Comparing the Leica Q2 to the Fuji X100V

Both the Fujifilm X100V and Leica Q2 are advanced fixed prime lens cameras, and they each offer a range of great features and excellent image quality. Which one is right for your work? This great video review takes a look at both.

Coming to you from Samuel Elkins, this excellent video review compares the Fujifilm X100V to the Leica Q2. As much as I generally do not care for fixed prime lens cameras, I was a big fan of the X100V when I spent a day with it, as Fuji's user experience quickly won me over and invigorated my creativity. On the other hand, the Q2 has some notable advantages over the X100V, the most notable being its full frame sensor that also has about twice the resolution of the X100V's sensor, something that can be very worthwhile when shooting with a fixed prime lens that might force you to crop in post. That being said, the Q2 is about quadruple the price of the X100V, something worth considering, especially given the X100V's strong performance and feature set. It is pretty clear, though, that no matter which of the two you pick, you are likely to be happy with the decision; it mostly comes down to your individual needs and preferences. Check out the video above for Elkins' full thoughts on both cameras. 

Log in or register to post comments

8 Comments

Alex Yakimov's picture

I simply like videos about gear, especially Leica. Leica is almost like procrastination extremely irrational (financially), but you still do it.

JJ Casas's picture

Having gone in Leica with a used M9 (using my Rokkor M lenses from my Minolta CLE) and a used SL (with a Sigma 40mm), I can understand the allure. In general, Leicas are coveted in the sense that not many people have them so that allure alone is what people are paying for. And because of that, at least for me, is what makes me enjoy using my Leicas.

I’ve had a X100F and have used it professionally to cover events. It was also my go-to travel camera because it was so simple and easy to use and a no brainer because it was light and small.

The video is lengthy as he kept reiterating how he honestly (an often used word of his) chose the Leica because of its size and how it ultimately feels in his hand which contributes to his joy of shooting.

I never understood the people who scoff at Leica because of the price per features alone. Of course there’s cheaper options but sometimes, you simply just don’t want something cheap.

Rob Davis's picture

I wouldn’t call the X100V cheap in any sense of the word. It’s a weather sealed advanced fixed lens camera with a leaf shutter and color science that’s distinct from every other manufacturer.

It’s fine if people want to own a Leica. I think those who scoff are the technicians. They don’t have feelings about cameras.

JJ Casas's picture

Yup, but never called the X100V cheap. But it is cheaper in terms of price compared to the Q(2).

Richard Kralicek's picture

Had the x100f, loved it. Bought a second hand Leica Q, loved it even more. Sold the x100f. Now, two years later, I sold the Leica Q and upgraded to a new Leica Q2. Is it expensive? Yes. Fun to use? Yes. Is it necessary? No, but if you love to use it, it can't be wrong.

Anyway, I'd be even happier if Leica managed to mix their M and Q lines to make a body like the Q2 that takes M lenses. Yes, I know, the Leica SL is out there, but ... it's not the same. They even should make their rangefinder in a way Fuji makes their EVF/OVF on the x100 series.

Michael Rapp's picture

Kind of not getting it....
Comparing a $5,000 camera to a $1,500 camera? Full frame vs crop? I mean, of effing course the Leica will poop all over the Fuji. At that price point it damn well better do. It should be about three and a third times as good.
While we're at it, let's compare a Porsche to a Volkswagen, too.
Please, I'm not trying to bash either brand, Leicas are great and I shoot Fuji, too. But what the video falls short on is pointing out to me where exactly the extra mega pixels, upgrade to full frame and better haptics reflect the three grand price hike - in terms of diminishing returns, it seems to me you get "better" for "lots of $".
And also, I get that a lot of it boils down to personal preference. But I also try to be mindful that a 5K$ camera is not something I'd want to have around everyday, either, for fear of it being stolen or damaged (i. e. to the beach, restaurants, city night life).
But that's just my two cents, my main money rides on the philosophy "the right tool for the right job, and if the handling is fun, that's an added bonus."

Alex Yakimov's picture

Leica is indeed in a place where it could ask much more for a lesser increments, law of diminishing returns in action. And video fails to point that obvious situation. And not every brand could use this law.

Graeme Parker's picture

Are you referencing pixel count in relation to image quality because of issues such as dof, light gathering capability and cropping capacity or because ‘more pixels in itself equals better iq’? I imagine it is the former but it could be interpreted as the latter by beginners and accidentally reinforce this myth.