X100v vs Leica Q

[MCTuomey]

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

Spot on, cboy ... the V is an all day, everyday camera that channels the barnack Leicas. It begs to be used. As one reviewer called it, “a desert island camera.”

 

[Ricochetrider]

This thread is very timely for me, as I am considering switching my digital camera for one that I can easily shoot manually. I have an Olympus. OMD EM1 (1st gen) and it is so complicated its not even funny. Nor fun.

I used to shot in "auto" mode but. in the past 3 years have been teaching myself how to shoot manually- using film cameras. The EM1 rarely leaves the house although I do use to for specific things, often as. not, motorcycle travel where I don't have the space or want the weight of a number of cameras, various lenses, large amounts of film, etc.

My search for a minimalist digital camera led me to the Q (or Q2 with weather sealing) and I'd already seen the X100V.

I admit I'm not a fan, generally speaking, of super-wide angle lenses. The 28mm might quite be all that "super" but the mention of barrel distortion was sort of a deal killer for me.

And for the price, why not just go a little higher and get a digital M of some variety and have the option to use my Voigtlander M mount lenses, rather than. be "stuck" with a fixed, single lens option?

OR "settle" on the X100V and call it a day. Maybe buy another motorcycle with the money saved?

Honestly, I keep thinking I'd like to have a Leica. But I have a handful of *other* brand film cameras, and only need one digital. And really, I barely "need" that- but a digital still does have its own very specific place in my world.

But 5 grand? For something that has a couple pretty well documented issues and numerous "personality quirks"? It's real hard to justify spending so much money for something that doesn't attain absolute (or 99.99%) perfection straight out of the box.

 

[cboy]

Upon researching i noticed most if not all would like to at least try an Leica M, Q, SLfor what ever reason even if its for the sake of curiosity. Rangefinder 'style' camera seems to be the go between until they have the funds to go full in. Or there are those who went with an M and found the limitations of an M manual rangerfinder and decide to go back to auto with the Q or the X100.
I personally found both the Q and x100 limiting compared to M. The Q has an evf and you cannot get around that, so the Q user is slightly disadvantaged by blackout. It may be minimal...but its there. In comparison with the x100 you have optical viewfinder however it doesnt have a manual clutch to allow for hyperfocal distancing. Yes you have on screen distance scales but it can be cumbersome with a fly by wire focus ring, especially if you have come from analog or true rangefinder systems.
This is obviously it all depends on use case. I myself prefer candid/ street photography so fluidity and easy of use is important to me
If only the Q had an optical rangefinder and thex100v had manual clutch then they both be perfect for my needs. Often people require workarounds to their cameras workflow to account deficiencies in the system, and this can be said for every camera system. The Q and x100 are no exception.

 

[Forest_rain]

The X100 is a great deal considering the quality of the lens and it's compactness. However I use an Olympus PEN mini with a pancake 20mm 1.7 lens to similar effect. It doesn't have the cool retro look and manual external controls though. Totally different target market, olympus PEN series is more simplified for probably more the average consumer.


Overall though I like the ability to change lenses on it, I can old rangefinder lenses on it 🙂

 

[jjcha]

If only the Q had an optical rangefinder and thex100v had manual clutch then they both be perfect for my needs. Often people require workarounds to their cameras workflow to account deficiencies in the system, and this can be said for every camera system. The Q and x100 are no exception.

+1

Been grumbling for years how the X100 would be SO GOOD with a better manual focus experience.

Sigh. So close, yet so far.

 

[jsrockit]

In comparison with the x100 you have optical viewfinder however it doesnt have a manual clutch to allow for hyperfocal distancing. Yes you have on screen distance scales but it can be cumbersome with a fly by wire focus ring, especially if you have come from analog or true rangefinder systems.

The latest X100V has a focus limiter which can be set up like snap focus. So basically, the press the shutter and it automatically snaps to a chosen distance and stays there. They keep trying to make the camera better for manual focus but without a redesign it will never be what you guys want. I’m actually perfectly fine with autofocus.

 

[willie_901]

...
OR "settle" on the X100V and call it a day.

Honestly, I keep thinking I'd like to have a Leica. But I have a handful of *other* brand film cameras, and only need one digital. And really, I barely "need" that- but a digital still does have its own very specific place in my world.

...

If you enjoy composing while being able to see outside the finder frame-line estimates, the X100V OVF mode is something the Q does not have.

The X-100V's dynamic range is within ~ 1/3 stop of the Q2.(data)

The X-100V's read noise level is lower than the Q2. (data) But the Q2's larger sensor area suggests the signal-to-noise ratio for the Q2 should positively impact perceived image quality that depends on signal-to-noise ratio.

The Q2 has more megapixels. I'm not sure that is an advantage unless one prefers to compose in post production via cropping.

The FUJIFILM definitely comes with a learning curve. Still, if you prefer minimalist operation very similar to an analog RF body, the X-100V Menus can be configured for that purpose.

The X-100V renders differently below about f 5.6. At wider apertures the rendering is less clinical. The lens is not intended for close-up work using apertures wider than f 4.0.

A nice example of a X-100F or T could be a good compromise as well.

 

[Dogman]

Does the Q have the option of an OVF?

No.

Okay, then. That settles it for me.

 

[jmonat7]

I would personally vouch for a used Rx1rii for that price. They're going for $1500-2000 now and it is a killer 42mp sensor with one of the best 35mm lenses ever made. Manual focus, menus, and battery life leaves me longing for more but compromises are always made. If usability and handling are primary, the x100v is hard to beat. The Q is priced higher than both the rx1rii or x100v but is stellar, 35mm or 28mm is the question there. A large concern is whether you want a full frame camera because it does make a large difference in my opinion.

 

[Forest_rain]

I've got a Sony A7 II and my Micro 4/3 competes with it quite well. I honestly can't tell the difference most of the time, except for the depth of field. The full frame low light images look a little better also.

But in daylight, it's hard to tell the difference. And the size/weight difference is huge. I'm honestly considering selling my A7 II because the handling is so much better on my micro 4/3 camera.

I would personally vouch for a used Rx1rii for that price. They're going for $1500-2000 now and it is a killer 42mp sensor with one of the best 35mm lenses ever made. Manual focus, menus, and battery life leaves me longing for more but compromises are always made. If usability and handling are primary, the x100v is hard to beat. The Q is priced higher than both the rx1rii or x100v but is stellar, 35mm or 28mm is the question there. A large concern is whether you want a full frame camera because it does make a large difference in my opinion.

 

[jmonat7]

I've got a Sony A7 II and my Micro 4/3 competes with it quite well. I honestly can't tell the difference most of the time, except for the depth of field. The full frame low light images look a little better also.

But in daylight, it's hard to tell the difference. And the size/weight difference is huge. I'm honestly considering selling my A7 II because the handling is so much better on my micro 4/3 camera.

The Rx1rii has a much better sensor than the a7ii though! Nearly double the resolution at 42MP. I do totally agree that at 24mp it's hard to tell the difference between FF and crop with the exception of DOF and some low light advantages but the rx1rii sensor is absurdly good compared to the x100v and even the Q, it's probably more on par with the Q2 sensor.

 

[cboy]

The latest X100V has a focus limiter which can be set up like snap focus.

The xf10 actually had a snap focus setting like the ricoh gr which would have been perfect had Fuji implemented it in the x100. The limiter is set to a 'distance range' that can be customised to two points which limits the range autofocus has to hunt through. The snap focus would have been better imho and actually would be faster than manual focus. Theres only 2-3 distances that one needs to basically set for hyperfocal distance - 12 & 3 ft

I hope in a firware update fuji will address this

 

[Archlich]

The xf10 actually had a snap focus setting like the ricoh gr which would have been perfect had Fuji implemented it in the x100. The limiter is set to a 'distance range' that can be customised to two points which limits the range autofocus has to hunt through. The snap focus would have been better imho and actually would be faster than manual focus. Theres only 2-3 distances that one needs to basically set for hyperfocal distance - 12 & 3 ft

I hope in a firware update fuji will address this

I've been wishing for a "snap" mode on the X100 since like 8 years ago. Yet not too keenly to see the XF10's implementation on other models since it applies fixed aperture settings to the two distances available. An odd design choice, probably hindered by Ricoh's patent or something like that.

 

[PKR]

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.

Very good point...

Come on... this is being a bit hard on it... it is the only camera of its kind.

Being a flash junkie, the leaf shutter is a huge plus, and.. one of a kind in its form factor. Taken into a mixed daylight-flash environment, or just in the studio, it will do all the things an DSLR will do (except for lens changes) and more, and do them in a small package. The ability to close focus and the addition of the flip screen make it pretty versatile.

I forgot to add, if it's a big file that's wanted, it's no match for a Phase One or similar formats. But, few need files that big.

 

[FranZ]

I currently (a few years now) own an RX1Rm2 but used to be a Fuji guy with X100/X00S and X100T. The Fuji's are much nicer cameras vs the handling of the RX1 but the sensor/Sonnar combination of the RX1 produces much better IQ.
I wanted to 'upgrade' to the Q2 and I almost bought one yesterday evening.
It is a beautiful made camera and I really wanted to like the Q2 but eventually decided against it.
Reasons:
1) weight: it is almost 50% heavier than my RX1 (even more so than the X100V
2) size: It is a sizable camera, especially the lens is much larger than the l35mm Sonnar, let alone the 23mm on the X11's.
3) handling: I use the RX1 with the foldable Thumby but for me, I would need both a grip and a thumbs-up to comfortably hold the Q2, adding to the already considerable weight and bulk.
4) Buttons and menus: the Q2 design is so clean that you need to delve into the menu's very often. IMHO the X100V wins downright as I could shoot with one of the older Fuji's without using the menu's.
5) price: In the Netherlands, the Q2 is 25% more expansive than the RX1Rm2, and you can buy three X100V's plus a half case plus the weather resistant kit for the price of the Q2, and have a very nice meal with the whole family for the change.
The Q2 is build like a tank, and I was not able to compare the IQ, but I will stick with my RX1Rm2 despite its poorly designed ergonomic, and lack of weather resistance.
O yea, and the battery is just good for 175-200 images, but I always have 1 or 2 fresh batteries in the pocket and they weigh next to nothing.

see:
https://j.mp/30cqRzJ