Reading mode: Light Dark

I was able to test a Fuji GFX100RF vs a Leica Q3-43, Leica Q3, Fuji X100VI, Sony RX1RII

Go to last post
JimKasson said:
The Hat said:
JimKasson said:
The Hat said:
JimKasson said:
The Hat said:
No, the sensor it's amazing, the lens it's not , it's good but not great, as expected for an almost pancake lens. Waiting fir serious reviews with real measurements, but i would be surprised if can resolve more than 50MP.
Click to expand...
How do you convert MTF to MP?
Click to expand...
I Just downloaded few raws from web, and globally they are worst from what I get from a 40MP sensor and a sharp lens, and with too much chromatic aberration for my taste.
Click to expand...
You have made a quantitative assertion. Assuming you do have an MTF curve in cycles/picture height, how would you calculate the number of MP, and what is the basis for that? I personally find discussing lens sharpness in terms of MP to be fruitless and something that usually comes down to handwaving, but if you have some rigorous method, I'm all ears.
JimKasson said:
Obviously i can't comment MTF that are not available for the moment AFAIK, but as a fixed lens camera i comment rhe final results i can see on the web.

Anyway we will see from trusted review and measurements when will be available.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
i said the sensor is great the lens it's not from what i see. and thanks god i still have eyes and after more than 20 years in the business they are well trained.

when i say that i doubt the lens can resolve more than 50MP, considered we are talking about a fixed lens camera, where all you can judge it's the final image i mean that i am sure that a 50MP sensor with a sharp lens can get better result than this system.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that a 100 MP sensor with this lens won't give sharper results than a 50 MP sensor with this lens? On what do you base that assertion?

It would have to be a pretty bad lens to not alias with a 3.76 um sensor on a Bayer CFA camera. I've seen no indication that the lens is that bad.
Click to expand...
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/68231447

here you can see a FF 60MP sensor with a sharp lens (and same sensor pitch)

Sure RF here is cropped to 35mm Equivalent, basically cropping from the 11648 px to 9504 px , but that 20% more pixel will never get back that difference, that lens is quite soft in the corners at least at F4, and show more CA than i can accept from any system at that price.

anyway i will be curious to see the same comparison with let's say a sony a7CR and a really sharp 28mm lens

anyway i hope to have an RF to test soon
 
The Hat said:
JimKasson said:
The Hat said:
JimKasson said:
The Hat said:
JimKasson said:
The Hat said:
No, the sensor it's amazing, the lens it's not , it's good but not great, as expected for an almost pancake lens. Waiting fir serious reviews with real measurements, but i would be surprised if can resolve more than 50MP.
Click to expand...
How do you convert MTF to MP?
Click to expand...
I Just downloaded few raws from web, and globally they are worst from what I get from a 40MP sensor and a sharp lens, and with too much chromatic aberration for my taste.
Click to expand...
You have made a quantitative assertion. Assuming you do have an MTF curve in cycles/picture height, how would you calculate the number of MP, and what is the basis for that? I personally find discussing lens sharpness in terms of MP to be fruitless and something that usually comes down to handwaving, but if you have some rigorous method, I'm all ears.
Member said:
Obviously i can't comment MTF that are not available for the moment AFAIK, but as a fixed lens camera i comment rhe final results i can see on the web.

Anyway we will see from trusted review and measurements when will be available.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
i said the sensor is great the lens it's not from what i see. and thanks god i still have eyes and after more than 20 years in the business they are well trained.

when i say that i doubt the lens can resolve more than 50MP, considered we are talking about a fixed lens camera, where all you can judge it's the final image i mean that i am sure that a 50MP sensor with a sharp lens can get better result than this system.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that a 100 MP sensor with this lens won't give sharper results than a 50 MP sensor with this lens? On what do you base that assertion?

It would have to be a pretty bad lens to not alias with a 3.76 um sensor on a Bayer CFA camera. I've seen no indication that the lens is that bad.
Click to expand...
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/68231447

here you can see a FF 60MP sensor with a sharp lens (and same sensor pitch)

Sure RF here is cropped to 35mm Equivalent, basically cropping from the 11648 px to 9504 px , but that 20% more pixel will never get back that difference, that lens is quite soft in the corners at least at F4, and show more CA than i can accept from any system at that price.

anyway i will be curious to see the same comparison with let's say a sony a7CR and a really sharp 28mm lens

anyway i hope to have an RF to test soon
Click to expand...
Those are the exact same weaknesses the copy we had showed at metal frames, ventilation grids, balcony rails etc. And foliage and water too. Maybe there are better copies of the lens out there, but so far it doesn't seem likely.
 
I think the reference to "professional reviews" isn't direct at you, OP. We are very thankful for your observations. It's directed at some who snub your observations and state that they wait for "professional reviews". Here in the US, the camera isn't shipping for tariff reasons. I was thinking of trading my Q3 43 for this camera with a guy who got it from Europe and still unused, an even swap, but now you convinced me not to do that. So thank you!
 
The Hat said:
JimKasson said:
The Hat said:
JimKasson said:
The Hat said:
JimKasson said:
The Hat said:
No, the sensor it's amazing, the lens it's not , it's good but not great, as expected for an almost pancake lens. Waiting fir serious reviews with real measurements, but i would be surprised if can resolve more than 50MP.
Click to expand...
How do you convert MTF to MP?
Click to expand...
I Just downloaded few raws from web, and globally they are worst from what I get from a 40MP sensor and a sharp lens, and with too much chromatic aberration for my taste.
Click to expand...
You have made a quantitative assertion. Assuming you do have an MTF curve in cycles/picture height, how would you calculate the number of MP, and what is the basis for that? I personally find discussing lens sharpness in terms of MP to be fruitless and something that usually comes down to handwaving, but if you have some rigorous method, I'm all ears.
Member said:
Obviously i can't comment MTF that are not available for the moment AFAIK, but as a fixed lens camera i comment rhe final results i can see on the web.

Anyway we will see from trusted review and measurements when will be available.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
i said the sensor is great the lens it's not from what i see. and thanks god i still have eyes and after more than 20 years in the business they are well trained.

when i say that i doubt the lens can resolve more than 50MP, considered we are talking about a fixed lens camera, where all you can judge it's the final image i mean that i am sure that a 50MP sensor with a sharp lens can get better result than this system.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that a 100 MP sensor with this lens won't give sharper results than a 50 MP sensor with this lens? On what do you base that assertion?

It would have to be a pretty bad lens to not alias with a 3.76 um sensor on a Bayer CFA camera. I've seen no indication that the lens is that bad.
Click to expand...
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/68231447

here you can see a FF 60MP sensor with a sharp lens (and same sensor pitch)

Sure RF here is cropped to 35mm Equivalent, basically cropping from the 11648 px to 9504 px , but that 20% more pixel will never get back that difference, that lens is quite soft in the corners at least at F4, and show more CA than i can accept from any system at that price.

anyway i will be curious to see the same comparison with let's say a sony a7CR and a really sharp 28mm lens

anyway i hope to have an RF to test soon
Click to expand...
I am going to write my non-scientific amateur findings shortly. I can’t comment on CA which I dont find bad with this lens, but it has been designed with similar principles to the X100 lens. The first version not being sharp at f2 close up or infinity. The 2nd generation lens has improved on that but still makes compromises. I have compared the GFX100RF lens to other RF lenses, eg the 50mm f3.5 which is very sharp, if not the sharpest of the RF lenses.
you are right, close up at f4 the GFX100RF is sharp but not as sharp as the 50mm. However closeup for the 100RF is almost 10cm, whereas for the 50mm it is 20-30cm. As the 100RF lens goes further out, or switches to f5.6, it becomes very very sharp. This means at normal distances or at mid apertures the lens is super sharp. This makes sense. If I go that close for a portrait or macro, compared to DSLR lenses it is still sharp, but I suppose the slight performance drop won’t effect the use case of travel or street with this camera, or landscape at f11.

the edges at f4 are also not as good as the 50mm, but the mid and centre are. That’s a bit “so what” for the use case.

like I say, this is just me comparing pixel level, it is not a technical or professional summary which you all are much more knowledgable then an amateur like me.

however it does square the circle between the independent reviews, which largely gush about the lens, and the hardened GFX shooters who express disappointment. It’s because their technical comparison of the extremes of this lens to their interchangeable lenses are showing the compromises on the 100RF lens. Whereas the reviewers who are using the use case of the lens, travel, street and stabilised landscapes, are having a whale of a time.
 
I am going to write my non-scientific amateur findings shortly. I can’t comment on CA which I dont find bad with this lens, but it has been designed with similar principles to the X100 lens. The first version not being sharp at f2 close up or infinity. The 2nd generation lens has improved on that but still makes compromises. I have compared the GFX100RF lens to other RF lenses, eg the 50mm f3.5 which is very sharp, if not the sharpest of the RF lenses.
you are right, close up at f4 the GFX100RF is sharp but not as sharp as the 50mm. However closeup for the 100RF is almost 10cm, whereas for the 50mm it is 20-30cm. As the 100RF lens goes further out, or switches to f5.6, it becomes very very sharp. This means at normal distances or at mid apertures the lens is super sharp. This makes sense. If I go that close for a portrait or macro, compared to DSLR lenses it is still sharp, but I suppose the slight performance drop won’t effect the use case of travel or street with this camera, or landscape at f11.

the edges at f4 are also not as good as the 50mm, but the mid and centre are. That’s a bit “so what” for the use case.

like I say, this is just me comparing pixel level, it is not a technical or professional summary which you all are much more knowledgable then an amateur like me.

however it does square the circle between the independent reviews, which largely gush about the lens, and the hardened GFX shooters who express disappointment. It’s because their technical comparison of the extremes of this lens to their interchangeable lenses are showing the compromises on the 100RF lens. Whereas the reviewers who are using the use case of the lens, travel, street and stabilised landscapes, are having a whale of a time.

the bottom line is that for the travel and street use case you won’t hardly notice the difference between this and the best GFX lens. For close up models or critical studio work you would. Who’d have thunk it :D

--
"No photograph survives first contact with the subject"
 
Last edited:
JimKasson said:
mcxxrr said:
I believe the issue on sharpness (which isn’t the only parameter in image quality) is “compared to what?”. And the second is “for which use case?”. It is clear that for street/travel photography the lens is good enough. The monster sensor
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call it a monster sensor on the MF forum. It's the same size as sensors that we've been dealing with here for many years.
Click to expand...
I was calling it monster wrt the size of the camera, not in absolute terms.. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to refine my statement, Jim.
JimKasson said:
JimKasson said:
allows for cropping and I am sure that in f8 1/250 of a sec all will be fine. As it is for most lenses and camaras. Maybe for more demanding applications at 28mm eq with no cropping for those of us used to the magic coming out GF primes this may show it’s limitations, surely linked to a number of understandable design choices. So it depends on baselines and reference points. I am so used to the quality out of my GF primes that I fear I may be disappointed for the more demanding use cases. Of course I may still consider it, so I think the only way is to try it myself.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
OK, this seems like a very biased review.

I own brand new Leica Q3 + Q3 43 and a Fuji GFX100RF.
The fit and finish of the Fuji is much better than the Leica.
Leica doesn't even engrave their buttons, where Fuji does.
The Fuji uses a block of solid aluminum and the silver finish I have is WAY better looking than the Leica. It even gets compared to old Leica film camera when the square hood is fitted.

The image quality, bit depth and shadow recovery of the Fuji is superior.
It has larger pixels. Low light is fine if you don't use Auto ISO and under-expose and shoot RAW. The MF sensor and superior dynamic range + 16 bit RAWs result in a filmic look that the Leica just doesn't have

If you are shooting Leica Looks JPGs, the Fuji film simulations have more available and beat Leica hands down.

I could go on but it depends upon your use case.

I feel the Leica's are just glorified point and shoots.
The mechanical shutter is only 1/2000s and the autofocus is a joke.

I'm seriously considering trading in mine for a GFX100S II + 55mm F1.5 to pair with the GFX100RF - that's how impressed I am with the Fuji (and disappointed with the Leica's).

The Fuji is more of an art camera, like a Leica M. It's not a speed demon but it's more accurate than the Leica's.
I also have a pair of Canon R1's and a pair of Canon R5 II's, so I know what world class autofocus is. The Leica is maybe 3/10 on a good day, while the R1 is 11!
 
EvilTed said:
OK, this seems like a very biased review.
I own brand new Leica Q3 + Q3 43 and a Fuji GFX100RF.
The fit and finish of the Fuji is much better than the Leica.
Leica doesn't even engrave their buttons, where Fuji does.
The Fuji uses a block of solid aluminum and the silver finish I have is WAY better looking than the Leica. It even gets compared to old Leica film camera when the square hood is fitted.
The image quality, bit depth and shadow recovery of the Fuji is superior.
It has larger pixels. Low light is fine if you don't use Auto ISO and under-expose and shoot RAW. The MF sensor and superior dynamic range + 16 bit RAWs result in a filmic look that the Leica just doesn't have

If you are shooting Leica Looks JPGs, the Fuji film simulations have more available and beat Leica hands down.

I could go on but it depends upon your use case.

I feel the Leica's are just glorified point and shoots.
The mechanical shutter is only 1/2000s and the autofocus is a joke.
I'm seriously considering trading in mine for a GFX100S II + 55mm F1.5 to pair with the GFX100RF - that's how impressed I am with the Fuji (and disappointed with the Leica's).
The Fuji is more of an art camera, like a Leica M. It's not a speed demon but it's more accurate than the Leica's.
I also have a pair of Canon R1's and a pair of Canon R5 II's, so I know what world class autofocus is. The Leica is maybe 3/10 on a good day, while the R1 is 11!
Click to expand...
Boastar's review is more of a first impressions than review. It takes a month to get used to how to use this camera and all its options. I agree with your observations.
 
EvilTed said:
OK, this seems like a very biased review.
I own brand new Leica Q3 + Q3 43 and a Fuji GFX100RF.
The fit and finish of the Fuji is much better than the Leica.
Leica doesn't even engrave their buttons, where Fuji does.
The Fuji uses a block of solid aluminum and the silver finish I have is WAY better looking than the Leica. It even gets compared to old Leica film camera when the square hood is fitted.
The image quality, bit depth and shadow recovery of the Fuji is superior.
It has larger pixels. Low light is fine if you don't use Auto ISO and under-expose and shoot RAW. The MF sensor and superior dynamic range + 16 bit RAWs result in a filmic look that the Leica just doesn't have

If you are shooting Leica Looks JPGs, the Fuji film simulations have more available and beat Leica hands down.

I could go on but it depends upon your use case.

I feel the Leica's are just glorified point and shoots.
The mechanical shutter is only 1/2000s and the autofocus is a joke.
I'm seriously considering trading in mine for a GFX100S II + 55mm F1.5 to pair with the GFX100RF - that's how impressed I am with the Fuji (and disappointed with the Leica's).
The Fuji is more of an art camera, like a Leica M. It's not a speed demon but it's more accurate than the Leica's.
I also have a pair of Canon R1's and a pair of Canon R5 II's, so I know what world class autofocus is. The Leica is maybe 3/10 on a good day, while the R1 is 11!
Click to expand...
You certainly have enough cameras as you tell us, but it sounds like you are trying to justify your RF purchase. Why else would you buy 2 Q3'S you consider to be so poor?
 
EvilTed said:
OK, this seems like a very biased review.
I own brand new Leica Q3 + Q3 43 and a Fuji GFX100RF.
The fit and finish of the Fuji is much better than the Leica.
Click to expand...
I own all three as well, but I strongly disagree. The Q3 feels more solid and higher-end.
EvilTed said:
Leica doesn't even engrave their buttons, where Fuji does.
The Fuji uses a block of solid aluminum and the silver finish I have is WAY better looking than the Leica.
Click to expand...
There are no Q3s with silver finishes.
EvilTed said:
It even gets compared to old Leica film camera when the square hood is fitted.
Click to expand...
The RF hood is a monstrosity and destroys RF's sleek and beautiful form.

No way it compares with the Leica digital and film M camera (I have those too). RF is special in its way, though (without the hood).
EvilTed said:
The image quality, bit depth and shadow recovery of the Fuji is superior.
It has larger pixels.
Click to expand...
Why would larger pixels matter? Shooting RF with anything but 14 bits (same as Q3) is a waste of space and (readout) time.

And no, Q3 (60MP) has the same pixel size as RF.
EvilTed said:
Low light is fine if you don't use Auto ISO and under-expose and shoot RAW.
Click to expand...
What does AutoISO have to do with low-light shooting? ISO does not influence noise in low light.

I could not have shot this low-light sequence with an RF, as my hands would require 1/125 sec:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4806841
EvilTed said:
The MF sensor and superior dynamic range + 16 bit RAWs result in a filmic look that the Leica just doesn't have
Click to expand...
I do not believe that, either. I would love a comparison since you have the Q3s and the RF.
EvilTed said:
If you are shooting Leica Looks JPGs, the Fuji film simulations have more available and beat Leica hands down.

I could go on but it depends upon your use case.

I feel the Leica's are just glorified point and shoots.
Click to expand...
Have you checked the work published on LFI-online's Q mastershot galleries? Yes, you can use Qs as point and shoot, and RF is apparently also used that way.
EvilTed said:
The mechanical shutter is only 1/2000s and the autofocus is a joke.
I'm seriously considering trading in mine for a GFX100S II + 55mm F1.5 to pair with the GFX100RF - that's how impressed I am with the Fuji (and disappointed with the Leica's).
The Fuji is more of an art camera, like a Leica M. It's not a speed demon but it's more accurate than the Leica's.
I also have a pair of Canon R1's and a pair of Canon R5 II's, so I know what world class autofocus is. The Leica is maybe 3/10 on a good day, while the R1 is 11!
Click to expand...
Q3's AF on static subjects works exceptionally well. I have no experience in shooting moving subjects with Q's.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JNK 100 said:
EvilTed said:
OK, this seems like a very biased review.
I own brand new Leica Q3 + Q3 43 and a Fuji GFX100RF.
The fit and finish of the Fuji is much better than the Leica.
Leica doesn't even engrave their buttons, where Fuji does.
The Fuji uses a block of solid aluminum and the silver finish I have is WAY better looking than the Leica. It even gets compared to old Leica film camera when the square hood is fitted.
The image quality, bit depth and shadow recovery of the Fuji is superior.
It has larger pixels. Low light is fine if you don't use Auto ISO and under-expose and shoot RAW. The MF sensor and superior dynamic range + 16 bit RAWs result in a filmic look that the Leica just doesn't have

If you are shooting Leica Looks JPGs, the Fuji film simulations have more available and beat Leica hands down.

I could go on but it depends upon your use case.

I feel the Leica's are just glorified point and shoots.
The mechanical shutter is only 1/2000s and the autofocus is a joke.
I'm seriously considering trading in mine for a GFX100S II + 55mm F1.5 to pair with the GFX100RF - that's how impressed I am with the Fuji (and disappointed with the Leica's).
The Fuji is more of an art camera, like a Leica M. It's not a speed demon but it's more accurate than the Leica's.
I also have a pair of Canon R1's and a pair of Canon R5 II's, so I know what world class autofocus is. The Leica is maybe 3/10 on a good day, while the R1 is 11!
Click to expand...
You certainly have enough cameras as you tell us, but it sounds like you are trying to justify your RF purchase. Why else would you buy 2 Q3'S you consider to be so poor?
Click to expand...
In my own case, my ability to carry a heavier kit has been diminishing with age. As manufacturers release smaller and lighter but highly capable cameras, they are the ones I have personally gravitated to for travel and leisure. In the past 4 years I bought a Q2, sold it for a Q3, and a year or so ago I bought a Q3 43. Being intrigued by the RF I was able to afford to obtain one (in the USA). Considering selling the Q's at this point though I disagree with some of the assertions made above by EilTed about AF, build quality, materials, etc. The Q's are excellent cams.. So it is a matter of quality cams getting smaller and my ability to upgrade without harming the savings account or my marriage. 😁

Would I have been satisfied having kept the Q2 and skipping the others? Sure. But that would not make my camera store of choice very happy.

--
Bob aka BobsYourUncle
DPR Co-MOD - Fuji X and Medium Format Forums
 
Last edited:
SrMi said:
EvilTed said:
OK, this seems like a very biased review.
I own brand new Leica Q3 + Q3 43 and a Fuji GFX100RF.
The fit and finish of the Fuji is much better than the Leica.
Click to expand...
I own all three as well, but I strongly disagree. The Q3 feels more solid and higher-end.
SrMi said:
Leica doesn't even engrave their buttons, where Fuji does.
The Fuji uses a block of solid aluminum and the silver finish I have is WAY better looking than the Leica.
Click to expand...
There are no Q3s with silver finishes.
SrMi said:
It even gets compared to old Leica film camera when the square hood is fitted.
Click to expand...
The RF hood is a monstrosity and destroys RF's sleek and beautiful form.

No way it compares with the Leica digital and film M camera (I have those two). RF is special in its way, though (without the hood).
SrMi said:
The image quality, bit depth and shadow recovery of the Fuji is superior.
It has larger pixels.
Click to expand...
Why would larger pixels matter? Shooting RF with anything but 14 bits (same as Q3) is a waste of space and (readout) time.

And no, Q3 (60MP) has the same pixel size as RF.
SrMi said:
Low light is fine if you don't use Auto ISO and under-expose and shoot RAW.
Click to expand...
What does AutoISO have to do with low-light shooting? ISO does not influence noise in low light.

I could not have shot this low-light sequence with an RF, as my hands would require 1/125 sec:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4806841
SrMi said:
The MF sensor and superior dynamic range + 16 bit RAWs result in a filmic look that the Leica just doesn't have
Click to expand...
I do not believe that, either. I would love a comparison since you have the Q3s and the RF.
SrMi said:
If you are shooting Leica Looks JPGs, the Fuji film simulations have more available and beat Leica hands down.

I could go on but it depends upon your use case.

I feel the Leica's are just glorified point and shoots.
Click to expand...
Have you checked the work published on LFI-online's Q mastershot galleries? Yes, you can use Qs as point and shoot, and RF is apparently also used that way.
SrMi said:
The mechanical shutter is only 1/2000s and the autofocus is a joke.
I'm seriously considering trading in mine for a GFX100S II + 55mm F1.5 to pair with the GFX100RF - that's how impressed I am with the Fuji (and disappointed with the Leica's).
The Fuji is more of an art camera, like a Leica M. It's not a speed demon but it's more accurate than the Leica's.
I also have a pair of Canon R1's and a pair of Canon R5 II's, so I know what world class autofocus is. The Leica is maybe 3/10 on a good day, while the R1 is 11!
Click to expand...
Q3's AF on static subjects works exceptionally well. I have no experience in shooting moving subjects with Q's.
Click to expand...
I agree strongly with you comments SrMi. I now suspect EvilTed's post to be clickbait of some sort.
 
SilverEagle1962 said:
To OP:

I am interested n what you said about distortion and over correction , can you elaborate please?
Click to expand...

Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion Thread - FM Forums

Join the Photography photography discussion: Available April 2025, $4900 USD, black and silver options available. 102mp sensor 35mm f4 integrated lens 5.76mp EVF 7.9" MFD Leaf Shutter 4 stop ND 1/
www.fredmiranda.com

54405511864_6567a57ed8_o.gif
 
EvilTed said:
OK, this seems like a very biased review.
I own brand new Leica Q3 + Q3 43 and a Fuji GFX100RF.
The fit and finish of the Fuji is much better than the Leica.
Leica doesn't even engrave their buttons, where Fuji does.
The Fuji uses a block of solid aluminum and the silver finish I have is WAY better looking than the Leica. It even gets compared to old Leica film camera when the square hood is fitted.
The image quality, bit depth and shadow recovery of the Fuji is superior.
It has larger pixels. Low light is fine if you don't use Auto ISO and under-expose and shoot RAW. The MF sensor and superior dynamic range + 16 bit RAWs result in a filmic look that the Leica just doesn't have

If you are shooting Leica Looks JPGs, the Fuji film simulations have more available and beat Leica hands down.
Click to expand...
most serious shooters I know shoot RAW and process afterwards to achieve a particular look, and I'd especially expect Fuji MF shooters to fall into that group. Seems a bit of a contradiction to rave about jpeg simulations and then below criticize "glorified point and shoots".
EvilTed said:
I could go on but it depends upon your use case.

I feel the Leica's are just glorified point and shoots.
Click to expand...
and the RF isn't also a glorified point and shoot?
EvilTed said:
The mechanical shutter is only 1/2000s and the autofocus is a joke.
Click to expand...
Why do you say the Q3 AF is a joke? How is the RF AF better?
EvilTed said:
I'm seriously considering trading in mine for a GFX100S II + 55mm F1.5 to pair with the GFX100RF - that's how impressed I am with the Fuji (and disappointed with the Leica's).
The Fuji is more of an art camera, like a Leica M. It's not a speed demon but it's more accurate than the Leica's.
I also have a pair of Canon R1's and a pair of Canon R5 II's, so I know what world class autofocus is. The Leica is maybe 3/10 on a good day, while the R1 is 11!
Click to expand...
If you're happy with the RF and in your estimation your Q3 cams fall short of it, then all is good and you should probably sell those lousy Q3 cams to someone who loves and appreciates them.
 
EvilTed said:
OK, this seems like a very biased review.
I own brand new Leica Q3 + Q3 43 and a Fuji GFX100RF.
The fit and finish of the Fuji is much better than the Leica.
Click to expand...
This is objectively not true and has to be clickbait. The fit and finish of the RF is good, the Leica better than good.
EvilTed said:
Leica doesn't even engrave their buttons, where Fuji does.
The Fuji uses a block of solid aluminum and the silver finish I have is WAY better looking than the Leica. It even gets compared to old Leica film camera when the square hood is fitted.
The image quality, bit depth and shadow recovery of the Fuji is superior.
It has larger pixels. Low light is fine if you don't use Auto ISO and under-expose and shoot RAW. The MF sensor and superior dynamic range + 16 bit RAWs result in a filmic look that the Leica just doesn't have
Click to expand...
Fool you for wasting your time making 16-bit files.
EvilTed said:
If you are shooting Leica Looks JPGs, the Fuji film simulations have more available and beat Leica hands down.

I could go on but it depends upon your use case.

I feel the Leica's are just glorified point and shoots.
The mechanical shutter is only 1/2000s and the autofocus is a joke.
I'm seriously considering trading in mine for a GFX100S II + 55mm F1.5 to pair with the GFX100RF - that's how impressed I am with the Fuji (and disappointed with the Leica's).
Click to expand...
What 55mm f1.5 is that?
EvilTed said:
The Fuji is more of an art camera, like a Leica M. It's not a speed demon but it's more accurate than the Leica's.
I also have a pair of Canon R1's and a pair of Canon R5 II's, so I know what world class autofocus is. The Leica is maybe 3/10 on a good day, while the R1 is 11!
Click to expand...
 
No opinion on the subjective elements in your post, I don't have either camera.

However, you are incorrect to say the RF has larger pixels. It uses the exact same pixel architecture as the 60MP FF sensor. Just more of them.

So, whatever your opinion, larger pixel size is not correct, and can't be the reason for your beliefs.
 
I have traded my Q43 for an RF I agree with all your points, especially, the build quality and fun factor.
 
BobsYourUncle said:
Would I have been satisfied having kept the Q2 and skipping the others? Sure. But that would not make my camera store of choice very happy.
Click to expand...
Best to keep on Sean's good side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FujLiver
Fujifilm GFX100RF vs Leica Q3
3 4 5
Replies
93
Views
19K
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany
E
GFX100RF vs. Leica Q3 43
6 7 8
Replies
149
Views
8K
JimKasson
JimKasson
L
GFX100RF size argument
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
11K
KLO82
K
E
Testing the RF with my Q43
Replies
10
Views
2K
RangerPhotog
R
SrMi
GFX 100RF vs Leica Q3 (28mm)
Replies
13
Views
2K
RangerPhotog
R

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