Interesting comparison

Jock Elliott

Hall of Famer
Troy, NY
Using DPreview's "compare cameras tool," the Leica Q side by side with the Panasonic LX100 and the Fuji X100T.

In my mind, it raises some interesting questions:

- How big a sensor do you want?
- How much lens focal length flexibility do you want?
- Is the increase in cost commensurate with the increase in technical image quality?
- How much change do you want back from your 5 kilobucks?

Cheers, Jock


Zen Snapshooter
Lexington, VA
Real Name
I tried this. I was surprised how much better the Q looked than the X100T in terms of sharpness at any iso over 800. I thought the LX100 held it's own better in some ways. As expected, over 3200 the Q was clearly better (to my eye) but 1600 and below the LX100 was pretty close. BTW, I looked at jpeg and raw and my personal preferences lean toward sharpness.


Rorschach Test Pilot
Canary Islands
Real Name
I took a short look at the Q but again, I actually don't need anything 'better' than what my NEX-7 delivers in good light at base ISO or the Fuji in crappy conditions. The older I get the more I favor compactness and flexibility over the last bit of IQ to an extent that I'm not really interested in new gear anymore. I'd rather spend the 5k on tickets and accomodation, that's where most of my Eurons go anyway (52 countries and counting). YMMV.


The LX100 (or Leica D-Lux) holds up very well against the Leica Q in an average day of shooting, but when you get to the few images at the optimum (for the Q) focal length of 28 mm, the quality of the Q images is impressive. Currently I'm carrying both, but have had little need for the extra reach of the D-Lux.

Latest threads

Top Bottom