Fuji: 35mm --> 26mp 50mm --> 12.6mp 70mm --> 6.5mp Leica: 28mm --> 47mp 35mm-->30mp 50mm-->15mp 75mm-->6.6mp So comparing these two, the difference is very small and will not be noticeable because you just start at a longer focal length with the Fuji. I think both cameras are amazing and in the end, it doesn't matter. Love your videos Sam, makes the time we are stuck at home easier ❤️🙌
You're absolutely right. And by the way: 24-70 on a 5D4 = 24mm -->30mp, still 2.8-Look 35mm-->30mp, still 2.8-Look 50mm-->30mp, still 2.8-Look 70mm-->30mp, still 2.8-Look ... and you still can crop... although i own both a Canon 5D4 and my wife uses a Fuji X100F, and i really, really like the Fuji, the Canon is just a far superior camera in almost every way. I consider the Leica far superior over the little Fuji, but that's the point: The Fuji is actually little, the Leica isn't. And if a camera doesn't fit my jackets pocket, it has to compete against my canon. And that's where i just don't see a point in the Leica. It's pretty, though!
This. I shoot my V like a super versatile film P&S. I keep the RAW for backup but I just absolute love the JPEGs that come out of my V. Also, the smaller files is nice when zapping files over to my phone on the fly - I'm not sure how well I would enjoy that with the Q2.
I got an X100F a couple of months ago and absolutely LOVE it! Perfect camera for EDC and capturing memories. That said, the Q2 is my dream camera and a lot of why I got the X100F is due to it being similar look and feel to the Q, but obviously on a much more modest budget. For now, happily sticking with Fuji until I can afford the Leica someday! 📷
I had the 100F and then the Q. 100F was more portable and lighter if I remember correctly. Careful if you get the Q, though. I swore I would never buy a Leica M, but I figured out how to make it happen within a year of getting the Q. Its drug like.
I have had several Leica’s SL, Q, TL2, T, and CL. I sold the SL for S1R , which serves my functions better, The Q went to the CL. What I found about the Q and this holds true for the Q2 is that I just cant get wide enough with it. The crop issues is really a non issue. I do have an x100v now too. The Q2 does not do as well in lower light as the original Q, and the Q2 is weather sealed whereas the Q was not. The Q2 does not get dust on the sensor as the original one does. Before settling on the CL, I took all the Q,SL and CL out for a day and shot the same thing with all three cameras, there was literally next to no differences between them in outdoor nature shots. For that matter the CL 35 mm 1.4 lens is probably one the finest pieces of glass out there with incredible resolution on the sensor. The CL with the pancake 18 and a grip is fantastic walk around camera. The TL2 is a nicer travel camera with build in memory and USB charging, but the autofocus is noticeably slower than the CL. The Fuji x100v 35mm f2 compared to the Leica 28 mm1.7 with regards depth of field that was discussed, I think this is a load stating that there is more overall separation. They are nearly identical at distance to subject at both 1 and 2 meters (3-6 feet). The DOF charts demonstrate this. Additionally I dont believe that for a moment and even it where true, how is that particularly important as a documentary camera, I also find it interesting that you didn’t discover the crop mode on the Fuji, which is easily implemented on a button or for me on the ring just like a zoom lens would work. The Q is fundamentally easier to operate with less confusion menu’s that’s for sure. I’m not trying to be contentious but the rationalization for the camera based on specs is just not particularly accurate. When I choose a camera, I am pretty pragmatic about it. Understanding that most of my images lay between 20 and 50 mostly is a key to understanding why these fixed lens cameras are so useful. Most recently when I had the opportunity to purchase the Q2 vs Fuji, knowing what I know about using the Q for quite a while, I am very comfortable in my choice. When people speak to value and price, the cost of the Q2 is not really reflective of the true cost of ownership, when you sell it the depreciation is not as big as with other cameras. Leica’s generally hold their value better ,except the SL took a beating when the SL2 arrived. With the leica you can appreciate the level of thoughtfulness that went into creating a fantastic user interface that is really unmatched, well except for Hasselblad. There is value with regards to the user experience with Leica’s that is often not discussed by youtuber critics who dwell on specs, price and autofocus. For me the Q , along with Ricoh, Fuji and Sony fixed lens cameras offer a uniqueness and purpose build function. The simplicity of the Leica is a huge draw while the convoluted Fuji setup menus are not, that being said once the Fuji is configured its a lot easier to use even one handed. I really dont believe that ability to crop in should be the decider overall as software can solve the megapixel issues should you want to push in tight. In the end I chose the Fuji because when I need versatility, I will travel I with my CL (or for that matter my GM5) for wider angle and greater reach; When I need a general purpose walkabout go into markets see the world with camera at the ready, the Fuji will be there. Enjoy the camera
Can you elaborate on what you mean by the Q being better in low light? Is that an AF thing or a noise thing? I sold my X100V because low light AF wasn’t what I wanted and looking to grab a Q or Q2 (leaning Q2).
@@llStixxll Hi Jim the Q2, from what I understand about the q2 (SL2/S1R) with the higher resolution sensor over the original Q, there is some increase in noise at higher gains (iso 1600, 3200, 6400). Personally I wouldn't worry about much because the extra resolution does give you flexibility. The autofocus on the Leica Q is good. Its been a couple of years since I had the Q in hand but I never really had any issues with autofocus. One day I may pick up a Q again, its really a great all round camera.
@@chloescanlon1107 somehow true! i have both the ricoh and the fuji. still love the gr iiii. it is so small, has ibis and the lense is incredible sharp. For 800,-.
I bought the original q when it first came out. There’s something about the Leica. I don’t chase pixels, just a good experience and great glass. I didn’t jump on the q2. I’m very satisfied. Since then I bought the M246 Monochrom, and an S007. 24mp, 37mp respectively. They feel so nice. Got a half case for both the q and the M.
I went from the x100v to the Leica Q2 as well. I got the x100v mainly because I liked the idea of a more tactile/manual user experience that it should provide. However, I realized quickly that even though the dials and controls are set up in a way that should promote this “analog” style of shooting, the dials are too tight and difficult to turn and their placement doesn’t work quite well. So I had to assign the control wheels to control the aperture/shutter speed and exposure comp, which essentially turned it into a dslr style camera. That aside, I did really love the images it produced and the beautiful film simulations. The Leica q2 to me is a completely different camera. The dials and controls are set up in such a perfect way that it really allows the photographer to stay in tune with the camera and engage with the manual controls like in a film camera. The giant sensor is incredibly useful if you want to crop. I’m really happy with the switch, the q2 is everything that I wanted the x100v to be and more. I think most people would be extremely happy with the x100v and when I look back at the photos I’ve taken with it, I definitely miss it.
The Q2 is the better camera than the X100V but than again it is expected as it is four times the price. This is not to say that the X100V is not a great camera. If your photography has reached a level where the extra benefits of the Q2 will make a difference than you should absolutely get the Q2. It is a Ferrari and Rolls Royce combined. For 98% of the photographers however that is not the case. Learn your craft well before upgrading. You will be in a better position to determine what features will actually make a difference in your photography! Nice pragmatic video btw! You have a new subscriber.
Great comparison! I think the leica is evidently amazing but you really cant beat the value of the X100 series. Even the X100F is so worth it for an everyday camera (price is nice and low, just a bit soft at 2.0). Great video as usual
The x100V also also has a digital teleconverter so you can shoot at 50 mm and 70 mm (full frame equivalent). Not sure why alot of x100V reviews don't mention that
"It's just a joy to use." This resonates. This is why I shoot as much as I can with my Leica M3. Having a camera that makes you want to take pictures is certainly not to be scoffed at.
5:50, the Fujifilm X100vV has a crop mode also. The digital tele converter can change the 23mm into a 50mm and 70mm. Essentially you have 3 lenses. What I've seen photographers do with reasonably priced cameras, is why I could never recommend a Leica.
The wild thing is the vast price difference between the two...apart from the specs...I don’t think these cameras can ever be given a fair review against each other...they’re vastly different apart from a similar concept design.
I use an older Fuji, the x100t and it’s actually some of the flaws that make me love it. It really kind of feels like a film camera with the baked in presets and softer kinda of images. Obviously... I would love to try a Leica haha any Leica
@@Nerdhaunt Lol, go watch Chris Hau's recent video on comparing the GFX100s 102mp files to the A7SIII's 12mp files, on phone screens, computer screens, and two different sizes of prints. You'll see that 47mp vs 26mp doesn't matter.
@@Leicam10 lol. Fuji has bad lenses and no character? Sorry but no, i respect your opinion but that statement is just plain wrong. Gear can make a difference but not as much as a good photographer.
Yesterday a friend told me that he bought a gem of a camera the Leica Q2. So I wanted to check some reviews. Just from my own point of view... obviously fullframe can be/is a benefit in photo quality. no doubt. but your comparisons..the leica photos are just better photos in light, framing, colors, the subject.... talking about the depth of field which is better with the fullframe... most of the leica shots had no or minimal bokhe... Personally I think I could get the same result with my xt4, which allows me to put on any small lens, even a pancake lens to make it a compact camera. I guess it's more a personal thing...going for the leica cam...the prestige to own one. And that edge, gives you a creative kick as well.... I switche from canon to fuji, and my photos just became way way way way better, just because I felt fuji would suit me better, but technically Canon could get the equal results. no offense of course, just my own point of view, comparing both cameras, with clearly better taken photos on the leica.
Been shooting Fuji for last 5 years and love it, I can get some great looking images but...something about the look of full-frame images, particularly from the Q that I love. The soft, pastel, more natural look that comes from the extra dynamic range and larger pixels that I don't get from the Fuji, which is more crunchy, with darker shadows and less overall IQ.
Thanks for the comparison it was really interesting to see how you assessed the cameras. Your use of the crop modes on the Leica was interesting to see. The X100V had the same functionality, Fuji calls it a digital zoom. In the latest firmware, you can now shoot with the digital zoom and keep the RAW file. I use it a lot, as you say, it's a lot of fun. I went through the same comparison and had the opposite problem you had with size. I have really small hands and the Leica was just too large for me. Just goes to show how personal camera selection is. Thanks for great content, I always enjoy seeing your videos. :)
You are right Helen the dig zoom/tele converter is now fantastic.If i use my 28 WAC you can also get 41mm and 58mm fields of view.The 58mm is about a 7mpix file though.No problem now as Adobe lightroom have an enhance option which basically makes the file size 3 or 4x bigger.It works a treat try it.Everything came at once.Regards.Great video Samuel ,another sub now.
Good comparison. A couple of points, though. The Leica Q2 has twice the resolving power as the 100V - 47mp vs. 24. It is also over three times more expensive than the Fuji. Most people have to factor that into their decision. Also the Leica’s 28mm focal length is 28mm because it has, as you point out, a full-frame sensor. Because the Fuji has an APS-C sensor, though, its 23mm lens is equivalent to a 35mm full-frame lens. For the same reason, it is not f2 either. However, I think a lot of people, myself included, would rather shoot a 35mm lens rather than a 28. Now, I have both the Leica Q and the Fuji 100V. Both have about 24mp. I thoroughly enjoy both. All things being equal, the Fuji makes more sense to me as a carry around all day camera because of the effective focal length, but there is just something about the way the Leica feels and makes you feel, quite apart from the image quality, that is compelling. As Thorsten von Overgaard says, the Q (and even more so, the Q2) is a gateway drug into the Leica system.
I have thought of the X100v but I keep hoping that Fuji will release a G100 with leaf shutter and built in ND then you would have the film sims, big sensor, and plenty of cropping options. Would not mind having the OVF/EVF - one of the things I miss from the X-Pro2 I had. Currently, my fun camera is on the opposite scale of megapixels - the Sony A7Siii. That camera with it's 9.44 million dots hi-mag EVF, very pleasing images, small files to post processing, and really don't have to care too much about the ISO makes it a complete joy to use.
About the cropping feature in camera youre talking about on the q2, you know that feature is also on the Fuji right? Although it probably gets a lot better in the leica with the full framme 47 megapixles vs crop sensor 26. But just wanted to add that you can do that in both cameras!
Interesting. I have gone the other way, picking up a used X100V and likely to sell my QP, rather than buying a Q2. The crop modes are definitely a plus on the Q2. You get 3 lenses in one effectively. But the smaller size of the X100V is more important to me, plus additional video features including mic in. There’s no doubt that the 28 lux is a stunner though, especially when compared to that sensor. Nice vid, thanks.
I have a Leica Q1 and a Fuji X100F, so the precious generation. When I bought the Q, in 2018, I felt that I was making an unnecessary and capricious expense. It took me a little while to get used to the 28 mm, but since the Fuji has stayed in the shelf. I don’t sell my old cameras, but have no use whatsoever for it. I am a professional documentary photographer and use the Leica for scouting (most of my work is done with a Fuji GFX and a large format film camera), but often times the Leica images find their way into the final master file.
I went to a Leica store recently with the intent of buying a Q2. But compared to the build quality of a Leica M, I was underwhelmed. I liked the more solid feel of the Leica CL, but RIP TL system. 😢 I ended up trying a Ricoh GR3, and I love it. The GR3 brought back some joy and excitement back to shooting everyday.
I can totally agree with your choices. I don't own either, but can totally understand that the MOST important first choice for you (and for me) is the Full-Frame, and that Depth of Field that you get (and won't get with the smaller sensors). 2ndly, both are great camera manufacturers, for sure, but if you are truly serious about photography (I'm 58 and wanted to be a photographer since my early teens back in the 70's, I had my own film cameras and my own darkroom) so how a camera makes you feel is incredibly important, the heritage and of course that great glass - the Leica wins on that score. I totally get it that should I buy a Q2, I would definitely take it with me absolutely everywhere, all the time, it's history kind of dictates to me that I would (all the great master street photographers). The Fuji, I don't think I would take it out so much (though it is an incredibly good camera - I just don't like anything less than full-frame). Now, all I need is $5000........
The X100V and the X-Pro2 are the only two Fuji cameras left from the lot I had before switching from Fuji X/GFX to Nikon Z. Esp. the X-Pro2 I regularly use for personal work together with a Q2 Monochrome I bought a couple of months ago. The X100V is certainly good value for money, but in terms of IQ it can’t hold up against the Q2. That combination of Summilux lens and sensor is spectacular. The lens alone would already be around 4K if you buy it separately for a Leica M. In that sense the Q2 might even be the best value for money Leica has to offer.
DOF with 28 1.7 full frame vs 23 2.0 aps-c at 1m is 12.3 vs 14.2 at 1m. For me the details is why I want Leica Q2 more than the Fuji. I'm trying to get a Q2 but probably will end up getting another X100V (my old got stolen).
Think you should've compared the Fujifilm X-Pro3 if your hands are big :) And now... maybe the GFX100S if you want 'the best image quality to capture your life'? :) Thanks for the review!
Love the video. I think you're right, at the end of the day, it's about the creativity and the images we make. And this video also reminds us that the process needs to be enjoyable or we won't go out and make images. The gear you choose can make it more enjoyable, and that is mostly subjective. Love your videos - keep em coming!
I have both but mostly I work with the M system, so the depth of field graduation on Leica glass is the most important, also the Leica glass has at any opening more depth of field than any Fuji glass especially the X100 series. So yep, Leica it is.
Your voice is so soothing! Thanks for the info, I'm picking up a Q2 today going from the x100v and I'm really excited. They both are fantastic cameras.
There are two things that slightly bother me. One: There are also two crop modes on the X100V so thats not an argument to pick the Leica (unless you see an other advantage). Second, comparing a Leica with additional grip and the X100V without grip is just crazy. Besides that, it's a very nice review. It must be said that if anyone doubts between the fuji and Leica consider this: if you dont want to do a lot of afterwork for each photo (photoshop/lightroomcaptureone) and rather shoot Jpeg, then x100v is the way to go because the quality of the jpeg is better than the Leica (look up the reviews and comments). I only do some afterwork on the smartphone. That's why I decided the Leica is a no go for me.
I’ve had loads of different Fuji cameras and loved each of them. I now using a Leica Q and SL. Working hard to someday have a Leica M10-D. Ultimately it just came down to design, ergonomics, that summilux lens and the exposure triangle. I had to work hard and sell/trade to get the Leica’s which makes it more rewarding also. I had someone at work who couldn’t understand why I paid so much for a camera only to discover he paid twice a much for a bicycle. Ultimately there’s a camera out there for everyone’s preference and budget.
I can relate. I have shot Canon cameras and L glass for years. Sold it all for a Q-P and SL2 and one 75mm SL APO. My hard work paid off as I’m into a system I absolutely love. It befuddles me that people are incensed about the expense of Leica equipment but drive 50k, 60k dollar cars. Own houses and go on expensive trips etc. People have the freedom to spend as they chose without any scrutiny from the uninitiated.
@@rumporridge1 Leica is certainly an aspirational brand for many. It made getting a Leica more rewarding because I actually had to work, save and wait for one.
You can have 5 Fuji's for the price of 1 leica Q2. You can literally have one in the car, one in the house, one at work, one in your backpack and one at your holiday house.
You have crop modes on the Fuji also, and the mega pixels is 26. The 26 over the older 24 is a startling difference in cropping. The sensor seems to have a much cleaner image. I wondered if you ever used the crops on the Fuji?
I totally understand why you favor these smaller cameras. I've been a Sony A7R III user for quite som time, and while I love that camera.. there is something about these smaller rangefinder cameras that really attracts me. So as of last week I swopped it out with the new A7C and I could not be more stoked about it. Yes I know it sounds crazy and it's a "worse camera" with less features, but IDC. Their new 24,40 and 50mm primes will make this a fantastic combination. Hopefully one day they would launch an A7CR with more mpx like the Q2.
The color grading and edit is superb! You would make any photo taken with an iPhone look good. Edit tutorials please. You are so talented! Your photos are so pleasing to look at,. It puts my mind at peace.
I also don’t much like too wide fixed lens so I choose Fuji with its 35mm (it’s written 23mm but we know the crop factor right?). Though if it had to be my only camera I would probably also choose Leica. Good luck!
If you get the Gariz half leather case for the Fuji, you get much better ergonomics. I’m using this combination and I have really large hands. Also very usable in combination with a tripod. For me this is a perfect camera and not far away from the Leica, which is not to forget, four times more expensive.
This was actually super convincing. I appreciate your candor and also the lack of pretentiousness that usually emanates from photogs talking about gear. I am a former full-time PJ who now shoots for fun and the occasional job, and I'm finding it way too cumbersome carrying around Z6ii's and pro lenses. I don't really need that kind of equipment anymore... something simple but high-end would feel a lot better to me. I just want to document my life and any projects I may stumble across.
A $5,000 as an EDC camera??? Kind of hard to compare these two when the price difference is so wide. Also, it's rather comical to say that picking up a Q2 at a used price is "reasonable". "I picked up my Q2 for $4,500." Buddy, that is more than what most people can afford for more of a professional camera setup!
Good review. Aside from the economics it really does come down to what makes you happy. There is a grip for the Fuji that makes it very comfortable to hold and also looks good on the camera.
I had the X100F for a while; I think the OVF was executed pretty poorly. I always ended up using the EVF. It was small, but not substantially smaller than my XT3 with a compact lens. So, I decided to get rid of it. It just didn't really tick a box that my XT3 didn't already tick. I picked up a Ricoh GR recently, and I'm really enjoying the camera. I can actually fit it into my pocket easily, so that changes the game for me in a way the X100 (or Q) series just can't.
Good video. I can honestly say the Q2 is worth it to me because of the build, file quality, glass, and overall experience. I don't care about the "boutique" brand. However, dimes to donuts, it's not $4000 better than the X100V. Only if the upgrades are worth it to you is it a worthwhile purchase.
I had both of these, and the leica q2 Monochrom, they are beautiful cameras, but have poor battery and not as practical as you think, i now have the sony a7r iv a, 61mp,700 shots per battery charge, superb sharpness and detail, 2 card slots, usb charging, nearly half the price. Its like having a 21 piece swiss army knife versus a posh nail clipper!, yes i do miss the leica but it'll only stay on the shelf to look at
Obviously, its all personal choice but DOP isn't that different especially when the Q is 28mm you have to shoot close to get any meaningful depth of field. Print wise unless you are looking at said print 1cm away you won't notice that resolution increase, and even then you'd have to print very large to even decipher the diff
Love my Q2, 28mm lens with build in crop feature is very flexible for all occasions, the micro feature is very handy, the color, the sharpness and decent autofocus makes this a perfect general purpose camera. I have tiny hands so I added a grip to better hold. The only think I wish for is an USB port so I don’t have to remove the SD card to download pictures. The mobile app is too slow for 47mp size file.
Concerning the Crop feature (in both cameras it seems). It doesn't give you the same effect/perspective as a different MM / telephoto lens. You will still have the distorted view of the 28mm(or whatever it is) lens. And can’t you just crop your images in Lightroom/Capture1 anyhow? It doesn’t make sense. Correct me if I am wrong. Thanks for your views on the cameras Samuel. & good luck with the Leica, it looks like a beauty of a camera.
A field report should convey comprehensible information. That for your tall hands a bigger camera might be more usable goes without saying but the majority does not have so tall hands. Other features which make the Q2 more manegeable are not presented. A full frame camera is said to have more dynamic range but you did not provide reasonable side by side presentations to proove that for this pair of cameras mainly setting the focus to the Q2 images. By the way the bit depth for RAW of the Fuji is bigger than that of the Q2 and the bit depth is an upper bound for dynamic range! The physically 50 MP of the Q2 reduces very much the pixel size - 4,3 µm to that of the Fuji with 3,8 µm thus reducing the light gahering advantage of FF to APSC enormously. As the human/brain cannot discern differences less than two arc minutes 6 MP are already luxury. Yes, there are some main reasons for higher resolution: object photography (including military and scientific), wanted near distance view and cropping. But you did not present object photography images. Cropping is done mainly for three reasons: to correct distortion, to improve framing mainly to cut off unwanted elements and to increase of scaling factor mainly for wildlife images to overcome to short focal lengths. But as both lenses are wide angle lenses they are not useful for wild life photography and you did not present any wild life nor architsctural images - so only the change of framing remains, and I would prefere to train my compostional abilities to pay almost four times more.
I would honestly be happy with either of those cameras but already have a Sony A7 3 with a 24mm prime and recently decided for 'best' to buy a Q2. I love them both but there is just something 'special' about the Q2
I have a Q2 Monochrom and I love it... I went with the Monochrom mostly for the low-light performance and the way the noise looks when there is noise. I have a Canon R5 for color although I find myself wishing I had a color Q2 to go along with my B&W one. Maybe I'll pick up an M11 ;).
Great stuff. However, I feel this video would make more sense if the much, much cheaper stuff could stand up to the giant. Otherwise, it's stating the obvious, so not much point. And the mumbling...
Big co-sign on renting (or borrowing) before buying a pricey camera, I avoided some bodies this way that just didn't gel with my eye. Great comparison video, lovely color grading Samuel.
Hello, nice video. I also have the Q2, Reporter version since 2 months. Do you shoot SOOC? I find the Jpegs very good,. I push the contrast & saturation to +2 on the Vivid film style. They look great
I think it is hard to compare both cameras… Not really apples to apples… I think both are awesome, but Q2 is at GFX prices… And the X100V is more of a let’s do much better than iPhone X level pocket camera. Both are great IMO but if price is no objection, than Leica hands down, but I just ordered a X100V... :-D
Very interesting. High megapixel comes at a price; not the $$ only but the noise. For me, I would pick the Fuji as the price does not justify the Leica which has way less features than the Fuji. Is the Q2 weather sealed?
I’ve been debating between the Fuji x100v or the Leica D-Lux7, would anyone of you guys know which would be the better option for a daily carry camera ?
It’s a bit unnerving how close the low light performance is between the two. I moved to the q2 from the x100v, and that was the most disappointing surprise. Like he said, rent first.
Trust me, go for the Leica. Ive had the Fuji and it is great. But Leica’s have that “something else” factor. Every Fuji user as much as they are happy and loyal to the brand have that inner voice that yearns for the Leica.
Just got a Leica Q and find the experience way less satisfying compared to my xpro2. Maybe Im just not used to it yet but Im finding that Im way faster with the Fuji with sharper results.
The full frame and getting published once again in LFI are the only reasons the Q2... no, the Q3 is worth buying, IMO. Truthfully, it's overpriced, and if one is a lousy photographer, it doesn't matter what camera, sensor, or megapixel they are shooting. These are street cameras, and I don't believe in cropping an image when shooting street. With that said, I appreciate your input.
For most people, a camera of this type is not a primary money maker, or a money maker at all... and with that said, you simple can't ignore the massive price difference between the two. If the Q2 was closer to $2K, it would be a fairer comparison.
Yes... if I have $5k I would buy the Q2... even if say the X100v had better ergonomics. Like my girlfriend buying a Chanel purse that could only fit a cellphone over a Coach purse that would fit all her stuff. The 🔴 is life! 😆
i notice you use your left eye, like me. Don't you hate getting nose smudges on your LCD screen? I try to force myself to use my right eye to prevent that.
I need to say it : you are the only channel that reminds me of how much I love photography. Thank you for being there 🤞
Fuji: 35mm --> 26mp
50mm --> 12.6mp
70mm --> 6.5mp
Leica: 28mm --> 47mp
35mm-->30mp
50mm-->15mp
75mm-->6.6mp
So comparing these two, the difference is very small and will not be noticeable because you just start at a longer focal length with the Fuji. I think both cameras are amazing and in the end, it doesn't matter. Love your videos Sam, makes the time we are stuck at home easier ❤️🙌
You're absolutely right. And by the way:
24-70 on a 5D4 =
24mm -->30mp, still 2.8-Look
35mm-->30mp, still 2.8-Look
50mm-->30mp, still 2.8-Look
70mm-->30mp, still 2.8-Look
... and you still can crop...
although i own both a Canon 5D4 and my wife uses a Fuji X100F, and i really, really like the Fuji, the Canon is just a far superior camera in almost every way. I consider the Leica far superior over the little Fuji, but that's the point: The Fuji is actually little, the Leica isn't. And if a camera doesn't fit my jackets pocket, it has to compete against my canon. And that's where i just don't see a point in the Leica. It's pretty, though!
@@dominicvideograph6426 Unfortunately, none of my jacket pockets are big enough for the Fuji. Hence, I have a Q that competes with my D3. 🙂
Spot on. Both amazing cameras.
Depth of field is vastly different tho
This is a very good point, thanks for sharing
I actually sold my q2 and got a x100v. I like the smaller size. Also with the extra funds I went for the gfx100s. All good choices!
Better choice :-) or x-e4 if you need to switch lenses sometimes with compact body.
How are you enjoying the gfx100s?
@@Pacian it’s inspiring to shoot with, I love it. Especially w fast glass like the 80mm, it’s got a very different look than my full frame cameras.
That is a joke
@@Nuvempreta2007 intelligent response.
Can we just sit back and appreciate the art direction and color grading of your videos? Ok, thanks
I bought both, sold the Leica. Love the film simulations in Fuji SOOC
This.
I shoot my V like a super versatile film P&S. I keep the RAW for backup but I just absolute love the JPEGs that come out of my V.
Also, the smaller files is nice when zapping files over to my phone on the fly - I'm not sure how well I would enjoy that with the Q2.
In my opinion, Leicas color science is still superior.
I got an X100F a couple of months ago and absolutely LOVE it! Perfect camera for EDC and capturing memories. That said, the Q2 is my dream camera and a lot of why I got the X100F is due to it being similar look and feel to the Q, but obviously on a much more modest budget. For now, happily sticking with Fuji until I can afford the Leica someday! 📷
I had the 100F and then the Q. 100F was more portable and lighter if I remember correctly. Careful if you get the Q, though. I swore I would never buy a Leica M, but I figured out how to make it happen within a year of getting the Q. Its drug like.
I have had several Leica’s SL, Q, TL2, T, and CL. I sold the SL for S1R , which serves my functions better, The Q went to the CL. What I found about the Q and this holds true for the Q2 is that I just cant get wide enough with it. The crop issues is really a non issue. I do have an x100v now too. The Q2 does not do as well in lower light as the original Q, and the Q2 is weather sealed whereas the Q was not. The Q2 does not get dust on the sensor as the original one does.
Before settling on the CL, I took all the Q,SL and CL out for a day and shot the same thing with all three cameras, there was literally next to no differences between them in outdoor nature shots. For that matter the CL 35 mm 1.4 lens is probably one the finest pieces of glass out there with incredible resolution on the sensor. The CL with the pancake 18 and a grip is fantastic walk around camera. The TL2 is a nicer travel camera with build in memory and USB charging, but the autofocus is noticeably slower than the CL.
The Fuji x100v 35mm f2 compared to the Leica 28 mm1.7 with regards depth of field that was discussed, I think this is a load stating that there is more overall separation. They are nearly identical at distance to subject at both 1 and 2 meters (3-6 feet). The DOF charts demonstrate this. Additionally I dont believe that for a moment and even it where true, how is that particularly important as a documentary camera, I also find it interesting that you didn’t discover the crop mode on the Fuji, which is easily implemented on a button or for me on the ring just like a zoom lens would work. The Q is fundamentally easier to operate with less confusion menu’s that’s for sure. I’m not trying to be contentious but the rationalization for the camera based on specs is just not particularly accurate.
When I choose a camera, I am pretty pragmatic about it. Understanding that most of my images lay between 20 and 50 mostly is a key to understanding why these fixed lens cameras are so useful. Most recently when I had the opportunity to purchase the Q2 vs Fuji, knowing what I know about using the Q for quite a while, I am very comfortable in my choice. When people speak to value and price, the cost of the Q2 is not really reflective of the true cost of ownership, when you sell it the depreciation is not as big as with other cameras. Leica’s generally hold their value better ,except the SL took a beating when the SL2 arrived. With the leica you can appreciate the level of thoughtfulness that went into creating a fantastic user interface that is really unmatched, well except for Hasselblad. There is value with regards to the user experience with Leica’s that is often not discussed by youtuber critics who dwell on specs, price and autofocus.
For me the Q , along with Ricoh, Fuji and Sony fixed lens cameras offer a uniqueness and purpose build function. The simplicity of the Leica is a huge draw while the convoluted Fuji setup menus are not, that being said once the Fuji is configured its a lot easier to use even one handed. I really dont believe that ability to crop in should be the decider overall as software can solve the megapixel issues should you want to push in tight. In the end I chose the Fuji because when I need versatility, I will travel I with my CL (or for that matter my GM5) for wider angle and greater reach; When I need a general purpose walkabout go into markets see the world with camera at the ready, the Fuji will be there.
Enjoy the camera
Can you elaborate on what you mean by the Q being better in low light? Is that an AF thing or a noise thing? I sold my X100V because low light AF wasn’t what I wanted and looking to grab a Q or Q2 (leaning Q2).
@@llStixxll Hi Jim the Q2, from what I understand about the q2 (SL2/S1R) with the higher resolution sensor over the original Q, there is some increase in noise at higher gains (iso 1600, 3200, 6400). Personally I wouldn't worry about much because the extra resolution does give you flexibility. The autofocus on the Leica Q is good. Its been a couple of years since I had the Q in hand but I never really had any issues with autofocus. One day I may pick up a Q again, its really a great all round camera.
@@paullefko I appreciate the reply, Paul. Very helpful for consideration - thank you!
You’ve added a case with an added grip on the Q2, but didn’t do the same for the X100V and say the latter is too small in the hand?
no surprise you chose the 5000 camera over the 1400 lol
Here in Canada the x100v is 1800 and the Q2 is 7500... damn
Should have just saved yourself £4,000 and got the best of them all.... the Ricoh GRiii
@@chloescanlon1107 somehow true! i have both the ricoh and the fuji. still love the gr iiii. it is so small, has ibis and the lense is incredible sharp. For 800,-.
I bought the original q when it first came out. There’s something about the Leica. I don’t chase pixels, just a good experience and great glass. I didn’t jump on the q2. I’m very satisfied. Since then I bought the M246 Monochrom, and an S007. 24mp, 37mp respectively. They feel so nice. Got a half case for both the q and the M.
I went from the x100v to the Leica Q2 as well. I got the x100v mainly because I liked the idea of a more tactile/manual user experience that it should provide. However, I realized quickly that even though the dials and controls are set up in a way that should promote this “analog” style of shooting, the dials are too tight and difficult to turn and their placement doesn’t work quite well. So I had to assign the control wheels to control the aperture/shutter speed and exposure comp, which essentially turned it into a dslr style camera. That aside, I did really love the images it produced and the beautiful film simulations. The Leica q2 to me is a completely different camera. The dials and controls are set up in such a perfect way that it really allows the photographer to stay in tune with the camera and engage with the manual controls like in a film camera. The giant sensor is incredibly useful if you want to crop. I’m really happy with the switch, the q2 is everything that I wanted the x100v to be and more. I think most people would be extremely happy with the x100v and when I look back at the photos I’ve taken with it, I definitely miss it.
Q2 is a BEAST!
Great now I have to try a Q2 😂
The Q2 is the better camera than the X100V but than again it is expected as it is four times the price. This is not to say that the X100V is not a great camera. If your photography has reached a level where the extra benefits of the Q2 will make a difference than you should absolutely get the Q2. It is a Ferrari and Rolls Royce combined. For 98% of the photographers however that is not the case. Learn your craft well before upgrading. You will be in a better position to determine what features will actually make a difference in your photography!
Nice pragmatic video btw! You have a new subscriber.
Great comparison! I think the leica is evidently amazing but you really cant beat the value of the X100 series. Even the X100F is so worth it for an everyday camera (price is nice and low, just a bit soft at 2.0). Great video as usual
The x100V also also has a digital teleconverter so you can shoot at 50 mm and 70 mm (full frame equivalent). Not sure why alot of x100V reviews don't mention that
they are only thinking about the megapixels :D
That's a add on, not out of the box.
"It's just a joy to use." This resonates. This is why I shoot as much as I can with my Leica M3. Having a camera that makes you want to take pictures is certainly not to be scoffed at.
5:50, the Fujifilm X100vV has a crop mode also. The digital tele converter can change the 23mm into a 50mm and 70mm. Essentially you have 3 lenses. What I've seen photographers do with reasonably priced cameras, is why I could never recommend a Leica.
The wild thing is the vast price difference between the two...apart from the specs...I don’t think these cameras can ever be given a fair review against each other...they’re vastly different apart from a similar concept design.
yes Leica Q2 more than double for the price.
I use an older Fuji, the x100t and it’s actually some of the flaws that make me love it. It really kind of feels like a film camera with the baked in presets and softer kinda of images. Obviously... I would love to try a Leica haha any Leica
Samuel, the Fuji has crop modes too, for a 50mm and 70mm full frame equivalent! And you can shoot RAW at the same time!
Yeah!
But 47MP full frame crop modes still make huge difference
@@Nerdhaunt Lol, go watch Chris Hau's recent video on comparing the GFX100s 102mp files to the A7SIII's 12mp files, on phone screens, computer screens, and two different sizes of prints. You'll see that 47mp vs 26mp doesn't matter.
I thought you could only use crop mode with JPEG.?
@@Leicam10 lol. Fuji has bad lenses and no character? Sorry but no, i respect your opinion but that statement is just plain wrong.
Gear can make a difference but not as much as a good photographer.
@@Leicam10 lol. Spoken like a true Leica fanboy
$8,290 AUS for the Q2 hmmm or $1300 for the Fuji
Yesterday a friend told me that he bought a gem of a camera the Leica Q2. So I wanted to check some reviews. Just from my own point of view... obviously fullframe can be/is a benefit in photo quality. no doubt. but your comparisons..the leica photos are just better photos in light, framing, colors, the subject.... talking about the depth of field which is better with the fullframe... most of the leica shots had no or minimal bokhe... Personally I think I could get the same result with my xt4, which allows me to put on any small lens, even a pancake lens to make it a compact camera. I guess it's more a personal thing...going for the leica cam...the prestige to own one. And that edge, gives you a creative kick as well.... I switche from canon to fuji, and my photos just became way way way way better, just because I felt fuji would suit me better, but technically Canon could get the equal results. no offense of course, just my own point of view, comparing both cameras, with clearly better taken photos on the leica.
Been shooting Fuji for last 5 years and love it, I can get some great looking images but...something about the look of full-frame images, particularly from the Q that I love. The soft, pastel, more natural look that comes from the extra dynamic range and larger pixels that I don't get from the Fuji, which is more crunchy, with darker shadows and less overall IQ.
Thanks for the comparison it was really interesting to see how you assessed the cameras. Your use of the crop modes on the Leica was interesting to see. The X100V had the same functionality, Fuji calls it a digital zoom. In the latest firmware, you can now shoot with the digital zoom and keep the RAW file. I use it a lot, as you say, it's a lot of fun. I went through the same comparison and had the opposite problem you had with size. I have really small hands and the Leica was just too large for me. Just goes to show how personal camera selection is. Thanks for great content, I always enjoy seeing your videos. :)
You are right Helen the dig zoom/tele converter is now fantastic.If i use my 28 WAC you can also get 41mm and 58mm fields of view.The 58mm is about a 7mpix file though.No problem now as Adobe lightroom have an enhance option which basically makes the file size 3 or 4x bigger.It works a treat try it.Everything came at once.Regards.Great video Samuel ,another sub now.
@@KeithHodgkinson - I had been wondering about buying the teleconverters, you have convinced me!
Good comparison. A couple of points, though. The Leica Q2 has twice the resolving power as the 100V - 47mp vs. 24. It is also over three times more expensive than the Fuji. Most people have to factor that into their decision. Also the Leica’s 28mm focal length is 28mm because it has, as you point out, a full-frame sensor. Because the Fuji has an APS-C sensor, though, its 23mm lens is equivalent to a 35mm full-frame lens. For the same reason, it is not f2 either. However, I think a lot of people, myself included, would rather shoot a 35mm lens rather than a 28. Now, I have both the Leica Q and the Fuji 100V. Both have about 24mp. I thoroughly enjoy both. All things being equal, the Fuji makes more sense to me as a carry around all day camera because of the effective focal length, but there is just something about the way the Leica feels and makes you feel, quite apart from the image quality, that is compelling. As Thorsten von Overgaard says, the Q (and even more so, the Q2) is a gateway drug into the Leica system.
I have thought of the X100v but I keep hoping that Fuji will release a G100 with leaf shutter and built in ND then you would have the film sims, big sensor, and plenty of cropping options. Would not mind having the OVF/EVF - one of the things I miss from the X-Pro2 I had.
Currently, my fun camera is on the opposite scale of megapixels - the Sony A7Siii. That camera with it's 9.44 million dots hi-mag EVF, very pleasing images, small files to post processing, and really don't have to care too much about the ISO makes it a complete joy to use.
About the cropping feature in camera youre talking about on the q2, you know that feature is also on the Fuji right? Although it probably gets a lot better in the leica with the full framme 47 megapixles vs crop sensor 26. But just wanted to add that you can do that in both cameras!
Interesting. I have gone the other way, picking up a used X100V and likely to sell my QP, rather than buying a Q2. The crop modes are definitely a plus on the Q2. You get 3 lenses in one effectively. But the smaller size of the X100V is more important to me, plus additional video features including mic in. There’s no doubt that the 28 lux is a stunner though, especially when compared to that sensor. Nice vid, thanks.
The Fuji X100V also has two crop modes built in
I have a Leica Q1 and a Fuji X100F, so the precious generation. When I bought the Q, in 2018, I felt that I was making an unnecessary and capricious expense. It took me a little while to get used to the 28 mm, but since the Fuji has stayed in the shelf. I don’t sell my old cameras, but have no use whatsoever for it. I am a professional documentary photographer and use the Leica for scouting (most of my work is done with a Fuji GFX and a large format film camera), but often times the Leica images find their way into the final master file.
I went to a Leica store recently with the intent of buying a Q2. But compared to the build quality of a Leica M, I was underwhelmed. I liked the more solid feel of the Leica CL, but RIP TL system. 😢
I ended up trying a Ricoh GR3, and I love it. The GR3 brought back some joy and excitement back to shooting everyday.
Just an honest and talented guy. I like you and it's always a joy to watch your Videos. Thank you for that.
I can totally agree with your choices. I don't own either, but can totally understand that the MOST important first choice for you (and for me) is the Full-Frame, and that Depth of Field that you get (and won't get with the smaller sensors). 2ndly, both are great camera manufacturers, for sure, but if you are truly serious about photography (I'm 58 and wanted to be a photographer since my early teens back in the 70's, I had my own film cameras and my own darkroom) so how a camera makes you feel is incredibly important, the heritage and of course that great glass - the Leica wins on that score. I totally get it that should I buy a Q2, I would definitely take it with me absolutely everywhere, all the time, it's history kind of dictates to me that I would (all the great master street photographers). The Fuji, I don't think I would take it out so much (though it is an incredibly good camera - I just don't like anything less than full-frame). Now, all I need is $5000........
The X100V and the X-Pro2 are the only two Fuji cameras left from the lot I had before switching from Fuji X/GFX to Nikon Z. Esp. the X-Pro2 I regularly use for personal work together with a Q2 Monochrome I bought a couple of months ago. The X100V is certainly good value for money, but in terms of IQ it can’t hold up against the Q2. That combination of Summilux lens and sensor is spectacular. The lens alone would already be around 4K if you buy it separately for a Leica M. In that sense the Q2 might even be the best value for money Leica has to offer.
DOF with 28 1.7 full frame vs 23 2.0 aps-c at 1m is 12.3 vs 14.2 at 1m. For me the details is why I want Leica Q2 more than the Fuji. I'm trying to get a Q2 but probably will end up getting another X100V (my old got stolen).
Think you should've compared the Fujifilm X-Pro3 if your hands are big :)
And now... maybe the GFX100S if you want 'the best image quality to capture your life'? :)
Thanks for the review!
I thought the Fuji has in camera crop modes too?
yep
@3:34 Every single one of those images on the left (Fuji) were more interesting, better exposed, better looking than the Leica images. Just saying.
I thought he very same thing. The Fuji is an amazing camera.
Love the video. I think you're right, at the end of the day, it's about the creativity and the images we make. And this video also reminds us that the process needs to be enjoyable or we won't go out and make images. The gear you choose can make it more enjoyable, and that is mostly subjective. Love your videos - keep em coming!
I wrapped my x100f in skateboard grip tape and it completely changed the usability and hand holding
I have both but mostly I work with the M system, so the depth of field graduation on Leica glass is the most important, also the Leica glass has at any opening more depth of field than any Fuji glass especially the X100 series. So yep, Leica it is.
Your voice is so soothing! Thanks for the info, I'm picking up a Q2 today going from the x100v and I'm really excited. They both are fantastic cameras.
The crop option makes a lot of sense with the high megapixel count. Love that it’s baked into the RAW.
As a Fuji shooter, 5:17 > cropping got me. Sheesh 🤯
There are two things that slightly bother me. One: There are also two crop modes on the X100V so thats not an argument to pick the Leica (unless you see an other advantage). Second, comparing a Leica with additional grip and the X100V without grip is just crazy. Besides that, it's a very nice review. It must be said that if anyone doubts between the fuji and Leica consider this: if you dont want to do a lot of afterwork for each photo (photoshop/lightroomcaptureone) and rather shoot Jpeg, then x100v is the way to go because the quality of the jpeg is better than the Leica (look up the reviews and comments). I only do some afterwork on the smartphone. That's why I decided the Leica is a no go for me.
I’ve had loads of different Fuji cameras and loved each of them. I now using a Leica Q and SL. Working hard to someday have a Leica M10-D. Ultimately it just came down to design, ergonomics, that summilux lens and the exposure triangle. I had to work hard and sell/trade to get the Leica’s which makes it more rewarding also. I had someone at work who couldn’t understand why I paid so much for a camera only to discover he paid twice a much for a bicycle. Ultimately there’s a camera out there for everyone’s preference and budget.
I can relate. I have shot Canon cameras and L glass for years. Sold it all for a Q-P and SL2 and one 75mm SL APO. My hard work paid off as I’m into a system I absolutely love. It befuddles me that people are incensed about the expense of Leica equipment but drive 50k, 60k dollar cars.
Own houses and go on expensive trips etc. People have the freedom to spend as they chose without any scrutiny from the uninitiated.
@@rumporridge1 Leica is certainly an aspirational brand for many. It made getting a Leica more rewarding because I actually had to work, save and wait for one.
You can have 5 Fuji's for the price of 1 leica Q2. You can literally have one in the car, one in the house, one at work, one in your backpack and one at your holiday house.
You have crop modes on the Fuji also, and the mega pixels is 26. The 26 over the older 24 is a startling difference in cropping. The sensor seems to have a much cleaner image. I wondered if you ever used the crops on the Fuji?
Do you have a link for your straps?
i was looking for the same
I totally understand why you favor these smaller cameras. I've been a Sony A7R III user for quite som time, and while I love that camera.. there is something about these smaller rangefinder cameras that really attracts me. So as of last week I swopped it out with the new A7C and I could not be more stoked about it. Yes I know it sounds crazy and it's a "worse camera" with less features, but IDC. Their new 24,40 and 50mm primes will make this a fantastic combination. Hopefully one day they would launch an A7CR with more mpx like the Q2.
Loved this video man. Just picked up an x100v for myself last week, can't wait to make some stuff on it.
Sony RX1R II is still a good choice, for those who don't want to pay for Leica but want the same image quality
The color grading and edit is superb! You would make any photo taken with an iPhone look good. Edit tutorials please. You are so talented! Your photos are so pleasing to look at,. It puts my mind at peace.
Fuji has build in flash, and with leaf shutter it is makes huge difference. Q2 require external flash. And tilt screen.
I also don’t much like too wide fixed lens so I choose Fuji with its 35mm (it’s written 23mm but we know the crop factor right?). Though if it had to be my only camera I would probably also choose Leica. Good luck!
Sweet. I completely agree with your assessment. I had a Q and currently have a Q2M and they are both so much fun to use.
If you get the Gariz half leather case for the Fuji, you get much better ergonomics. I’m using this combination and I have really large hands. Also very usable in combination with a tripod.
For me this is a perfect camera and not far away from the Leica, which is not to forget, four times more expensive.
This was actually super convincing. I appreciate your candor and also the lack of pretentiousness that usually emanates from photogs talking about gear.
I am a former full-time PJ who now shoots for fun and the occasional job, and I'm finding it way too cumbersome carrying around Z6ii's and pro lenses. I don't really need that kind of equipment anymore... something simple but high-end would feel a lot better to me. I just want to document my life and any projects I may stumble across.
Happy to have helped! I think you’d enjoy the Q2 based on your comment, but maybe try renting first to see if you like the workflow.
A $5,000 as an EDC camera??? Kind of hard to compare these two when the price difference is so wide. Also, it's rather comical to say that picking up a Q2 at a used price is "reasonable". "I picked up my Q2 for $4,500." Buddy, that is more than what most people can afford for more of a professional camera setup!
Good review. Aside from the economics it really does come down to what makes you happy. There is a grip for the Fuji that makes it very comfortable to hold and also looks good on the camera.
Yep, you can say Leica q has better ergonomic as you attached handgrip. Fuji has built in crop-mode too, in case you don’t know.
I had the X100F for a while; I think the OVF was executed pretty poorly. I always ended up using the EVF. It was small, but not substantially smaller than my XT3 with a compact lens. So, I decided to get rid of it. It just didn't really tick a box that my XT3 didn't already tick. I picked up a Ricoh GR recently, and I'm really enjoying the camera. I can actually fit it into my pocket easily, so that changes the game for me in a way the X100 (or Q) series just can't.
You can set a digital zoom on the X100V, it is a crop but it then interpolates back up to 24mp
Good video. I can honestly say the Q2 is worth it to me because of the build, file quality, glass, and overall experience. I don't care about the "boutique" brand. However, dimes to donuts, it's not $4000 better than the X100V. Only if the upgrades are worth it to you is it a worthwhile purchase.
I had both of these, and the leica q2 Monochrom, they are beautiful cameras, but have poor battery and not as practical as you think, i now have the sony a7r iv a, 61mp,700 shots per battery charge, superb sharpness and detail, 2 card slots, usb charging, nearly half the price. Its like having a 21 piece swiss army knife versus a posh nail clipper!, yes i do miss the leica but it'll only stay on the shelf to look at
Do you mind sharing what kind of neck straps those are? I really like the look
Obviously, its all personal choice but DOP isn't that different especially when the Q is 28mm you have to shoot close to get any meaningful depth of field. Print wise unless you are looking at said print 1cm away you won't notice that resolution increase, and even then you'd have to print very large to even decipher the diff
Love my Q2, 28mm lens with build in crop feature is very flexible for all occasions, the micro feature is very handy, the color, the sharpness and decent autofocus makes this a perfect general purpose camera. I have tiny hands so I added a grip to better hold. The only think I wish for is an USB port so I don’t have to remove the SD card to download pictures. The mobile app is too slow for 47mp size file.
Concerning the Crop feature (in both cameras it seems). It doesn't give you the same effect/perspective as a different MM / telephoto lens. You will still have the distorted view of the 28mm(or whatever it is) lens. And can’t you just crop your images in Lightroom/Capture1 anyhow? It doesn’t make sense. Correct me if I am wrong. Thanks for your views on the cameras Samuel. & good luck with the Leica, it looks like a beauty of a camera.
A field report should convey comprehensible information. That for your tall hands a bigger camera might be more usable goes without saying but the majority does not have so tall hands. Other features which make the Q2 more manegeable are not presented.
A full frame camera is said to have more dynamic range but you did not provide reasonable side by side presentations to proove that for this pair of cameras mainly setting the focus to the Q2 images. By the way the bit depth for RAW of the Fuji is bigger than that of the Q2 and the bit depth is an upper bound for dynamic range!
The physically 50 MP of the Q2 reduces very much the pixel size - 4,3 µm to that of the Fuji with 3,8 µm thus reducing the light gahering advantage of FF to APSC enormously.
As the human/brain cannot discern differences less than two arc minutes 6 MP are already luxury. Yes, there are some main reasons for higher resolution: object photography (including military and scientific), wanted near distance view and cropping. But you did not present object photography images.
Cropping is done mainly for three reasons: to correct distortion, to improve framing mainly to cut off unwanted elements and to increase of scaling factor mainly for wildlife images to overcome to short focal lengths. But as both lenses are wide angle lenses they are not useful for wild life photography and you did not present any wild life nor architsctural images - so only the change of framing remains, and I would prefere to train my compostional abilities to pay almost four times more.
Nice comparison video, Sam. Both cameras seem to be amazing at what they do.
Nice comparison Samuel! Glad you finally got the Q2. I switched fr Sony to Leica & never looked back! 👍
I would honestly be happy with either of those cameras but already have a Sony A7 3 with a 24mm prime and recently decided for 'best' to buy a Q2. I love them both but there is just something 'special' about the Q2
I have a Q2 Monochrom and I love it... I went with the Monochrom mostly for the low-light performance and the way the noise looks when there is noise. I have a Canon R5 for color although I find myself wishing I had a color Q2 to go along with my B&W one. Maybe I'll pick up an M11 ;).
Have you had any experience with the Sony RX1Rii!
do you know if the exported jpegs are cropped if you use the crop mode when taking the picture. Also does Lightroom CC open the image cropped as well
Waiting on the video where Sam critiques our instagrams!?!
Great stuff. However, I feel this video would make more sense if the much, much cheaper stuff could stand up to the giant. Otherwise, it's stating the obvious, so not much point. And the mumbling...
Are you for real looking through the viewfinder with your left eye?
Thanks for the video. Can I ask what kind of green strap are you using for the Leica?
Thanks for your honest opinion. Would be fun to shoot with either camera.
Big co-sign on renting (or borrowing) before buying a pricey camera, I avoided some bodies this way that just didn't gel with my eye. Great comparison video, lovely color grading Samuel.
Crop if you have to, but the right lens for the subject works best for me, Fuji xe2 couple of primes,
Hello, nice video. I also have the Q2, Reporter version since 2 months. Do you shoot SOOC? I find the Jpegs very good,. I push the contrast & saturation to +2 on the Vivid film style. They look great
I think it is hard to compare both cameras… Not really apples to apples… I think both are awesome, but Q2 is at GFX prices… And the X100V is more of a let’s do much better than iPhone X level pocket camera. Both are great IMO but if price is no objection, than Leica hands down, but I just ordered a X100V... :-D
You should be a Leica ambassador, I want a Q2 so bad after watching your video.
Very interesting. High megapixel comes at a price; not the $$ only but the noise. For me, I would pick the Fuji as the price does not justify the Leica which has way less features than the Fuji. Is the Q2 weather sealed?
I’ve been debating between the Fuji x100v or the Leica D-Lux7, would anyone of you guys know which would be the better option for a daily carry camera ?
It’s a bit unnerving how close the low light performance is between the two. I moved to the q2 from the x100v, and that was the most disappointing surprise. Like he said, rent first.
For the price of a Leica, we can get an X100V + a7cii + 28/35mm 1.8/2.8, amazing isn't it ? Also have spare cash for a trip :P
DOF difference between full frame and crop sensor? I dont understand that
If you always crop a 28mm FF image you basically and up with a crop sensor equivalent image
Great review!! Balanced, honest and authentic!
I’m trying to figure out if I should go with a X100V or Leica Q (Type 116) , I found one for $2,750 not sure if that good price for it
Trust me, go for the Leica. Ive had the Fuji and it is great. But Leica’s have that “something else” factor. Every Fuji user as much as they are happy and loyal to the brand have that inner voice that yearns for the Leica.
Just got a Leica Q and find the experience way less satisfying compared to my xpro2. Maybe Im just not used to it yet but Im finding that Im way faster with the Fuji with sharper results.
The full frame and getting published once again in LFI are the only reasons the Q2... no, the Q3 is worth buying, IMO. Truthfully, it's overpriced, and if one is a lousy photographer, it doesn't matter what camera, sensor, or megapixel they are shooting. These are street cameras, and I don't believe in cropping an image when shooting street. With that said, I appreciate your input.
For most people, a camera of this type is not a primary money maker, or a money maker at all... and with that said, you simple can't ignore the massive price difference between the two. If the Q2 was closer to $2K, it would be a fairer comparison.
Yes... if I have $5k I would buy the Q2... even if say the X100v had better ergonomics. Like my girlfriend buying a Chanel purse that could only fit a cellphone over a Coach purse that would fit all her stuff. The 🔴 is life! 😆
You can do that crop mode on Fuji too
i notice you use your left eye, like me. Don't you hate getting nose smudges on your LCD screen? I try to force myself to use my right eye to prevent that.
What do u think Canon M200 mirrorless vs Fuji X100V??