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

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.

Click to expand...

EvilTed said:

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...

Doppler9000 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.

Click to expand...

Pixel size is the same.

Click to expand...

Doppler9000 said:

Doppler9000 said:

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...

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

Doppler9000 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.

Click to expand...

Pixel size is the same.

Click to expand...

But the Q3 pixels have the Leica look.

Click to expand...

jhunna said:

JimKasson said:

Doppler9000 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.

Click to expand...

Pixel size is the same.

Click to expand...

But the Q3 pixels have the Leica look.

Click to expand...

You see it too?!?!

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

jhunna said:

JimKasson said:

Doppler9000 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.

Click to expand...

Pixel size is the same.

Click to expand...

But the Q3 pixels have the Leica look.

Click to expand...

You see it too?!?!

Click to expand...

No, I don’t.

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

jhunna said:

JimKasson said:

Doppler9000 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.

Click to expand...

Pixel size is the same.

Click to expand...

But the Q3 pixels have the Leica look.

Click to expand...

You see it too?!?!

Click to expand...

No, I don’t.

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

Doppler9000 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.

Click to expand...

Pixel size is the same.

Click to expand...

But the Q3 pixels have the Leica look.

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

JimKasson said:

JimKasson said:

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...

Click to expand...

--
https://blog.kasson.com

Click to expand...

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...

jhunna 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...

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.

Click to expand...

boastar said:

It didn’t take me months to realize that the Fuji RF has significant weaknesses, that would make it a bad purchase for me. My experience helped me with that assessment, but things like that might take longer for less experienced photographers. I’m used to shooting Fuji GFX, so the RF felt very familiar to me, and I was able to concentrate on the details that mattered most. Someone new to Fuji or middleformat might be a bit overwhelmed by “all those options” though

Click to expand...

FujLiver said:

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.

FujLiver 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.

Click to expand...

SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany said:

Even though this is Medium Format talk

In built zoom lens cameras as m4/3 Lx100 aka Leica Dlux 7 8, 1inch Panasonic Tz100 LX1 Sony Rx100 series, 1.5inch sensor Canon G1x mk1 mk2, aps-c sensor G1x mk3 can do sterling photography in scenes with decent light where dynamic range is limited. Albeit they won't have anywhere near the benefits of a 44x33 sensor nor 100MP.

It's always how we utilise cameras strengths for which topics .

I had Tz100 1inch sensor 25-250mm, 1.5inch sensor G1x mk2 f/2-f/3.9 20-120mm terrific carry around jacket pocketable cameras for varieties of topics as long as they are photographed within their limitations.

Click to expand...

SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany said:

boastar said:

It didn’t take me months to realize that the Fuji RF has significant weaknesses, that would make it a bad purchase for me. My experience helped me with that assessment, but things like that might take longer for less experienced photographers. I’m used to shooting Fuji GFX, so the RF felt very familiar to me, and I was able to concentrate on the details that mattered most. Someone new to Fuji or middleformat might be a bit overwhelmed by “all those options” though

Click to expand...

I remember within a few minutes in Fuji house of photography realising 100Rf various possibilities also that it wasn't for me.

Whereas Tex knew 100Rf was is for him without handling it and Tex was vindicated in this after purchasing. Tex as you know has decades experience as well as his own company dealing with fine art photography.

I remember Leica XVario also no ibis, built in slooow zoom f/3.5-f/6.4 28-70mm aps-c. It's slooow lens no built in evf killed it for me. Canon G1x mk2 f/2.0-f/3.9 24-120mm ibis 1.5" sensor tilt touch screen with clip on evf released a year after far better for my photogrpahy which I purchased.

So to say as we are aware of how we would utilise any camera for our styles of photography, thereafter renders it pretty straightforward to arrive whether it's for us or not.

Click to expand...

JNK 100 said:

SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany said:

boastar said:

It didn’t take me months to realize that the Fuji RF has significant weaknesses, that would make it a bad purchase for me. My experience helped me with that assessment, but things like that might take longer for less experienced photographers. I’m used to shooting Fuji GFX, so the RF felt very familiar to me, and I was able to concentrate on the details that mattered most. Someone new to Fuji or middleformat might be a bit overwhelmed by “all those options” though

Click to expand...

I remember within a few minutes in Fuji house of photography realising 100Rf various possibilities also that it wasn't for me.

Whereas Tex knew 100Rf was is for him without handling it and Tex was vindicated in this after purchasing. Tex as you know has decades experience as well as his own company dealing with fine art photography.

I remember Leica XVario also no ibis, built in slooow zoom f/3.5-f/6.4 28-70mm aps-c. It's slooow lens no built in evf killed it for me. Canon G1x mk2 f/2.0-f/3.9 24-120mm ibis 1.5" sensor tilt touch screen with clip on evf released a year after far better for my photogrpahy which I purchased.

So to say as we are aware of how we would utilise any camera for our styles of photography, thereafter renders it pretty straightforward to arrive whether it's for us or not.

Click to expand...

That's odd as you posted glowing comments after handling it at Fuji London a number of times and saying you would wait to buy one pre-owned when the price fell?

Click to expand...

SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany said:

JNK 100 said:

SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany said:

boastar said:

It didn’t take me months to realize that the Fuji RF has significant weaknesses, that would make it a bad purchase for me. My experience helped me with that assessment, but things like that might take longer for less experienced photographers. I’m used to shooting Fuji GFX, so the RF felt very familiar to me, and I was able to concentrate on the details that mattered most. Someone new to Fuji or middleformat might be a bit overwhelmed by “all those options” though

Click to expand...

I remember within a few minutes in Fuji house of photography realising 100Rf various possibilities also that it wasn't for me.

Whereas Tex knew 100Rf was is for him without handling it and Tex was vindicated in this after purchasing. Tex as you know has decades experience as well as his own company dealing with fine art photography.

I remember Leica XVario also no ibis, built in slooow zoom f/3.5-f/6.4 28-70mm aps-c. It's slooow lens no built in evf killed it for me. Canon G1x mk2 f/2.0-f/3.9 24-120mm ibis 1.5" sensor tilt touch screen with clip on evf released a year after far better for my photogrpahy which I purchased.

So to say as we are aware of how we would utilise any camera for our styles of photography, thereafter renders it pretty straightforward to arrive whether it's for us or not.

Click to expand...

That's odd as you posted glowing comments after handling it at Fuji London a number of times and saying you would wait to buy one pre-owned when the price fell?

Click to expand...

My photos showed 100Rf in a bad light eg. my attempts at slower shutter speeds. Hardly glowing.

100Rf has lots of possibilities if we are open minded to photograph varities of things in varities of ways.

If 100Rf falls to used £1K in a decade maybe. Still it's too limited for my utilisations for a 44x33 camera. I'd recommend Canon G1xmk2 to anyone.

JNK you also post this types of JuNK posts on Dpr m4/3 forum. Wouldn't it be better were you instead of trying to stir things up, share your photographs

Click to expand...

SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany said:

Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.yr

Click to expand...

BobsYourUncle said:

JimKasson said:

jhunna said:

JimKasson said:

Doppler9000 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.

Click to expand...

Pixel size is the same.

Click to expand...

But the Q3 pixels have the Leica look.

Click to expand...

You see it too?!?!

Click to expand...

No, I don’t.

Click to expand...

I think ChatGPT's image generator sees it!

Asked ChatGPT to create a humorous image of the Leica Look.

Click to expand...

boastar said:

jhunna 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...

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.

Click to expand...

It didn’t take me months to realize that the Fuji RF has significant weaknesses, that would make it a bad purchase for me. My experience helped me with that assessment, but things like that might take longer for less experienced photographers. I’m used to shooting Fuji GFX, so the RF felt very familiar to me, and I was able to concentrate on the details that mattered most. Someone new to Fuji or middleformat might be a bit overwhelmed by “all those options” though

Click to expand...

brick33308 said:

obviously no love for Leica

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

brick33308 said:

obviously no love for Leica

Click to expand...

I am a former Leica user. I find much to like about the cameras and lenses. However, the hype turns me off.

Click to expand...