ... I wonder who defined/created them? I'm not sure it was Fuji, not all the provided presets and lens corrections were defined by the camera maker from what I've been able to suss out.
I have a bunch of Develop presets in LR that I use as starting points ... I defined them myself over the course of the past decade and a half. Never liked the provided presets that came with LR, so I don't use them.
As I've said before, whatever works and provides you satisfying results is good.
G
hap
Well-known
From today with E-PL1
SOOC.
No doubt that the combination of Olympus innovations, especially IBIS, and the excellent glass makes for good equipment.
Most of the negative reports are related to the user interface and menus which often get panned.
It does not sound like there is a good future with them. I bought into Nikon 1 CX a number of years ago. By now , if still alive with Nikon, would have developed into a very nice system. Now dead.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
Well I bought a Exc+ XE3 , 200 actuations
from a friend With Box, half case $375.00
So now I have to decide buy adapter and use my Summaron
Or buy a Fuji lens
Focal length no longer matters to me... just let me ‘find’ a worthy shot
from a friend With Box, half case $375.00
So now I have to decide buy adapter and use my Summaron
Or buy a Fuji lens
Focal length no longer matters to me... just let me ‘find’ a worthy shot
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I use E-PL1 on P. Only adjusting flash and exposure compensation. For anything else Olympus menus are horrible mess.
M43 is going crap out soon, IMO, as format. It is not capable of modern levels of high ISO and resolution is weak. At 1:1 view it is way too often blotchy just as mobile phone photos. Works for cheese landscapes photos and BIF in small magazines prints but on good monitor with dedicated graphics card it is not.
Too bad because Olympus colors and exposure accuracy, latitude was most impressive among all cameras makers. IMO.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Awesome deal!
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Olympus lenses have been right up there with Zeiss and Leica for quality, at least in their 'hi grade' or 'pro' designated lines.
The Olympus menu system, particularly in the higher end cameras, is both complex and deep ... this puts off most casual users. It requires study and learning time. Once you 'get it' and understand the logic, however, it is amazingly easy to use and the number of customizations and customization combinations possible allows tailoring the camera to do precisely what you want it to do. It's the opposite of the Leica philosophy of 'stick to the essence' design.
Both design memes work: which one you prefer rests on your personal predilections AND (particularly with the Leica philosophy) how well the manufacturer got the basics of the operation right or wrong.
It's a bit of a tough call for someone starting to purchase a fresh new system to buy Olympus gear at this moment in time because it's hard to say where their future will go. You can be optimistic or pessimistic; the baseline is that their future is unknown at this moment in time and will only be more apparent over the next six months to a year. Certainly there are so many other excellent choices available that you can choose either way and not go wrong, and particularly if you don't intend to buy a whole heck of a lot beyond the camera and a lens or two to begin.
For me, I don't have to worry about it. I've got most all the Olympus equipment I'll ever need anyway, it's all working just fine and should for the foreseeable future. I don't use it much anymore at this point in time; most of what I use nowadays is my Leica CL and Hasselblad 907x. So I'll keep the Oly gear and use it until it no longer works, if that ever happens. It's already paid for itself several times over, regardless of what its depreciated residual value might be.
G