It’s good that we have choices. I traded in my Q43 for the RF. It’s more enjoyable to use and the lens has character as opposed to the flat Leica rendering from the APO lens, especially, for portraits. I also enjoy Fuji colors way more.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
RF vs Q43 vs Q3
- Thread starter jhunna
- Start date
emdundronald
Forum Enthusiast
An argument for NOT trading cameras is the time saved. Think about a workweek or so.
Paw size and the ergonomics of how an objects fits you paws is one of the most underrated aspects of photography. Professional gofers, professional tennis players, professional handgun shooters, professional baseball players, professional musicals (just ask Garcia), etc. all understand it.Interesting, David. I have large hands and the 50s Mkii, when I owned it, was very easy to hold in one or both hands.... similar to the 100S. It is the Q series and 100RF that seemed to need additional help for my paws.Even something as apparently trivial as the aesthetic appeal of the curves and lines of a camera can be a differentiator for some. Or the presence of the Red Dot.
There's no accounting for taste.
I'm trying to make my mind up whether I should buy a used 50s Mkii. It has the same sensor as my 50s, so the same long exposure low noise and freedom from hot pixels, but a faster processor, a more streamlined, less bumpy and lumpy design, the current battery system and IBIS.
On the downside, I can't find a half case for it which I always find important for improving hand holdability, and £2.5k is a lot of money for me. I will also need to spend on new spare batteries which is annoying because I have just built my 50s battery collection up to 7.
It's the IBIS which is the main driver for considering such a purchase because it would increase the scope of the camera for hand held work with different non-stabilised lenses. i don't envisage MF as ideal for hand held work but there are always the opportunities either side of LE photos and I hate the idea of carrying a second camera for this.
I truly hope the more streamlined aesthetics is not a factor because even though the original 50s is a bit ugly, that shouldn't be a factor in a grown-up decision making process when resources are constrained.
Should it
We can't go to Fuji, Nikon, etc., and have custom cameras produced for our individual measurements like Tigr Woods, Serna Williams, Willy Mays, Cal Ripken, Jerry Garcia, Roger McGuinn, etc., but you'll will perform better when you tool fits you hand like a glove. I don't get on well with my Z8, I have to work around it. My Q2M is too "thick" and leaves my pinkie flapping in the wind.
The XH2, better than the Z8 but still too much grip focing too much bend in my fingers. The XPro3 could have been a little taller - again the pinky seemed lost. Until I picked up the 100RF, the Leica M4 fit my paws better than most. The RF is very comfortably in my relaxed hands.
Last Mango
Leading Member
Even something as apparently trivial as the aesthetic appeal of the curves and lines of a camera can be a differentiator for some. Or the presence of the Red Dot.
There's no accounting for taste.
I'm trying to make my mind up whether I should buy a used 50s Mkii. It has the same sensor as my 50s, so the same long exposure low noise and freedom from hot pixels, but a faster processor, a more streamlined, less bumpy and lumpy design, the current battery system and IBIS.
On the downside, I can't find a half case for it which I always find important for improving hand holdability, and £2.5k is a lot of money for me. I will also need to spend on new spare batteries which is annoying because I have just built my 50s battery collection up to 7.
It's the IBIS which is the main driver for considering such a purchase because it would increase the scope of the camera for hand held work with different non-stabilised lenses. i don't envisage MF as ideal for hand held work but there are always the opportunities either side of LE photos and I hate the idea of carrying a second camera for this.
I truly hope the more streamlined aesthetics is not a factor because even though the original 50s is a bit ugly, that shouldn't be a factor in a grown-up decision making process when resources are constrained.
Should it
Aesthetic appeal is not trivial. The best equipment is both functional, ergonomically proper and just look right.
Taste is personal and subjective.
Why a half case if aesthetic appeal is trivial? Just fashion some wood, foam that matches your hand and tape it to the body. (I am being factitious)
The RF changes that ideal, MF is absolutely ideal for hand held work with the RF. It isn't perfect, but the RF invites you to bring it along when bulkier less portable MF cameras need to be left behind.
It should because it is. Often times it is only the adults who can afford to purchase the finer lined cameras. I know there were things I wanted as a kid that it has taken me a lifetime to be in a position to enjoy.I truly hope the more streamlined aesthetics is not a factor because even though the original 50s is a bit ugly, that shouldn't be a factor in a grown-up decision making process when resources are constrained.
Should it
Form and function work together to make a product both desirable and practical.
I have never considered aesthetic appeal of camera equipment in my purchase decisions, although in the 50s, I was attracted to the Nikon SP because of its looks, but not sufficiently enamored to trade in my S2 (which I still keep for sentimental reasons). I would like to have a nicely brassed SP that had been used by a famous photographer on my shelf, but I wouldn't want to use it to make images.
With the exception of the Sinar F, I have never owned a camera whose ergonomics prevented me from making the images that I wanted to make with it.
--
https://blog.kasson.com
Last edited:
tex
Veteran Member
How my tools appeal to me is important. The better tool from a performance standpoint would always win out, but between largely comparable tools in terms of capability, I will choose the best value, but also strongly consider the aesthetics.
Using fine tools is a joy in life, if one can. What makes them "fine" is multifaceted, and their aesthetics is one of the facets for me.
Using fine tools is a joy in life, if one can. What makes them "fine" is multifaceted, and their aesthetics is one of the facets for me.
I agree with you. I need to love the tool as much as the process or rend result. It's like saying any car is the same because it takes you from point A to point B. Or a G Shock has a similar feeling on your wrist to a Vacheron because they both tell the time. It's partly why I shoot Leica and Fuji.
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
As I currently have 7 digital cameras in active use and at least that many more retired, I really don't need to be buying more cameras because they look nice, no matter what the temptation.
After so many cameras, more is not a joy in life, but a millstone around the neck.
--
2024: Awarded Royal Photographic Society LRPS Distinction
Photo of the day: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day-2025/
Website: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)
Last edited:
I would be compelled to make images with a brassed SP. Hard for me to let a tool just sit if it can bring me some joy, even if it is just a reminisce.
With practice we can make most tools bend to our will. Sometimes it is worth the effort other times not so much.
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
Photography has always been a hobby where kerb appeal plays a strong role. But in the end, we need to decide whether we are camera collectors or artists. You can try to be both but one saps energy from the other.
tex
Veteran Member
and idiosyncratic, but not in a good or interesting way.
As a raw shooter I have little interest in jpg output generally. Phone photography aside, I only occasionally shoot jpgs and that's for special cases---long time lapse sequences, for instance, where shooting raw would be ideal but is sometimes not feasible given buffer sizes, storage issues, & etc. So, I admit my bias against jpg's up front. I do understand that raw comparisons have their own "in the weeds" aspects, but I think accounting for those honestly and in an unbiased way is still preferable to comparing jpgs. Are we comparing actual IQ or jpg engines and in camera jpg setups?
The strange mix of an apparently technical evaluation---done with curious subject matter, somewhat arbitrarily chosen parameters, curious evaluation---that's then mixed in with a highly personal and subjective element---I found it all quite off-putting in the end.
As a raw shooter I have little interest in jpg output generally. Phone photography aside, I only occasionally shoot jpgs and that's for special cases---long time lapse sequences, for instance, where shooting raw would be ideal but is sometimes not feasible given buffer sizes, storage issues, & etc. So, I admit my bias against jpg's up front. I do understand that raw comparisons have their own "in the weeds" aspects, but I think accounting for those honestly and in an unbiased way is still preferable to comparing jpgs. Are we comparing actual IQ or jpg engines and in camera jpg setups?
The strange mix of an apparently technical evaluation---done with curious subject matter, somewhat arbitrarily chosen parameters, curious evaluation---that's then mixed in with a highly personal and subjective element---I found it all quite off-putting in the end.
Agreed. But I try to have both a camera that appeals to me as well as works for me. My needs are not overly complicated. I don’t need the latest and fastest and therefore enjoy a Leica M and currently the RF. I was just on vacation with my kids, and we went whale watching and was constantly running after an 8 and 7 year old. I’m sure had I had a Canon R5 or Sony A1, it would have made my life easier, but I wouldn’t have enjoyed the process. Each to his/her own I guess.
SrMi
Veteran Member
We should not mix up aesthetic and ergonomics. I am pleased by a good looking instrument, but ergonomics determine how efficiently I can work with a camera.
I don't ride ugly horses. While I have driven some butt ugly trucks on the ranch I don't drive ugly cars. As my grandfather often said, it cost as much to feed an ugly horse as a beautiful horse. It is as much work to shoe an ugly horse as a beautiful horse and you sure look better astride a beautiful horse than an ugly horse and your fox hunt or endurance ride will be much more enjoyable astride a beautiful animal.
In grad school, I remember one of my advisors, Wei-Liang Chow, always telling me that an elegant proof in mathematics is much more satisfying than an "ugly" proof and always strive to find the most elegant proof.
Given two cameras with more or less the same functionality, I will chose the one that has a combination of the best ergonomics and aesthetic appeal.
My car buying decisions are somewhat based on aesthetics. However, I once bought a Bangle-butt BMW 745i. When people commented on the looks, I always said that from the inside, you can't see how ugly it is. OTOH, when I walked out of the Prague Intercontinental Hotel in 1978, I saw my first 928, and knew then and there I would buy one. It turned out to be my favorite car ever. Then Porsche ruined the looks of its successors with spoilers and such.
But I view cameras as tools, and I don't pick saws and hammers based on aesthetics.
928 is still my dream car, however I got to big for them before I could afford one.
Then you are missing out...
Well said...
Read the post that I just made in the forum on boundary conditions. If you set a boundary condition that your equipment has to be beautiful, you are eliminating from consideration equipment that may be more functional in your application.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum