Gazeomon
Leading Member
- Messages
- 552
- Reaction score
- 274
I fully agree with Your findings. The handling and image quality (23mm f/2 Summicron) is superb for street, travel and event photography. No regrets.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
From Fuji to Q or CL?
- Thread starter markusw
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fujifilm x-pro1
markusw wrote:
...I am wondering if you could post one of the 50mm crop examples?
You can find sample Q raw files online and do your own crop (look up the angle of view for each focal length and do the trigonometry).
...I am wondering if you could post one of the 50mm crop examples?
You can find sample Q raw files online and do your own crop (look up the angle of view for each focal length and do the trigonometry).
Last edited:
Hi,
I changed from Nikon DX to...yes Leica Q or CL, was the question, too. But frankly spoken full frame then was a must. So I have now a Q and I am that happy. It is lightweight, fast, great picture quality,....and the 28 can be cropped to 35 and 50, but it is only a digital zoom - of course.
I changed from Nikon DX to...yes Leica Q or CL, was the question, too. But frankly spoken full frame then was a must. So I have now a Q and I am that happy. It is lightweight, fast, great picture quality,....and the 28 can be cropped to 35 and 50, but it is only a digital zoom - of course.
bosjohn21
Forum Pro
most of my q images have been cropped but I did not spacifically use the fifty frame line provided. of the ones cropped I know they would be cropped a lot when I shot them about half the time.
Some experience using the Leica Q and the move from Fuji. Also trips to Japan.
http://www.matthewseratti.com
http://www.matthewseratti.com
I owned a Q for a year. It is truly a lust-worthy camera and a stellar performer across the board. On the other hand it is rather bulky, the 28mm (it's really more like 26mm) FL is a bit quirky for mixed use, and the flash options are limited.
I currently own an x100f. It is also a stellar performer and on the vast majority of images i take it goes toe to toe with the Q in file output. It is also MUCH more 'grab and go' than the Q and more low profile when one does not want to draw too much attention. One can stuff it down in a bag, stuff it in a coat pocket, stuff it in a rear carseat pocket with no worries. One can put it on one's wrist and take it to a restaurant or bar and not have to worry about it (unlike the Q).
Finally the presence of on board flash is so under appreciated. During the holidays i took a ton of family pics and flash was a lifesaver for many low light, mixed light and back lit images. The vaunted but flashless Q could never have pulled off those images as well.
So despite its appeal the Q is NOT a clear cut favorite over the x100f even BEFORE price is considered. There is just plain stuff the F is better at.
Here are some pics i took at a concert with the x100f. First of all it was easy getting the camera into the venue - not always a guarantee. Second nobody noticed me taking pictures, or nobody cared. Thirdly the 35mm focal length made band/stage shots a more reasonable proposition. Finally in a really dark venue the autofocus was very reliable and the files were quite acceptable. The Q might have aced the F's noise by a hair, but i'm not even convinced of that.
I currently own an x100f. It is also a stellar performer and on the vast majority of images i take it goes toe to toe with the Q in file output. It is also MUCH more 'grab and go' than the Q and more low profile when one does not want to draw too much attention. One can stuff it down in a bag, stuff it in a coat pocket, stuff it in a rear carseat pocket with no worries. One can put it on one's wrist and take it to a restaurant or bar and not have to worry about it (unlike the Q).
Finally the presence of on board flash is so under appreciated. During the holidays i took a ton of family pics and flash was a lifesaver for many low light, mixed light and back lit images. The vaunted but flashless Q could never have pulled off those images as well.
So despite its appeal the Q is NOT a clear cut favorite over the x100f even BEFORE price is considered. There is just plain stuff the F is better at.
Here are some pics i took at a concert with the x100f. First of all it was easy getting the camera into the venue - not always a guarantee. Second nobody noticed me taking pictures, or nobody cared. Thirdly the 35mm focal length made band/stage shots a more reasonable proposition. Finally in a really dark venue the autofocus was very reliable and the files were quite acceptable. The Q might have aced the F's noise by a hair, but i'm not even convinced of that.
Del Pierro
Well-known member
An interesting read. I've been a big fan of the X100F but the placement of the Q button, right under my thumb, makes it an ergonomic disaster. Also I love the Fuji 35mm wide open. I think that's where a lot of the character comes from. I still have a problem from time to time with Fuji colours coming from the xtrans sensor. They never look as good as the original Bayer sensor on the first X100.....
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum