More initial impressions ... hoping to help maybe one person lurking and considering whether to buy an RF as their 1st or 2nd fixed lens. Not sure much of this would apply to others.
I've had an X100VI and now a Q2 (I intentionally didn't get a Q3), so that's where I'm coming from. I love specific cameras from Fuji, Leica, Canon, Sony, Ricoh, Nikon (ZF) etc ... so I have little brand bias or loyalty amongst these.
If had an X100 series, I think the RF is a justifiable jump for ~$5K if that's in reach. Justifiable across the board with image quality, design, functionality, and all that. The only thing quality wise I think Fuji dropped the ball on is the "leatherette" grip texture or whatever it is -- doesn't feel premium and is basically the same slippery crap on many other Fuji's (ie X100VI). Grip tape fixes this functionally but aint as pretty. <<---- literally my only complaint about the camera
If I already had a fixed lens like the Q2 (I do) or Q3 .... as a replacement, that's really tough and likely going to come down to design preference and/or the unique features like aspect ratio/cropping, etc.
Size comparison wise to the Q2/3, I feel like most of the initial reviewers were full of $#!T. That's fine, it's always different in person and we have different sized hands and bodies and opinions. ***EDIT I'm not saying the RF isn't compact IMO, it's great for what it is and impressive***
Personally, I think the size difference between the Q and RF is a wash ... the Q Summilux isn't THAT much longer in person, and the RF is taller and bit more deep (body wise). Basically, if walking out the door with both on the shelf, I would never choose one over the other based on compactness. Which I expected the RF to win on this, but well for me it doesn't. If you need to weather seal the RF (adapter+filter) the lens footprint is EXTREMELY close to the already weather sealed Q2/3. Once you put hoods on either, they are basically the same. It actually made me appreciate how "compact" my Q2 was, which I didn't expect.
Replacing the Q2/Q3 with the RF over image quality? For my needs it's not a decision making difference ... I'm not a bad photographer and been shooting for 16 years, so at this point image quality at this level isn't going to have a big impact on me being a better photographer.
Conclusion: for anyone jumping into the $3K-$6K world of fixed lens cameras, I think you have two amazing options between the Q2/3 and the RF.
More initial impressions ... hoping to help maybe one person lurking and considering whether to buy an RF as their 1st or 2nd fixed lens. Not sure much of this would apply to others.
I've had an X100VI and now a Q2 (I intentionally didn't get a Q3), so that's where I'm coming from. I love specific cameras from Fuji, Leica, Canon, Sony, Ricoh, Nikon (ZF) etc ... so I have little brand bias or loyalty amongst these.
If had an X100 series, I think the RF is a justifiable jump for ~$5K if that's in reach. Justifiable across the board with image quality, design, functionality, and all that. The only thing quality wise I think Fuji dropped the ball on is the "leatherette" grip texture or whatever it is -- doesn't feel premium and is basically the same slippery crap on many other Fuji's (ie X100VI). Grip tape fixes this functionally but aint as pretty. <<---- literally my only complaint about the camera
If I already had a fixed lens like the Q2 (I do) or Q3 .... as a replacement, that's really tough and likely going to come down to design preference and/or the unique features like aspect ratio/cropping, etc.
Size comparison wise, I feel like most of the initial reviewers were full of $#!T. That's fine, it's always different in person and we have different sized hands and bodies and opinions.
Personally, I think the size difference between the Q and RF is a wash ... the Q Summilux isn't THAT much longer in person, and the RF is taller and bit more deep (body wise). Basically, if walking out the door with both on the shelf, I would never choose one over the other based on compactness. Which I expected the RF to win on this, but well for me it doesn't. If you need to weather seal the RF (adapter+filter) the lens footprint is EXTREMELY close to the already weather sealed Q2/3. Once you put hoods on either, they are basically the same. It actually made me appreciate how "compact" my Q2 was, which I didn't expect.
Replacing the Q2/Q3 with the RF over image quality? For my needs it's not a decision making difference ... I'm not a bad photographer and been shooting for 16 years, so at this point image quality at this level isn't going to have a big impact on me being a better photographer.
Conclusion: for anyone jumping into the $3K-$6K world of fixed lens cameras, I think you have two amazing options between the Q2/3 and the RF.
More initial impressions ... hoping to help maybe one person lurking and considering whether to buy an RF as their 1st or 2nd fixed lens. Not sure much of this would apply to others.
I've had an X100VI and now a Q2 (I intentionally didn't get a Q3), so that's where I'm coming from. I love specific cameras from Fuji, Leica, Canon, Sony, Ricoh, etc ... so I have little brand bias or loyalty amongst these.
If had an X100 series, I think the RF is a justifiable jump for ~$5K if that's in reach. Justifiable across the board with image quality, design, functionality, and all that. The only thing quality wise I think Fuji dropped the ball on is the "leatherette" grip texture or whatever it is -- doesn't feel premium and is basically the same slippery crap on many other Fuji's (ie X100VI). Grip tape fixes this functionally but aint as pretty. <<---- literally my only complaint about the camera
If I already had a fixed lens like the Q2 (I do) or Q3 .... as a replacement, that's really tough and likely going to come down to design preference and/or the unique features like aspect ratio/cropping, etc.
Size comparison wise, I feel like most of the initial reviewers were full of $#!T. That's fine, it's always different in person and we have different sized hands and bodies and opinions.
Personally, I think the size difference between the Q and RF is a wash ... the Q Summilux isn't THAT much longer in person, and the RF is taller and bit more deep (body wise). Basically, if walking out the door with both on the shelf, I would never choose one over the other based on compactness. Which I expected the RF to win on this, but well for me it doesn't. If you need to weather seal the RF (adapter+filter) the lens footprint is EXTREMELY close to the already weather sealed Q2/3. Once you put hoods on either, they are basically the same. It actually made me appreciate how "compact" my Q2 was, which I didn't expect.
Replacing the Q2/Q3 with the RF over image quality? For my needs it's not a decision making difference ... I'm not a bad photographer and been shooting for 16 years, so at this point image quality at this level isn't going to have a big impact on me being a better photographer.
Conclusion: for anyone jumping into the $3K-$6K world of fixed lens cameras, I think you have two amazing options between the Q2/3 and the RF.
More initial impressions ... hoping to help maybe one person lurking and considering whether to buy an RF as their 1st or 2nd fixed lens. Not sure much of this would apply to others.
I've had an X100VI and now a Q2 (I intentionally didn't get a Q3), so that's where I'm coming from. I love specific cameras from Fuji, Leica, Canon, Sony, Ricoh, etc ... so I have little brand bias or loyalty amongst these.
If had an X100 series, I think the RF is a justifiable jump for ~$5K if that's in reach. Justifiable across the board with image quality, design, functionality, and all that. The only thing quality wise I think Fuji dropped the ball on is the "leatherette" grip texture or whatever it is -- doesn't feel premium and is basically the same slippery crap on many other Fuji's (ie X100VI). Grip tape fixes this functionally but aint as pretty. <<---- literally my only complaint about the camera.
If I already had a fixed lens like the Q2 (I do) or Q3 .... as a replacement, that's really tough and likely going to come down to design preference and/or the unique features like aspect ratio/cropping, etc.
Size comparison wise, I feel like most of the initial reviewers were full of $#!T. That's fine, it's always different in person and we have different sized hands and bodies and opinions.
Personally, I think the size difference between the Q and RF is a wash ... the Q Summilux isn't THAT much longer in person, and the RF is taller and bit more deep (body wise). Basically, if walking out the door with both on the shelf, I would never choose one over the other based on compactness. Which I expected the RF to win on this, but well for me it doesn't. If you need to weather seal the RF (adapter+filter) the lens footprint is EXTREMELY close to the already weather sealed Q2/3. Once you put hoods on either, they are basically the same. It actually made me appreciate how "compact" my Q2 was, which I didn't expect.
Replacing the Q2/Q3 with the RF over image quality? For my needs it's not a decision making difference ... I'm not a bad photographer and been shooting for 16 years, so at this point image quality at this level isn't going to have a big impact on me being a better photographer.
Conclusion: for anyone jumping into the $3K-$6K world of fixed lens cameras, I think you have two amazing options between the Q2/3 and the RF.
Apr 30, 2025 at 09:07 AM
Previous versions of Malick80's message #16805403 « Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread »
