Reading mode: Light Dark

From Fuji to Q or CL?

Go to last post
M

markusw

Senior Member
Messages
1,705
Solutions
2
Reaction score
1,557
Dear all,

I am thinking to switch to Leica for my travel and PJ photography. I have 28 and 50 EFF lenses today... using the 28 for 80%. My Cam is a X-Pro1. 16MP is fine for large prints, for PJ, 6-10 MP is enough.

Why do I want to change?

- AF on the X-Pro1 is mediocre

- would be happy to have just the Q if IQ is fine with the 50mm crop

- want to get the best IQ for 28... will travel to Japan in April - First time in my life...

- Should be as small as possible - advantage for the CL?

- want to shoot with EVF only

So, what is your choice?

Thanks in advance!

--
M.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.flickr.com/people/126876759@N02/
 
Last edited:
markusw said:
Dear all,

I am thinking to switch to Leica for my travel and PJ photography. I have 28 and 50 EFF lenses today... using the 28 for 80%. My Cam is a X-Pro1. 16MP is fine for large prints, for PJ, 6-10 MP is enough.

Why do I want to change?

- AF on the X-Pro1 is mediocre

- would be happy to have just the Q if IQ is fine with the 50mm crop

- want to get the best IQ for 28... will travel to Japan in April - First time in my life...

- Should be as small as possible - advantage for the CL?

- want to shoot with EVF only

So, what is your choice?

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...
 
There's a point at which desirable attributes become "good enough" and more isn't necessarily better.

Are you happy with your lenses? If so, a newer Fuji camera would likely address the focusing speed issues of your X-Pro1, and the non-OVF versions are more compact. (Also, it'd be worth making sure you have the latest firmware on both your camera and lenses.)

The Leica CL would represent a good step up in image quality, with both the 18/2.8 and the 35/1.4. However, the 35/1.4 is relatively large, and cropping the 18/2.8 down to 50mm equivalent would probably not be satisfying. (It might be! We all have our personal tastes. If so, the CL & 18/2.8 might combine to make a perfect travel kit for you.) If having a fast aperture isn't important, the 18-56 zoom is smaller than the 35mm prime (!), and the zoom's image quality would likely be entirely satisfactory. Also, if the size of the 35 doesn't bother you -- the lens would mostly be in your bag, after all -- the improvement in quality might be welcome.

Enter the Q. The lens appears fantastic and the sensor does it justice: clearly, the Q offers the best image quality at 28mm of this bunch. The Q is also about the same size as your X-Pro1 with XF 35/1.4. So it wouldn't be getting larger, but it wouldn't be getting smaller, either. I haven't closely examined 50mm-like crops from it, so I can't comment on that.

But, if they're all more than good enough in terms of image quality, the question might reduce to one of size and ergonomics. The CL & 18/2.8 would be very small but is operated by two thumb dials, which is okay but not great for me. The Fuji's aperture ring and finger-operated shutter speed dial are quite nice. The Q also has those features, and adds a very functional manual focus ring and a viewfinder that (by all accounts I've seen) is a pleasant step up.

Personally, I like interchangeable lenses; as good as the Q is, it isn't for me. The CL would be far more appealing to me if I could get one in hand and try adjusting the left dial with my right index finger, reaching over the top plate. If that's comfortable, I'd have some preference for the superior Leica lenses. There's a reason, though, that I currently shoot more with my Fuji than my Leica: the Fuji is good enough where it needs to be, and offers me other benefits that I don't get from my Leica. But I do miss my M lenses, even if I don't need them.
 
A very lengthy answer but quite well thought through. Actually, having used a Fuji I know what you mean. One thought Inhad was why change? A Fuji E3 would give the OP a more compact set-up with good images quality and generally somewhat faster lenses.

On the other hand I did change to Leica. I think the CL image quality is slightly better and I have a lot of lenses I can use with the CL. Inevitably though “a lot of lenses”stay in the cupboard or the bag and only a few favorites get on the camera!
 
JonPB said:
There's a point at which desirable attributes become "good enough" and more isn't necessarily better.

Are you happy with your lenses? If so, a newer Fuji camera would likely address the focusing speed issues of your X-Pro1, and the non-OVF versions are more compact. (Also, it'd be worth making sure you have the latest firmware on both your camera and lenses.)

The Leica CL would represent a good step up in image quality, with both the 18/2.8 and the 35/1.4. However, the 35/1.4 is relatively large, and cropping the 18/2.8 down to 50mm equivalent would probably not be satisfying. (It might be! We all have our personal tastes. If so, the CL & 18/2.8 might combine to make a perfect travel kit for you.) If having a fast aperture isn't important, the 18-56 zoom is smaller than the 35mm prime (!), and the zoom's image quality would likely be entirely satisfactory. Also, if the size of the 35 doesn't bother you -- the lens would mostly be in your bag, after all -- the improvement in quality might be welcome.

Enter the Q. The lens appears fantastic and the sensor does it justice: clearly, the Q offers the best image quality at 28mm of this bunch. The Q is also about the same size as your X-Pro1 with XF 35/1.4. So it wouldn't be getting larger, but it wouldn't be getting smaller, either. I haven't closely examined 50mm-like crops from it, so I can't comment on that.

But, if they're all more than good enough in terms of image quality, the question might reduce to one of size and ergonomics. The CL & 18/2.8 would be very small but is operated by two thumb dials, which is okay but not great for me. The Fuji's aperture ring and finger-operated shutter speed dial are quite nice. The Q also has those features, and adds a very functional manual focus ring and a viewfinder that (by all accounts I've seen) is a pleasant step up.

Personally, I like interchangeable lenses; as good as the Q is, it isn't for me. The CL would be far more appealing to me if I could get one in hand and try adjusting the left dial with my right index finger, reaching over the top plate. If that's comfortable, I'd have some preference for the superior Leica lenses. There's a reason, though, that I currently shoot more with my Fuji than my Leica: the Fuji is good enough where it needs to be, and offers me other benefits that I don't get from my Leica. But I do miss my M lenses, even if I don't need them.
Click to expand...
I owned a Q at one point. I now use xt-1/x100f. I agree with most everything posted here.

I would quibble with the notion of the CL representing a 'good step up' in IQ. I would not be surprised if the CL shares a sensor with fuji's latest offerings. Fuji has great glass too, and the the price/performance ratio is decidedly in fuji's corner.

Dont get me wrong i find the CL to be a very desirable camera. But if i were to spend $4000ish on Leica gear it would definitely go to reacquire the Q.
 
athensGA said:
I would quibble with the notion of the CL representing a 'good step up' in IQ. I would not be surprised if the CL shares a sensor with fuji's latest offerings. Fuji has great glass too, and the the price/performance ratio is decidedly in fuji's corner.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of that. To clarify: I think Leica's 18/2.8 is a good step up in IQ from Fuji's 18/2 (mostly in the corners, where the XF lens can lose chromatic coherence, and where the Fuji has some field curvature) and Leica's 35/1.4 is also a step up from Fuji's 35/1.4 (the single biggest thing for me here is longitudinal CA, which seems present but weaker in the Leica). I agree that the cameras themselves have roughly the same performance, with the edge likely going to Leica but not by a significant amount.

That said, Leica's TL lenses are more "clinical" than Fuji's older offerings, so I could see someone preferring Fuji over Leica for the same reason that many prefer Leica's older lenses over their modern counterparts. I rather like the Fuji 18's field curvature, for instance. As I hope shows in my long-winded post, it is all good gear and preference comes down to a balancing of compromises.
 
I have a Leica Q, a Leica CL, and a Fuji X-T2. I've used the X-Pro1 in the past. And I live in Japan :-)

The sensor in the CL is roughly equal to the current X-Trans sensor. All in all, you are not gaining much from moving to Leica (in terms of features and IQ) if you decide to get the CL. IMHO the CL is mostly for current Leica owners that want to use the camera as a digital back for their M, SL, or R lenses. That's how I use it as well.

The difference in IQ between the TL and XF lenses are marginal. Yes the TL lenses are a bit sharper but slower and 3x more expensive. Fuji has a much better selection of fast primes and zooms as well. If you are going to stick with APS-C I'd look into upgrading to the XE3 and acquiring the excellent XF 16/1.4 if that is not too wide for you.

The Q is in a different league if you are primarily a 28mm shooter. If budget allows I would recommend the Q whole-heartedly. The Q provides beautiful Leica color, rendering and pop. Honestly there is no weakness to speak of.
 
markusw said:
Dear all,

I am thinking to switch to Leica for my travel and PJ photography. I have 28 and 50 EFF lenses today... using the 28 for 80%. My Cam is a X-Pro1. 16MP is fine for large prints, for PJ, 6-10 MP is enough.

Why do I want to change?

- AF on the X-Pro1 is mediocre

- would be happy to have just the Q if IQ is fine with the 50mm crop

- want to get the best IQ for 28... will travel to Japan in April - First time in my life...

- Should be as small as possible - advantage for the CL?

- want to shoot with EVF only

So, what is your choice?

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...
 
Hi Snappu,

thanks for your answer :) Well I am fine with the 18mm for my travels in Europe, but I have read somewhere that Japanese cities are a bit tighter. So, do you recommend to change to this FL with my experience on the 18?
 
Thank you all!

So the recommendation is the Q or to stay with the Fuji system and upgrade the body, right?

if the Q is it for me - could someone kindly link to or post a full-size JPG of a portrait done with the 50 mm crop ? Thanks in advance!
 
The first time I used the Q was during a trip to Cuba. Along in that bag went my M9 and a couple of Summilux lenses. My plan was simple, M9 as main camera, Q as backup.

I discovered how infallible of a system the Q is on Cuban streets, how balanced how sharp and how reliable its AF system is. I also discovered the potential of shooting f1.7 in bright sunlight using its great SUPER FAST electronic shutter speed capabilities, something M systems can't achieve without an ND filter. I also discovered the amazing implementation of it's MACRO capabilities and that was to me like having 2 In 1 lens system, which again is not an option on my M. Last but not least, I discovered it's fantastic colors and skin tones but also it's capabilities to focus at 30cm and 15cm distance which it a NO NO option on the M. In matters of few days, and despite my absolute love for the M9 and its so amazing CCD look I ended up shooting the Q 99.99 percent of the time. The M9 became my backup system inside a vault during the whole stay.

if you're a 28mm shooter and want the best 28mm lens then your options are so limited to only one system. This system is called Q, period.

8a514391df174b57bc2da73c4accbd43.jpg

VIVA LA REVOLUCION QUBANA :-)
 
Last edited:
JonPB said:
There's a point at which desirable attributes become "good enough" and more isn't necessarily better.

Are you happy with your lenses? If so, a newer Fuji camera would likely address the focusing speed issues of your X-Pro1, and the non-OVF versions are more compact. (Also, it'd be worth making sure you have the latest firmware on both your camera and lenses.)

The Leica CL would represent a good step up in image quality, with both the 18/2.8 and the 35/1.4. However, the 35/1.4 is relatively large, and cropping the 18/2.8 down to 50mm equivalent would probably not be satisfying. (It might be! We all have our personal tastes. If so, the CL & 18/2.8 might combine to make a perfect travel kit for you.) If having a fast aperture isn't important, the 18-56 zoom is smaller than the 35mm prime (!), and the zoom's image quality would likely be entirely satisfactory. Also, if the size of the 35 doesn't bother you -- the lens would mostly be in your bag, after all -- the improvement in quality might be welcome.

Enter the Q. The lens appears fantastic and the sensor does it justice: clearly, the Q offers the best image quality at 28mm of this bunch. The Q is also about the same size as your X-Pro1 with XF 35/1.4. So it wouldn't be getting larger, but it wouldn't be getting smaller, either. I haven't closely examined 50mm-like crops from it, so I can't comment on that.

But, if they're all more than good enough in terms of image quality, the question might reduce to one of size and ergonomics. The CL & 18/2.8 would be very small but is operated by two thumb dials, which is okay but not great for me. The Fuji's aperture ring and finger-operated shutter speed dial are quite nice. The Q also has those features, and adds a very functional manual focus ring and a viewfinder that (by all accounts I've seen) is a pleasant step up.

Personally, I like interchangeable lenses; as good as the Q is, it isn't for me. The CL would be far more appealing to me if I could get one in hand and try adjusting the left dial with my right index finger, reaching over the top plate. If that's comfortable, I'd have some preference for the superior Leica lenses. There's a reason, though, that I currently shoot more with my Fuji than my Leica: the Fuji is good enough where it needs to be, and offers me other benefits that I don't get from my Leica. But I do miss my M lenses, even if I don't need them.
Click to expand...
Having owned all three cameras, without doubt I would take the CL. It's so good I'm on the cusp of selling my SL. The size is perfect, the controls are excellent, it handles beautifully, the EVF is first class and the IQ is superb. I've used it predominantly with my M 35/f2 ASPH and 50 APO.

The Q would be my second choice and the XP2 my third. But you can't really compare the two. The CL is a more relevant comparison with the XP2 and for me the CL wins all day long and twice on a Sunday.

I am genuinely perplexed by some of the negative reviews. Sure IS would be nice but I've survived for years with my M's without it. For me IQ is right up at the top of my list, together with ease of use, form factor and build quality. The CL ticks every box.

Caveat: for what I need and for what I want.
 
  • lighter camera compared to 35 f/2 on the Fuji body (also had it with 56 f/1.2, 40-150, etc)
  • wanted to go full frame (like my A7) for DoF and low light
  • outstanding fast lens
  • superbe manual focus
  • very useful built-in 17cm macro capability
  • simplicity of operation
  • rendition of what gets captured
  • tired of thinking what lens to bring along, a fixed lens is a forcing function to keep things simple.
hope that helps.
 
For your purpose, the previous posts in favor of a new Fuji X, EVF-only model, are compelling. I've used the X-Pro 1 and the X-Pro 2, and the improvement in focus is major. I'd add a minor note: for a longer portrait lens, get an older Leica lens and a generic FX-M adapter to put it on the Fuji.
 
[No message]
 
markusw said:
Dear all,

I am thinking to switch to Leica for my travel and PJ photography. I have 28 and 50 EFF lenses today... using the 28 for 80%. My Cam is a X-Pro1. 16MP is fine for large prints, for PJ, 6-10 MP is enough.

Why do I want to change?

- AF on the X-Pro1 is mediocre

- would be happy to have just the Q if IQ is fine with the 50mm crop

- want to get the best IQ for 28... will travel to Japan in April - First time in my life...

- Should be as small as possible - advantage for the CL?

- want to shoot with EVF only

So, what is your choice?

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Or up your RF skills (which can't be honed on any Fuji) and go for the M.

It always makes me chuckle to see Fujiboi reviewers talking about 'slowing down' for Leica rangefinders. In manual, I shoot hands-down the fastest with M's.

The Q is however not only a fantastic auto camera while also doing manual very well indeed. It's everything the CL is not (which is actually a lot closer to an overpriced Fuji).
 
Last edited:
DEFINITELY Q, FOR ME. BETTER LENS AND SENSOR.

REGARDS
 
Last edited:
interchangeable lenses verse fixed lens, ff sensor verses aps c sensor. its your choice, I went with the Q because the ff sensor will deliver very useful fifty mm crops and passible ninety mm crops, the CL will have a lens dedicated for each,

what made me decide for the Q is one lens is all I get and all I need makes for ff camer smaller a bit then an M and you will not feel any need to do much accessorizing as in new lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top