It's not the same lens. He's saying if you got the closest equivalent. The separate lens is a 1.4 proper Leica Aspherical lens. The Q2 lens is appropriated in design then altered to be manual focus (NOT focus by wire), autofocus, AND actual macro via shifting elements. Show me another camera which has that. There are literally zero.
Build quality anyone? Everyone hating on Leica due to the price, and refusing to accept its better in any way. Why is a Porsche more expensive than a Ford? Just accept it - why the hate?
You can’t compare the Lens on the Q2 Vs M Lens dude. Firstly Q2 f1.7 Vs M f1.4 makes a lot of difference in DOF. Q2 has a leaf shutter in the Lens, designed for the camera body, M doesn’t. So from design up - the price to make Q2 Lens is different to M. It is much cheaper bordering summicron price range at f1.7. From the optical formula , to aperture, to manufacturing, Q2 lens is NOT the same as M lens. And you forget the last most obvious point : it’s a ghost edition of Leica. There is nothing functionally different and it boils down to aesthetics.
@@itellastorychannel2533 you can use Leica photos anywhere and you don’t have to be a pro. Being a 28mm Lens you will have to crop often so having the extra resolution is a bonus. With regards to colour between Fuji Vs Leica - mate we shoot in RAW so what colours are you talking about? If you meant the jpg photos off camera then Fuji is being Fuji by having cooler blue green tones while Leica excels in having deep blacks and rich colours still. Anyone could easily slap a preset onto any brand to yield that Fuji look. Most Japanese Sony guys do that FYI. I am not saying Fuji sucks: I am highlighting that we can’t compare Q2 Lens with M Len. If your budget is small , or u like Fuji - go enjoy it.
Dude stop hyping Leica... You pay for the brand, not for extra quality... Leica are cult cameras, that's the main difference, and it's ok, but saying that it's better is subjective and only depends on the lens... Print 2 60×40cm images and compare them, give them to other people to look you'll get a reality check... The lenses yes, that's the only and true difference, but not all leica lenses have character, nor have a better quality than other brands... You can use this speech to convince yourself, or your partner, that investing in Leica actually improves ypur photography, but it does not.
Hey just want to help you out here - you don’t apply crop factor to focal length or aperture. It is not an f3 aperture. It is f2. The field of view changes from 23 to 35 due to sensor but that lens is still a 23mm in property. It is an f2 lens but the dof isn’t as shallow because it is a 23mm lens. Please help stop spreading misinformation about apsc sized sensors because this conversation was way off.
Thanks Dee, I appreciate the constructive criticism. So many viewers feel like the only way to make a point is to be an absolute ass. To your point: I was referring to DOF but in context it does sound like I’m referring to aperture. So I understand the criticism.
Yes, that’s the Tony effect. I don’t understand why people make these claims. The light transmission is the same, the bokeh, compared to a 23mm f2 full frame lens, is the same. The only difference is the angle of view. Compared to full frame, the Fuji is cropped, but everything else is the same, even the amount of out of focus blur/bokeh would be identical. That being said I follow their work and they are really good, in particular the 16stops podcast is amazing.
Crop factor does apply, it's just that it's in terms of full frame (35mm film) equivalence. i.e: yes the Fuji is a 23mm focal length f/2 lens, and its crop factor full frame equivalence is 35mm (field of view) and f3 (in terms of minimum depth of field).
But the lens on the Leica Q2 has a 1.7 aperture not exactly the summilux 28mm 1.4 😅 why is everyone one saying that the summilux 1.7 on the q2 cost the same as the summilux 1.4
Just got a brand new x100v two days ago for a Asus Rog Ally trade and a few hundred bucks on top so I got it for a steal especially with how crazy the resale value these currently going for
@@caffeinatedcameras I’m loving it so far 👍🏽 coming from my LUMIX G85 I still have a lot to learn from this one but overall I love the look of it and picture quality it delivers. The built in ND Filter is awesome to have as well
The big error made on UA-cam is by all those who attempt to compare the two. It is literally like comparing an APSC DSLR with a full frame DSLR. The two occupy different classes. The equivalent camera to the Q/ Q2 is the Sony RX1R MK2, and is the ONLY comparison. Rumours abound, again, that a Mark 3 is on its way soon!
I like film, i shoot film it's fun and very nice feeling and exercise, have no doubt that large format has very good quality, but where it matters it is as good as your scanner which most likely not better then high end image sensor and also what you saying is - I know best, bigger is better.
I don’t get the interest for the X100V when the XT line up has so much more features. If it is the size, there are smaller XT versions as well. The processing image is similar and depends on the version of the processor. Like literally someone tell me a good reason why getting a rangefinder is better. Let’s not even get into the Leica.
Agreed on the leica but I have full frame and apsc mirror less cameras. I also have an x100t and it's always in my bag, there's something liberating about not needing to think about how many different lenses I need, or drawing attention to yourself with a big expensive set up. I get more good shots of my family with the x100t because I always have it with me. Its hard to explain unless you use one
An APSC sensor isn’t less than 1/2 the size of full frame 😂😂 if it was it would have an over 2x crop factor, it doesn’t it has a 1.5x crop factor so it’s 3/4 the size of full frame.
@@caffeinatedcameras for a full frame sensor to be more than twice the size the claim would need to be more than 100% larger, anything less isnt twice the size. Panasonic and Olympus micro 4/3rds sensors are half the size of full frame and therefore have a 2x crop factor.
I didn’t say that. I said less than half the size and 40% is just that 🤷🏽♂️. And it is. Full frame sensor is about 860mm2 and an apsc is about 330mm2-370mm2
Hey Dan! Maybe not tricky, but it’s hard to be consistent with both. The camera channel is the thing I post to when I need to fill the creative “cup”. And I love camera stuff so I gotta be careful not to dedicate too much time to it.
should have just said you pay for luxury. I would say the Q2 is better but if the Leica had a Panasonic logo it would cost $2,500 ballpark. Maybe 3k since it is full frame and fast glass.
Well considering all the factors Leica doesn't worth 4x Fuji. You won't get 4x better results with Leica than Fuji. And there is also thing that when you know what you doing. You will get great results with both cameras
Well the lenses are very far from being the same,...... The 28mm M Lens is actually a 28mm field of view. The Q has more of a 24mm field of view. And, the 28mm M lens is almost distortion free optically, whereas the Q has horrible distortion optically ( corrected in camera and lightroom)
The Leica Q lens is not the same as the Summilux M version. The Q lens is a 24mm un corrected garbage that needs a lot of software correction to look good. The M version is a true, optically corrected 28mm lens.
Leica is overpriced as fuck. The cameras that cost 6k in their department aren’t even close as far as features go on the other brands. Sony Fuji canon and Nikon all have way better stuff in their 6-10k cameras
Seeing a lot of professional photographers use Uber expensive in different camera bodies. I just feel like the Leica camera body is strictly for bragging rights. Like Hey look at me I have a super expensive for no apparent reason lol Play feels good to own something only 10% of the people on the planet owns
@@caffeinatedcameras Never owned one but worked with a guy that used one. Can take that same money and get a Sony A7R V with Sony GM 50mm F/1.2 and get the same if not better results and have some cash left. But I smell you're about to say that because it cost more it's better. Very nice camera but me and millions of other photographers just don't think the price point is worth it. Just like you can have the latest Lamborghini and I'm driving last year's Honda. Both dose the job but one is a lot less. Unless this was the best camera with the best lens in the world. Then I get it. Want the best then pay for it. But is this the best lens and camera on the market quality-wise? That's why I think it's so beautiful we all have a preference, because no matter if we agree or disagree. We all love our craft. Cool video too👍🏿
@Hagaishi TV no I wasn’t going to say that. Like your previous comment there’s a whole lot of presumption being made on your part here. I bought it because it’s a beautiful camera and some of my favorite photographers used Leica, so like buying a pair of Jordan’s because you want to “be like Mike”. But I’ve KEPT it because it feels better than any camera I’ve ever owned, the experience is different than any camera I’ve owned and I love the photos that come out of it. Of course the Sony and the Leica do the same thing - they both take photos, but the experience of how they do it is actually pretty different and that means a lot to me.
I would say get the mew sensor smaller Olympiad mew mark 2 with interchangeable pro lens just about $4-600 for youtube and social media the average odds on van not tell the difference fir professional jobs large posters etc they van.
It’s a marginally better camera unless you print huge prints which 99% of the owners of those leicas do not do. Put the images side by side and it’s margins and pixel peeping.
It depends on what you want from the camera. Or rather what parameters are you comparing it too. For me I love the X100v cause it’s fast, the film sims, etc… but I love the Leica for the manual shooting experience. The same shooting experience on the x100v is not great.
@@caffeinatedcameras sure thing that’s something I can’t argue if you like the manual shooting of the Leica better that’s cool I’m just talking about image quality.
@Phillip Banes fuji makes incredible lenses. The lens on that x100v is incredible. Me personally I don’t see the Leica being $5000-6000 more expensive justifiable in any way. Just because the sensor is larger DOES NOT mean the image will magically be better. A larger sensor doesn’t mean better low light performance when the image is grainy beyond repair. Leica makes beautiful hand made cameras I will definitely give them that.
@@adnan_velic after using the two and doing comparisons for the last month, the image quality difference is size able. Perhaps not after it’s uploaded to social media. But raw to raw on my monitor, there’s no comparison. Probably the difference in lenses. I will say though, the Fuji handles the highlights better.
@@caffeinatedcameras i think that's something you should correct in your video - saying that if you bought the lens separately it would cost $8k. since you can't buy a version of the lens in f1.7, the closest comparison is f1.4. don't get me wrong, it's worth mentioning the price of a summilux lens in general to get your point across. but it's simply not accurate to say it's the same lens. but who knows, maybe when the q4 releases it might be :)
I' love analogies, so here's one for the watch world. The Leica is like the Rolex Daytona while the Fuji is the Grand Seiko. How about the car world. The Leica is like the Audi R8 and the Fuji is like the Nissan GT-R. Like many have said before, the best camera, is the one you have in your hand, plain and simple.
That’s tough one. I really wanted the reporter, I like the hardcore look of it, but it was all sold out. But the Ghost is beautiful. I will most likely buy the reporter edition in the SL2-S or the SL3-S when that comes out
Sensor size does not determine if a camera is full frame, both are full frame because they have paired lens & sensor, if you take a medium format lens and you put it on a 35 mm film camera, the 35 mm would be cropped
@@caffeinatedcameras no full frame is not defined by the sensor size. It’s defined by using a lens for a larger sensor on a smaller sensor. Take a medium format, lens and put it on a 24x36mm SLR, Will make the slr a cropped camera
@@K3zz21 have you ever used medium or large format cameras? A Hassleblad lens made for 120 film give a a 60x 60mm frame. If you put it on a camera with a camera with 24x36mm frame, the result is a crop a fact for the lens
From Canon “However, a full-frame image sensor is physically about 63% or 1.6x larger than an APS-C format image sensor…Because the APS-C sensors in Canon cameras are 1.6x smaller than the sensors in Canon full-frame cameras, the "crop factor" is 1.6x.”
@@abhiabhi5116 because shock value (even when wrong) brings views. Loads of wrong info in this 30 second vid. The lens is f/2. It gathers f/2 amount of light.when you calculate exposure, it’s/2 lens. Its depth of field is less than ff f/2, close today/3.2 But that is it.
Which full frame weather sealed camera with a fixed lens that can do actual range/zone focus (not focus by wire!) and autofocus and shifting elements macro do you recommend instead?
@@caffeinatedcameras My point... Is that pressing the shutter is now irrelevant. The Cartier Bresson style geometry can be created by AI.... composition gone.... When "pressing the shutter" at that decisive moment is no.longer required..... Neither is the photographer...or the camera.
@@thelifeofjools8384 I for one do not believe that all that matters is the end result. And so regardless of how good AI becomes, it can not replace WHY I take photos, even if it does a better job than I can do at making them. And so for at least me, the AI is the irrelevant one.
You can't compare something spewed out by an algorithm to something created by a human. There's no soul to it like a lot of modern music. The human is expressing emotion and if it's good work it conveys that. AI is always going to feel a little off.
Specs don’t really matter, but they definitely don’t look the same. Maybe on a phone yes, but on an actual screen before compression there’s a pretty significant difference
Guys just get the xt30ii and invest on lenses, its weight and form factor is identical and you are not stuck with a fixed lens camera and you also save more money
Leica Q cost 3k that Camera is pure crap soft, clarity of photo is terrible. Not giving their Q2 2nd version a chance for twice the cost. 😂 biggest rip off in Camera world.
Two beautiful cameras, problem is they are neither small like an RX 100 nor are they photographic tools with a grip like real cameras. It's all about the looks here
It's funny. If the lens on the Leica was genuinely worth 7k, it wouldn't be on the camera costing 5k. Just shows how they up the price for everything
Different thing entirely. You should just pick up a Leica lens in your hand once then you will never say that again.
It's not the same lens. He's saying if you got the closest equivalent. The separate lens is a 1.4 proper Leica Aspherical lens. The Q2 lens is appropriated in design then altered to be manual focus (NOT focus by wire), autofocus, AND actual macro via shifting elements.
Show me another camera which has that. There are literally zero.
1400 bucks for the Fuji??? - Where on earth can you get a single one?
Just sold mine
India 😅 but still sitting on the fence.
In Switzerland they are widley available for that price
@@zakiradi450 It is ₹1,49,999 in India. Which is close to $1813.
@@revanthshahukaru7883 yes. We get it for 1.45 but better to wait for next version then 😅
And none of it matters if you don't have an eye for the moment
Build quality anyone? Everyone hating on Leica due to the price, and refusing to accept its better in any way. Why is a Porsche more expensive than a Ford? Just accept it - why the hate?
Build quality is second to none for sure.
You can’t compare the Lens on the Q2 Vs M Lens dude. Firstly Q2 f1.7 Vs M f1.4 makes a lot of difference in DOF. Q2 has a leaf shutter in the Lens, designed for the camera body, M doesn’t. So from design up - the price to make Q2 Lens is different to M. It is much cheaper bordering summicron price range at f1.7. From the optical formula , to aperture, to manufacturing, Q2 lens is NOT the same as M lens. And you forget the last most obvious point : it’s a ghost edition of Leica. There is nothing functionally different and it boils down to aesthetics.
The Q2 has weather sealing vs the M cameras and lenses have none.
@@itellastorychannel2533 you can use Leica photos anywhere and you don’t have to be a pro. Being a 28mm Lens you will have to crop often so having the extra resolution is a bonus. With regards to colour between Fuji Vs Leica - mate we shoot in RAW so what colours are you talking about? If you meant the jpg photos off camera then Fuji is being Fuji by having cooler blue green tones while Leica excels in having deep blacks and rich colours still. Anyone could easily slap a preset onto any brand to yield that Fuji look. Most Japanese Sony guys do that FYI. I am not saying Fuji sucks: I am highlighting that we can’t compare Q2 Lens with M Len. If your budget is small , or u like Fuji - go enjoy it.
@@itellastorychannel2533 what Fujifilm camera do you suggest?
@@bngr_bngr m bodies are weather sealed. Lens mount is not.
@@D.Trider you meant the battery compartment is weather sealed.
Dude stop hyping Leica... You pay for the brand, not for extra quality... Leica are cult cameras, that's the main difference, and it's ok, but saying that it's better is subjective and only depends on the lens...
Print 2 60×40cm images and compare them, give them to other people to look you'll get a reality check...
The lenses yes, that's the only and true difference, but not all leica lenses have character, nor have a better quality than other brands...
You can use this speech to convince yourself, or your partner, that investing in Leica actually improves ypur photography, but it does not.
🤣
Hey just want to help you out here - you don’t apply crop factor to focal length or aperture.
It is not an f3 aperture. It is f2. The field of view changes from 23 to 35 due to sensor but that lens is still a 23mm in property.
It is an f2 lens but the dof isn’t as shallow because it is a 23mm lens. Please help stop spreading misinformation about apsc sized sensors because this conversation was way off.
Thanks Dee, I appreciate the constructive criticism. So many viewers feel like the only way to make a point is to be an absolute ass. To your point: I was referring to DOF but in context it does sound like I’m referring to aperture. So I understand the criticism.
Yes, that’s the Tony effect. I don’t understand why people make these claims. The light transmission is the same, the bokeh, compared to a 23mm f2 full frame lens, is the same. The only difference is the angle of view. Compared to full frame, the Fuji is cropped, but everything else is the same, even the amount of out of focus blur/bokeh would be identical.
That being said I follow their work and they are really good, in particular the 16stops podcast is amazing.
Crop factor does apply, it's just that it's in terms of full frame (35mm film) equivalence.
i.e: yes the Fuji is a 23mm focal length f/2 lens, and its crop factor full frame equivalence is 35mm (field of view) and f3 (in terms of minimum depth of field).
Bought the x100v which is the more practical and better EDC.
Such a great camera
Waaaaaaaayyyyyyyy over priced, great camera no doubt but you are paying the extra for that little 🔴.
But the lens on the Leica Q2 has a 1.7 aperture not exactly the summilux 28mm 1.4 😅 why is everyone one saying that the summilux 1.7 on the q2 cost the same as the summilux 1.4
👍🏼
And the amazing user experience that Q provides
so nice to use.
Everything you mention still doesn’t justify the amount. If you’re worried about those stats then buy an AR7mk4.
I’m not worried about the stats
Just got a brand new x100v two days ago for a Asus Rog Ally trade and a few hundred bucks on top so I got it for a steal especially with how crazy the resale value these currently going for
NICE! It’s such a great camera
@@caffeinatedcameras I’m loving it so far 👍🏽 coming from my LUMIX G85 I still have a lot to learn from this one but overall I love the look of it and picture quality it delivers. The built in ND Filter is awesome to have as well
Yeah, it’s an incredible little camera. Definitely a change if you’re coming from a Camera where you can switch the lenses and what not.
Stopped watching when you said the red dot is better. Sad.
You spelled “stopped” wrong…
The big error made on UA-cam is by all those who attempt to compare the two. It is literally like comparing an APSC DSLR with a full frame DSLR. The two occupy different classes. The equivalent camera to the Q/ Q2 is the Sony RX1R MK2, and is the ONLY comparison. Rumours abound, again, that a Mark 3 is on its way soon!
Cool.
avoid the sensor/megapixel wars and just shoot film. nothing will ever match the quality of large format photography
Film is awesome, but I’m not interested in shooting film at the moment
I like film, i shoot film it's fun and very nice feeling and exercise, have no doubt that large format has very good quality, but where it matters it is as good as your scanner which most likely not better then high end image sensor and also what you saying is - I know best, bigger is better.
I don’t get the interest for the X100V when the XT line up has so much more features. If it is the size, there are smaller XT versions as well. The processing image is similar and depends on the version of the processor. Like literally someone tell me a good reason why getting a rangefinder is better. Let’s not even get into the Leica.
Have you tried it?
Agreed on the leica but I have full frame and apsc mirror less cameras. I also have an x100t and it's always in my bag, there's something liberating about not needing to think about how many different lenses I need, or drawing attention to yourself with a big expensive set up. I get more good shots of my family with the x100t because I always have it with me. Its hard to explain unless you use one
An APSC sensor isn’t less than 1/2 the size of full frame 😂😂 if it was it would have an over 2x crop factor, it doesn’t it has a 1.5x crop factor so it’s 3/4 the size of full frame.
“…However, a full-frame image sensor is physically about 63% or 1.6x larger than an APS-C format image sensor.” - from Canon’s website
@@caffeinatedcameras thats why canons APSC sensors have a 1.6x crop factor so again not less than half the size like you said in your video
@@caffeinatedcameras for a full frame sensor to be more than twice the size the claim would need to be more than 100% larger, anything less isnt twice the size. Panasonic and Olympus micro 4/3rds sensors are half the size of full frame and therefore have a 2x crop factor.
I didn’t say that. I said less than half the size and 40% is just that 🤷🏽♂️. And it is. Full frame sensor is about 860mm2 and an apsc is about 330mm2-370mm2
I use the Fuji, where does the f3 come in? I’ve never used Leica like most people but I’d say the lens is tack sharp
The F3 is the equivalent depth of field if you were to compare it to full frame. It’s not a light gathering thing.
Didn’t know you also had camera channel. Must be tricky running both fitness and this one.
Hey Dan! Maybe not tricky, but it’s hard to be consistent with both. The camera channel is the thing I post to when I need to fill the creative “cup”. And I love camera stuff so I gotta be careful not to dedicate too much time to it.
XT5 ❤
Just buy what you can afford and what makes you happier. I dontknow whats the hate about. Its their money and choice and their problem.
should have just said you pay for luxury. I would say the Q2 is better but if the Leica had a Panasonic logo it would cost $2,500 ballpark. Maybe 3k since it is full frame and fast glass.
You're definitely paying for the name.
Leica is perfection exellent Leica
Well considering all the factors Leica doesn't worth 4x Fuji. You won't get 4x better results with Leica than Fuji. And there is also thing that when you know what you doing. You will get great results with both cameras
so true on those higher end tech, there is a diminishing return the more you spend.
Honestly saying the specs out loud is meaningless. Photos speak for themselves
Cool.
4K for status symbol is too much
It’s a lot for sure. But after having it and using it on the daily I wouldn’t sell it.
Dude you’re not helping my urge to buy a LEICA! 😂
Haha sorry not sorry
Agreed, well said
We should compare the results no the numbers 🤫
We should do what we want
We? My man, you don't have a channel. There is no we.
Well the lenses are very far from being the same,...... The 28mm M Lens is actually a 28mm field of view. The Q has more of a 24mm field of view.
And, the 28mm M lens is almost distortion free optically, whereas the Q has horrible distortion optically ( corrected in camera and lightroom)
The Leica Q lens is not the same as the Summilux M version. The Q lens is a 24mm un corrected garbage that needs a lot of software correction to look good. The M version is a true, optically corrected 28mm lens.
👍🏼
Too expensive for me. But I completely understand the feeling.
Leica is overpriced as fuck. The cameras that cost 6k in their department aren’t even close as far as features go on the other brands. Sony Fuji canon and Nikon all have way better stuff in their 6-10k cameras
Seeing a lot of professional photographers use Uber expensive in different camera bodies. I just feel like the Leica camera body is strictly for bragging rights.
Like Hey look at me I have a super expensive for no apparent reason lol
Play feels good to own something only 10% of the people on the planet owns
Have you used one?
@@caffeinatedcameras Never owned one but worked with a guy that used one. Can take that same money and get a Sony A7R V with Sony GM 50mm F/1.2 and get the same if not better results and have some cash left.
But I smell you're about to say that because it cost more it's better. Very nice camera but me and millions of other photographers just don't think the price point is worth it.
Just like you can have the latest Lamborghini and I'm driving last year's Honda. Both dose the job but one is a lot less.
Unless this was the best camera with the best lens in the world. Then I get it. Want the best then pay for it. But is this the best lens and camera on the market quality-wise?
That's why I think it's so beautiful we all have a preference, because no matter if we agree or disagree. We all love our craft.
Cool video too👍🏿
@Hagaishi TV no I wasn’t going to say that. Like your previous comment there’s a whole lot of presumption being made on your part here. I bought it because it’s a beautiful camera and some of my favorite photographers used Leica, so like buying a pair of Jordan’s because you want to “be like Mike”. But I’ve KEPT it because it feels better than any camera I’ve ever owned, the experience is different than any camera I’ve owned and I love the photos that come out of it. Of course the Sony and the Leica do the same thing - they both take photos, but the experience of how they do it is actually pretty different and that means a lot to me.
I would say get the mew sensor smaller Olympiad mew mark 2 with interchangeable pro lens
just about $4-600
for youtube and social media the average odds on van not tell the difference
fir professional jobs large posters etc they van.
X pro 4 the win ;)
Excited for that announcement
But when will it be born?
Ehmmmm.... the APS-C Sensor is 0.75x the size of Fullframe... maths... i do agree the Fuji is overpriced e-waste only popular because of influencers
It’s a marginally better camera unless you print huge prints which 99% of the owners of those leicas do not do. Put the images side by side and it’s margins and pixel peeping.
It depends on what you want from the camera. Or rather what parameters are you comparing it too. For me I love the X100v cause it’s fast, the film sims, etc… but I love the Leica for the manual shooting experience. The same shooting experience on the x100v is not great.
@@caffeinatedcameras sure thing that’s something I can’t argue if you like the manual shooting of the Leica better that’s cool I’m just talking about image quality.
@Phillip Banes fuji makes incredible lenses. The lens on that x100v is incredible. Me personally I don’t see the Leica being $5000-6000 more expensive justifiable in any way. Just because the sensor is larger DOES NOT mean the image will magically be better. A larger sensor doesn’t mean better low light performance when the image is grainy beyond repair. Leica makes beautiful hand made cameras I will definitely give them that.
@@adnan_velic after using the two and doing comparisons for the last month, the image quality difference is size able. Perhaps not after it’s uploaded to social media. But raw to raw on my monitor, there’s no comparison. Probably the difference in lenses. I will say though, the Fuji handles the highlights better.
the real answer is the RED DOT.
the standalone lens is f1.4. the one on the q2 is f1.7. it’s not the same lens.
Correct
@@caffeinatedcameras i think that's something you should correct in your video - saying that if you bought the lens separately it would cost $8k. since you can't buy a version of the lens in f1.7, the closest comparison is f1.4. don't get me wrong, it's worth mentioning the price of a summilux lens in general to get your point across. but it's simply not accurate to say it's the same lens.
but who knows, maybe when the q4 releases it might be :)
I'd love to how do I edit an already posted video?@@DarrinLin
The better camara is the one you have with you
You are wrong on the price of the Leica lens. You quoted the f/1.4 not the f/1.7. There is a big difference.
I did.
and most of the time… people will not know the differences in the images.
After IG destroys them with compression, NOPE! Haha
I can tell.
I' love analogies, so here's one for the watch world. The Leica is like the Rolex Daytona while the Fuji is the Grand Seiko. How about the car world. The Leica is like the Audi R8 and the Fuji is like the Nissan GT-R. Like many have said before, the best camera, is the one you have in your hand, plain and simple.
an f2 is still an f2 no mater what sensor is behind it.
Yup that's why it confuses me😅
@@Greatbylook It shouldn't because it's constant.
@@artsilva thanks
true but the dof looks shallower on a larger sensor camera.
@@Itsmyzelf and you know why don't you?
This speccomp does not explain a single thing. The summilux on a Medium Format is F5.6 too. Ridiculous.
Ridiculous
Do you prefer the reporter or ghost version ?
That’s tough one. I really wanted the reporter, I like the hardcore look of it, but it was all sold out. But the Ghost is beautiful. I will most likely buy the reporter edition in the SL2-S or the SL3-S when that comes out
@@caffeinatedcameras Q3 reporter ? 😄
@@gurugamer8632 solid.
Sensor size does not determine if a camera is full frame, both are full frame because they have paired lens & sensor, if you take a medium format lens and you put it on a 35 mm film camera, the 35 mm would be cropped
Are you talking about full format? Because full frame is defined by sensor size whereas full format is not.
@@caffeinatedcameras no full frame is not defined by the sensor size. It’s defined by using a lens for a larger sensor on a smaller sensor. Take a medium format, lens and put it on a 24x36mm SLR, Will make the slr a cropped camera
@@jeffjarboe3634 well you should take that up with the horde of publications saying full frame is defined by sensor size 🤷🏽♂️
@@jeffjarboe3634 Bro you are 100% wrong lmao
@@K3zz21 have you ever used medium or large format cameras? A Hassleblad lens made for 120 film give a a 60x 60mm frame. If you put it on a camera with a camera with 24x36mm frame, the result is a crop a fact for the lens
Where can I get x100v for $1400 everywhere I look its $2000 or more
Some smaller shops can still get them, I know it’s few and far in between but they will most likely sell them for retail like mine does
This doesn't explain anything without comparison. Megapixels don't really matter.
1/2 the Sensor??? 😅 please Facts it’s not a M43 sensor in the Fuji 😂
From Canon “However, a full-frame image sensor is physically about 63% or 1.6x larger than an APS-C format image sensor…Because the APS-C sensors in Canon cameras are 1.6x smaller than the sensors in Canon full-frame cameras, the "crop factor" is 1.6x.”
Why do you make the conversion also for the diaphragm aperture in the fuji?
I’m not sure what you mean?
You converted f-stop 2 to 3 or 3.2. The commenter above isn't sure if thats also to be done when calculating 35mm conversion
@@abhiabhi5116 Exactly. Thanks
@@abhiabhi5116 because shock value (even when wrong) brings views. Loads of wrong info in this 30 second vid. The lens is f/2. It gathers f/2 amount of light.when you calculate exposure, it’s/2 lens. Its depth of field is less than ff f/2, close today/3.2 But that is it.
Leica not worth the price no matter how you justify it. It’s a great camera that takes wonderful photos but the pricing is stupid.
It’s not for everyone. But when you wanna shoot full frame digital rangefinder it’s the only one.
Which full frame weather sealed camera with a fixed lens that can do actual range/zone focus (not focus by wire!) and autofocus and shifting elements macro do you recommend instead?
What was this video about
LMAO
Guess what ? AI just made both cameras moot.... The "decisive moment" just became relegated to a "quaint museum exhibit".
Cool. What’s your point?
@@caffeinatedcameras My point... Is that pressing the shutter is now irrelevant. The Cartier Bresson style geometry can be created by AI.... composition gone....
When "pressing the shutter" at that decisive moment is no.longer required..... Neither is the photographer...or the camera.
@@thelifeofjools8384 I for one do not believe that all that matters is the end result. And so regardless of how good AI becomes, it can not replace WHY I take photos, even if it does a better job than I can do at making them. And so for at least me, the AI is the irrelevant one.
You can't compare something spewed out by an algorithm to something created by a human. There's no soul to it like a lot of modern music. The human is expressing emotion and if it's good work it conveys that. AI is always going to feel a little off.
Wonder who actually need that sh#%^t expensive leica
I don’t think anyone needs it… certainly does the same thing as an iPhone at the end of the day.
Won’t notice the difference on social media people
Nope
Leica Q2: 47MP of clipped highlights!
User error not camera error. You can clip any cameras highlights
What’s the full frame conversion for the x100v?
1.5x crop. 23mm = 35mm ish.
Too bad fuji shooters are reselling the x100V higher than retail
Why is that not a good thing for them?
None of the specs matter for the actual results. Don’t buy the Leica. The photos look the same except for the focal length.
Specs don’t really matter, but they definitely don’t look the same. Maybe on a phone yes, but on an actual screen before compression there’s a pretty significant difference
Nikon Z8 cost less and much better.
At some things - yes.
Leica snobbery, which is why he didn't show examples. Because they will be very similar
Of course they’re gonna be similar 🤣
CMOS vs xtrans. Rookie mistake 😂
They’re going to announce the Q3 this year so good luck to the people who just bought the Q2
It’s also a 26mm but cropped to 28mm soooooooo
I love it and if it’s great now it will be great when the Q3 comes out
@@caffeinatedcamerasQ3 leaked! Time to save up!!
Ricoh GR 3 is the answer ❤
I know it’s an awesome camera but it really doesn’t appeal to me.
Guys just get the xt30ii and invest on lenses, its weight and form factor is identical and you are not stuck with a fixed lens camera and you also save more money
Some people like fixed lens cameras
Team Fuji all day
Can’t go wrong
You look like Märt Avandi.
Leica Q cost 3k that Camera is pure crap soft, clarity of photo is terrible. Not giving their Q2 2nd version a chance for twice the cost. 😂 biggest rip off in Camera world.
Q2 is Definitely not soft.
If you got soft photos with a Q, you're the problem. Softness is a lens quality- and that lens is razor sharp.
Lmaooo
Two beautiful cameras, problem is they are neither small like an RX 100 nor are they photographic tools with a grip like real cameras. It's all about the looks here
So they’re not real cameras because they don’t have grips?
the sensor is irrelevant, the lens is what matters.
and the photographer?