Lukacs wrote:
The only selling point of this camera the F2 AF lens in that size, covering FF sensor. However even they stick with lens design, at least upgrade the AF motor.
I've gone through all the different large sensor point and shoot options at this point sadly - they're all compromised in some way - you just need to decide what you can live with.
The AF motor while clearly dated and not as good as the linear AF on later Sony lenses, is still better than a lot of the other options - e.g. the GFX100RF, which I also have, is much more sluggish. The Q3 43mm had a lot of focus hunting.
I think the best value for money option for most people is the Sony A7CII or A7CR with the 40mm f2.5 but it's a larger camera and not the same as having a RX1R camera or a Q3 43mm.
tzhang4284 wrote:
I've gone through all the different large sensor point and shoot options at this point sadly - they're all compromised in some way - you just need to decide what you can live with.
The AF motor while clearly dated and not as good as the linear AF on later Sony lenses, is still better than a lot of the other options - e.g. the GFX100RF, which I also have, is much more sluggish. The Q3 43mm had a lot of focus hunting.
I think the best value for money option for most people is the Sony A7CII or A7CR with the 40mm f2.5 but it's a larger camera and not the same as having a RX1R camera or a Q3 43mm....Show more →
Best value option is an A7III with third party lenses. It just not make sense arguing about the best value option.
GFX100RF, Leica Q series, RX1RIII... All of them has the advantages and weak points, you have to decide based on your preference. I'm quite ok with GF100RF's AF, I don't even try shoot my kids running towards me at close distance, but almost any other situations AF is just works fine. The resolution, cropping ability, sharpness, body design usability, tilt screen, EVF, battery life, build quality outclass the AF and F2 lens advantage of RX1RIII 80% of time for me.
I think the best value for money option for most people is the Sony A7CII or A7CR with the 40mm f2.5 but it's a larger camera and not the same as having a RX1R camera or a Q3 43mm.
This is clearly true when considering the RX cameras, but does not seem to hold for the Leica Q3 43, which is larger than the A7CR + 40/2.5.
Aug 21, 2025 at 03:06 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
wolfloid wrote:
This is clearly true when considering the RX cameras, but does not seem to hold for the Leica Q3 43, which is larger than the A7CR + 40/2.5.
What I am considering is the Fuji XT-5 with the Voigtlander 23 f/1.2 lens. It is about the size of the Q3, so about 80g more than the A7CR and 40 f/2.5 combo, but even adjusting for the Fuji being APS-C the lens is a stop faster (and faster than the RX1R III lens too), You get a 3.7 M dot EVF with 80% magnification, a 1.84 M dot LCD that tilts for both portrait and landscape orientations, a 40 MP sensor and a very nice 35 f/1.8 FF equivalent lens that is a joy to manually focus. It has 7-stop IBIS as well. If I buy used I can get it for less than $1,600. Such a combo isn't for everyone but I think it might well fill this niche for me and give me a camera around which I can build a more flexible travel kit. For example, if I wanted a kit that weighs a bit less and had capability fairly similar to the A7C II and 40 f/2.5 I could add the excellent Voigtlander 27 f/2 (a FF 40 f/3.0 FF equivalent) and come in for less weight than the Sony combo and an even smaller package (the CV 27 f/2 is a tiny pancake lens considerably smaller than the Sony 40 f/2.5). I want the faster lens, but it is nice to have options.
I guess my broader point is that there are actually many options, and we have to decide what we are and are not willing to give up. My combo is giving up absolutely smallest size, getting a larger sensor size, and AF (which I happily give up for a great MF experience), but I am not giving up lens speed, EVF, IBIS, a tilting screen, or a camera that is easy to operate. The RX1R III gives up a bigger EVF, IBIS, a tilting screen, easy camera operability (at least IMO), but doesn't give up lens speed, sensor size, sensor resolution or AF. Every option in this category is going to require making some serious compromises. We just need to decide which ones matter and which ones do not.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Every option in this category is going to require making some serious compromises. We just need to decide which ones matter and which ones do not.
In a non professional purpose camera the biggest compromise is the size and portability. Even the best specification camera with best lens worth nothing if you don't carry, just collects dust at home.
Aug 21, 2025 at 06:51 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Lukacs wrote:
In a non professional purpose camera the biggest compromise is the size and portability. Even the best specification camera with best lens worth nothing if you don't carry, just collects dust at home.
I totally agree of course that if we don't carry the camera we won't be using it, but for me if I hate using it, even if I carry it, I won't pull it out and use it. For example, like most people, I almost always carry my phone, but unlike most people I almost never use it for photos because I really hate the experience of using my phone to take pictures. For me carrying a camera is not enough. I have to want to use it and that is why for this type of camera I will pick a slightly bigger option that I actually want to use. As long as it fits in my sling bag that I take almost everywhere with me and it isn't too much of a burden to carry I am happy.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I totally agree of course that if we don't carry the camera we won't be using it, but for me if I hate using it, even if I carry it, I won't pull it out and use it. For example, like most people, I almost always carry my phone, but unlike most people I almost never use it for photos because I really hate the experience of using my phone to take pictures. For me carrying a camera is not enough. I have to want to use it and that is why for this type of camera I will pick a slightly bigger option that I actually want to use. As long as it fits in my sling bag that I take almost everywhere with me and it isn't too much of a burden to carry I am happy....Show more →
I use my GFX100RF more than any of my previous camera, it's joy to shoot with, camera body big enough for handling, tilt screen and magnificent EVF, still the lens small enough for high portability. I'd prefer RX1RIII with similar body because still the lens size is the key factor for portability. That's why I've never truly considered Leica Q cameras, the size of the lens is too big for me such camera, too vulnerable not carrying in dedicated photo bag.
Current RX1R II owner here. I recently bought a GM1 off the FM forum for something even more compact than the RX1R II. I am already finding the lack of a tilt screen as a big drawback in testing it out so far. I would definitely not enjoy the removal of it in the RX1R III, which is an even larger expense, and was one of the main reasons I decided to hold onto the R II. I'll likely end up with a Sony body + 40mm f/2.5 G or a Q3 43 in the future.
I’ve now used the new version for the week while on vacation. A few observations: 1) in proper light, it is awesome, 2) the lack of a flipping screen is a problem and not. I carry both the rx1 and the rx100 during the day and find the screen in the rx100 is better. That said, When using the rx1 for extensded period, I forget about it . 3) the step crop is delightful. Just need to make the aspect markers function stick to exif and assignable to a button.
My biggest complaint, and I think it was mentioned already, is the issue with the rear aperture dial. It is musshy and not accurate. I was trying to get a precise shutter speed and it would always overshoot by 1 notch.I really think this can be fixed in firmware. Lets see if a correction gets release. If this is like the newer bodies, we should see this soon.
For YEARS I carried the rx1 and rx100 iii having a barely used dlsr on a shelf. I gave the rx100iii away to my brother in law, which I regret heavily from the point of underestimating how important it was to me after I sort of hit a rut and didn’t shoot for a while - but he makes it absolutely sing.
I’ve just purchased a mark vii after back and for pro and con arguments vs just using a phone.
The rx1 I didn’t sell because the rendering is great and I’m honestly still not sure I like the Fuji x100vi more. It’s got better af for sure. I took a shot of my wife on a beach that was so beautiful, except it was at f2 and she stepped towards me and the rx1 doesn’t have any tracking / c-af. I’m just starting to come to terms with the Fuji (I don’t shoot that much these days, working from home) after a year, but a light bag is the thing that will make me shoot more.
My goal is I think like yours. Cover the range in good light with ‘the rx100vii - which for what I shoot (street, architecture, the odd landscape, really does seem to be good enough in the right circumstances (and not printing huge). And then have something smaller for dim situations. I did shoot some football match photos with the Fuji, and it cropped well to about 100mm equiv with a subsequent upsize, but honestly the 100mp sensor of the Fuji rf is very very tempting (or even the 60mp of a7cr/ q3 43. I want to make sure I exhaust more creative options with the x100xi before I give it up (using the excellent ibis more for example). The gear is far better than me, I’m just picky and probably a bit lazy.
While I do of course see rendering differences; once I got over trying to love sooc jog’s from the Fuji, which kill grey skies in the uk, and started using the profiles as a base with raw, I found that camera output a LOT better. If the af on the Sony was better I probably wouldn’t have changed. But I can’t go back to no flippy screen, especially at 6’4” with two neck surgeries, 5 ruptured discs, and a milestone birthday upcoming.
Sorry for the book!
Latouf wrote:
I’ve now used the new version for the week while on vacation. A few observations: 1) in proper light, it is awesome, 2) the lack of a flipping screen is a problem and not. I carry both the rx1 and the rx100 during the day and find the screen in the rx100 is better. That said, When using the rx1 for extensded period, I forget about it . 3) the step crop is delightful. Just need to make the aspect markers function stick to exif and assignable to a button.
My biggest complaint, and I think it was mentioned already, is the issue with the rear aperture dial. It is musshy and not accurate. I was trying to get a precise shutter speed and it would always overshoot by 1 notch.I really think this can be fixed in firmware. Lets see if a correction gets release. If this is like the newer bodies, we should see this soon.
before you go with the Fuji XE5 and 23mm f1.2 Nokton combination. I have no personal experience, but reading this put me off pursuing it.
Thanks for the link, but I have used a lot of Voigtlanders, so I know their strengths and weaknesses and I have no problem using them for manual focus on Sony, Nikon, or Fuji GFX. I doubt the experience will be much different on Fuji X mount. I have had the CV 15 f/4.5, 21 f/1.4, 28 f/1.5, 40 f/1.2, 50 f/2 APO, 50 f/1.2, 65 f/2 APO macro, 75 f/1.5, 90 f/2.8 APO, and 110 f/2.5 APO macro.
I also trust the judgment in the following FM threads:
I’ve babied mine a fair bit as the reports of af failing came out but seeing your gear is a good reminder I should just get on with it.
I need to find / remember the rubber band trick for the evf.
In another comment someone said better af on the rx1riii than the x100vi. I’d love to see more comparison on that. Some reports made it sound like the rx1riii couldn’t track moving subjects beyond a saunter. The x100vi seems to hit that mark at least.
sebboh wrote:
recently got the TTartisans 40/2, which i believe is the smallest f/2 AF lens you can put on an a7cr and was comparing the size to that of an rx1.
I also use a number of CV lenses - 40/2 on Canon, 21/3.5, 24/4, 28/2 Ultron (just excellent!) M lenses, and the lovely 40/1.2 SE.
All more than very good, and the links you provided for the Fuji mounts are also all more complementary than the review I found.
It was the particular comments that put me off. Please report back when you have your own experience.
Do you mean the CV 25/4? That's one I've been considering as a "snap shooter". In fact, that was exactly how Cosina described the original LTM version since it didn't even couple with the rangefinder and only had a focus scale on the lens. In that sense, it's probably the closest thing to a Ricoh GR in both focal length and depth of field.
But then I could just stop down my CV 28/2.8 and end up with the same result…
RustyRus wrote:
Is this camera not weather sealed? Am I reading that right?
Apparently, the main challenge with adding weather sealing to very small cameras is heat dissipation and the extra space required for the seals. Since compactness is a top priority in these designs, full weather sealing is often not avaialble. The Ricoh GR series is another good example of this.
With the Fuji X100V, Fujifilm introduced weather resistance (except at the lens front, which still needs an adapter and filter). The body did grow slightly to make this possible. In contrast, the Sony RX1R series and Ricoh GR series avoid weather sealing because increasing size would take away from their main advantage of being as small as possible. (Aside from the likely heating issues mentioned)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Apparently, the main challenge with adding weather sealing to very small cameras is heat dissipation and the extra space required for the seals. Since compactness is a top priority in these designs, full weather sealing is often not avaialble. The Ricoh GR series is another good example of this.
With the Fuji X100V, Fujifilm introduced weather resistance (except at the lens front, which still needs an adapter and filter). The body did grow slightly to make this possible. In contrast, the Sony RX1R series and Ricoh GR series avoid weather sealing because increasing size would take away from their main advantage of being as small as possible. (Aside from the likely heating issues mentioned)...Show more →
I don't know, maybe it is the heat dissipation, but I surf with my microscopic, waterproof Sony RX0ii strapped to my wrist completely submerged with each paddle stroke, and it has locking doors and a solid tilting screen. Sony has the tech, and I really wish they made a minimal effort to weather seal the RX1R III body at least, perhaps the Zeiss lens would be too expensive, but the side locking door needing to be taped shut for me is sort of embarrassing at this price point. I still am really enjoying it but I don't know if I can give them a pass on basic weather sealing!
