Leica Q vs X100v or stick with xt4

Nielk Mike wrote:

deednets wrote:

Nielk Mike wrote:

deednets wrote:

Nielk Mike wrote:

The x100v is more like a fashion statement.

Hope this helps.

That camera also takes photos! Have tried her myself and she does in fact take photos. Better ones imho than the previous model the X100F I had.

Deed

Of course she does. And that one is a good is a good one.

Hehe, noticed your signature:

Really?? You own a shop?

You are like my wife What's wrong about owning more than one camera? If you care to look at the profile, you'll see a good number of vintage Minolta and Carl Zeiss Jena / Meyer Görlitz lenses, as well as a Sony FF and Fuji APS-C set. I got into Fuji late and liek them a lot. While I do consider parting with either the Sony or the Fuji at some point, I am just not sure which one. Which upsets my wife

Deed

To be compared with your wife is ... a good thing??

I could share this with my partner, but have an inkling as to what she would say: "more than one is different from more than 50 ..."

And the the rolling of her eyes as she walks out for the day ... *sighs*

Nielk Mike wrote:

The x100v is more like a fashion statement.

Yes, some people have good taste and show it. If having a shutter speed dial, an ISO dial and an EV compensation dial on a camera and an aperture ring on the camera's lense is the latest fashion statement, I want to be part of it.

It is like stating having direct access to the brightness and contrast values on a monitor is stupid retro design. Intelligent users, unimpressed by the trend of today, but accustomed to the latest high-tech developments, want to press a mini button on the back, then shift it to the left and then down to find the brightness value in the third sub-menue.

I would wait until Fuji shows signs of the next X100 camera which could be soon. At that moment you can go for the shiny new model or an X100V that eventually will go back to a “real” used market price.

Nielk Mike wrote:

The x100v is more like a fashion statement.

I Greg still around? I thought he skedaddled over to the medium format forum.  He was fond of talking about Leica jewelry. I guess it doesn't matter the iconic photographers and iconic images taken by photographers using a Leica.  While the X100V is not a Leica is is built on the same lines.  It's not a Q2 but the X100V is a wonderful little camera that produces wonderful images.  Of course the Q2 is FF with twice as many MP and no XTrans to hamper it.  But even at that the X100V holds its own.

Neither can compete with my Q2M which a true 47 MP and no color array to limit resolution in sight and BTW no red dot in sight.  On the other hand before anyone comments - I don't personally care for color and don't do color.  The Q2M is expensive.  However, no other camera company caters to B&W photography - only Leica.  And the Q2M is a fashion statement - it is a work of industrial design art.  Nothing wrong with that - now is there?  

On the other hand to the OP - the ILC provides flexibility a fixed lens camera cannot.  While 95% of my shots are using the Q2M, I still have the Fuji Pro3 for those times I need a longer lens.  I also keep it around for the OVF when I'm using if off horseback.  The Q2 and X100V are wonderful cameras but there are limitations.  Sure photojournalism up until about 1960 was delivered by the Leica M.  Such iconic pictures in Life Magazine covering WWII and Vietnam were delivered by the Leica M with only a few exceptions delivered by Grayflex Press cameras.  Great W. Eugene Smith images in the war in the Pacific and Robert Capa's covering of D-Day when he went in with the Marines onto Omaha Beach.  Then there was the two iconic images that change a nation's view of the US involvement in Vietnam, Eddy Adams' "Saigon Execution" and Nick Ut's "Napalm Girl" taken by the Leica M.   That was because there was no SLR until 1955 and no reliable one that a reporter or war correspondent would trust before the mid 1970's.

Sure the Leica M is an ILC but the range of focal lengths is limited.

To the OP if you can afford a Q2 or X100V while keeping the XT ILC, that would be the way to go.

Nielk Mike wrote:

(...)But the OVF can hardly compete with a real OVF on a rangefinder(...).

Besides my old analog Pentax ME Super, the X100V is the only camera with an OVF I own. I like to use it, but have no "real" OVFs to compare it with.

What is wrong with the OVF of the X100V and why isn't it a "real" one? Serious question, not a polemic one:-)

Truman Prevatt wrote:

Nielk Mike wrote:

The x100v is more like a fashion statement.

I Greg still around? I thought he skedaddled over to the medium format forum. He was fond of talking about Leica jewelry. I guess it doesn't matter the iconic photographers and iconic images taken by photographers using a Leica. While the X100V is not a Leica is is built on the same lines. It's not a Q2 but the X100V is a wonderful little camera that produces wonderful images. Of course the Q2 is FF with twice as many MP and no XTrans to hamper it. But even at that the X100V holds its own.

Neither can compete with my Q2M which a true 47 MP and no color array to limit resolution in sight and BTW no red dot in sight. On the other hand before anyone comments - I don't personally care for color and don't do color. The Q2M is expensive. However, no other camera company caters to B&W photography - only Leica. And the Q2M is a fashion statement - it is a work of industrial design art. Nothing wrong with that - now is there?

On the other hand to the OP - the ILC provides flexibility a fixed lens camera cannot. While 95% of my shots are using the Q2M, I still have the Fuji Pro3 for those times I need a longer lens. I also keep it around for the OVF when I'm using if off horseback. The Q2 and X100V are wonderful cameras but there are limitations. Sure photojournalism up until about 1960 was delivered by the Leica M. Such iconic pictures in Life Magazine covering WWII and Vietnam were delivered by the Leica M with only a few exceptions delivered by Grayflex Press cameras. Great W. Eugene Smith images in the war in the Pacific and Robert Capa's covering of D-Day when he went in with the Marines onto Omaha Beach. Then there was the two iconic images that change a nation's view of the US involvement in Vietnam, Eddy Adams' "Saigon Execution" and Nick Ut's "Napalm Girl" taken by the Leica M. That was because there was no SLR until 1955 and no reliable one that a reporter or war correspondent would trust before the mid 1970's.

Sure the Leica M is an ILC but the range of focal lengths is limited.

To the OP if you can afford a Q2 or X100V while keeping the XT ILC, that would be the way to go.

Your post has actually triggered a thought in the back of my mind how does the xpro 3 compare to the others listed? I had xpro 1 years ago didn’t like the af mainly but the silver xpro 3 looks nice haha

Truman Prevatt wrote:

Nielk Mike wrote:

The x100v is more like a fashion statement.

I Greg still around? I thought he skedaddled over to the medium format forum. He was fond of talking about Leica jewelry.

The Greg is long gone.  Hasn’t participated in DPR for years now.  I don’t expect he’ll be returning, either.

I guess it doesn't matter the iconic photographers and iconic images taken by photographers using a Leica. While the X100V is not a Leica is is built on the same lines. It's not a Q2 but the X100V is a wonderful little camera that produces wonderful images. Of course the Q2 is FF with twice as many MP and no XTrans to hamper it. But even at that the X100V holds its own.

Neither can compete with my Q2M which a true 47 MP and no color array to limit resolution in sight and BTW no red dot in sight. On the other hand before anyone comments - I don't personally care for color and don't do color. The Q2M is expensive. However, no other camera company caters to B&W photography - only Leica. And the Q2M is a fashion statement - it is a work of industrial design art. Nothing wrong with that - now is there?

On the other hand to the OP - the ILC provides flexibility a fixed lens camera cannot. While 95% of my shots are using the Q2M, I still have the Fuji Pro3 for those times I need a longer lens. I also keep it around for the OVF when I'm using if off horseback. The Q2 and X100V are wonderful cameras but there are limitations. Sure photojournalism up until about 1960 was delivered by the Leica M. Such iconic pictures in Life Magazine covering WWII and Vietnam were delivered by the Leica M with only a few exceptions delivered by Grayflex Press cameras. Great W. Eugene Smith images in the war in the Pacific and Robert Capa's covering of D-Day when he went in with the Marines onto Omaha Beach. Then there was the two iconic images that change a nation's view of the US involvement in Vietnam, Eddy Adams' "Saigon Execution" and Nick Ut's "Napalm Girl" taken by the Leica M. That was because there was no SLR until 1955 and no reliable one that a reporter or war correspondent would trust before the mid 1970's.

Sure the Leica M is an ILC but the range of focal lengths is limited.

To the OP if you can afford a Q2 or X100V while keeping the XT ILC, that would be the way to go.

StuartGeddes wrote:

Hi all looking for some advice. I’m a current Xt4 owner and while I love the camera and design it’s heavy and I don’t always want to take it out with me and I like to have a camera with me with my kids

so this is the difficult part I previously had an x100 and it went everywhere with me. I have always lusted after a Leica Q.

im torn whether I should get a Q or an x100v or stick with what I have. Positives and negatives

Leica Q

- it’s a Leica and have always wanted one

- full frame

negative

- 7 year old

- expensive

X100v

- had an x100 series before liked it

- weather sealed

- cheaper than Leica

- newer

negatives

- overpriced at the moment

- apsc v full frame

stick with XT4

- own it and a couple of lenses already

- size can be good and I like the classic slr look

- interchangeable lenses

-better specs than Leica q

negatives

- it with my 35 1.4 is large and I don’t always want to use it

im really torn what to do really it seems obvious on paper to get an x100v or just stick with the xt4 and stop complaining and comparing I worry I will always want a Leica but the price puts me off and would need to buy used and it erks me spending so much on a used 7 year old camera. Anyone had experience in this or with these models and what did you do and is the performance and build of the q really that much better? Also I haven’t tried the x100v but the q felt a lot better than the original x100

i just don’t know what to do

Keep what you have and add a truly pocketable high IQ camera to your arsenal; i.e. a one of the Ricoh GR III's.

So thank you one for the advice i ended up deciding not to buy a Q. I ended up selling my 23mm 1.4 (sorry i wrote 35 in the original post i was thinking of the ff field of view) bought the 35mm 1.4 which is a lot more compact and as I had extra money bought myself a near new 16-55 if i do want a larger more versatile lens on occasion but the 35mm 1.4 will probably stayed glued to the camera most the time.

My wife has now asked for an xe4 so ill probably end of with one of them eventually. Thank you again for the replies i received I think i would have regretted moving to leica

StuartGeddes wrote:

So thank you one for the advice i ended up deciding not to buy a Q. I ended up selling my 23mm 1.4 (sorry i wrote 35 in the original post i was thinking of the ff field of view) bought the 35mm 1.4 which is a lot more compact and as I had extra money bought myself a near new 16-55 if i do want a larger more versatile lens on occasion but the 35mm 1.4 will probably stayed glued to the camera most the time.

My wife has now asked for an xe4 so ill probably end of with one of them eventually. Thank you again for the replies i received I think i would have regretted moving to leica

Your wallet breaths a sigh of relief.

The 35/1.4 kits nicely with the XE series bodies. Previously had one almost glued to my XE3 for a while.