The perfect walk around camera

[Rockmeister]

It's personal so I wont bore everyone with a book of 'why these 3 cameras'.
Suffice to say.
I'm keeping the D850 and primes for 'serious' duties.
I'm keeping the Z 50 and kit lenses for mrs me because i'm told that's what's happening, so...

I'm looking for my own walk around.

My rough want list was.
Never be disappointed with the image quality, but be realistic. Nothing here ever to be viewed above A3 size.
I'm oldish. Weights over 1200g are out. That's life.
I shoot from 24-around 100. That range would never be too limited. i have feet and can move (just hahahha ).

The finer detail?
4/3rds is too compromised IQ wise
I want to LOVE this camera for its personality, ease of use, looks, and build.
And I don't like something (don't ask for details) about Sony.

Leica Q, Canon, Nikon or Fuji.
In the end I picked these 3.

Leica Q3
Nikon Z5 with 24-70 f4
or Fuji X-T5 with 16-55 2.8

Compromises everwhere and temptations in equal quantity!
Leica? I never owned one but I think I really want to. However 28 - 90 and that cropped to silly degrees? Hmmm 700 odd gms tho!
Nikon? 24mp? Is that going to do those 'must have sparkling detail moments and f4??
Fuji is a handsome devil in black and that lens is great but how heavy? 1212g? Really? for an APSC? The Z5 FF is lighter, so why go APSC?

Hmmmm

All advice from uses more than welcome!

 

[Cesare]

You've chosen the heaviest lens for the Fuji, hence your confusion about the weight. You don't need the f/2.8 16-55 lens, you want the 18-55 2.8-4 lens, which is much lighter, and has excellent image quality as well. Who needs 55/2.8 anyway? If you want that sort of look, you buy a prime and get even better image quality.

The x-t5 weighs 100g more than my much older x-t1 which I use for this sort of use.

With the 18-55 2.8-4 my X-T1 weighs 780g. If I put the 18/2 prime on, it weighs 580g.

So add on 100g to get the X-T5 equivalent weights, so i'd estimate 880g, and 680g with the 18/2 prime which is excellent and small, perfect for when you want simple.

And as for your comment about the nikon, 24mp is plenty, f4 is not a limit, if this is a walkabout camera, you are going to be shooting at f8 anyway. My X-T1 is 'only' 16mp, and i'm struggling to remember when this has been a limit for the sorts of photos I take with it.

Here's an example from the X-T1 with 18-55 from a few weeks back. I was in Annecy, the weather was miserable and overcast, but it's pretty down by the water. The X-T1 is small enough and light enough that it goes in my bag, and it's been everywhere. It's been up mountains, it's been to the arctic, and it works for me. I keep thinking about getting a more modern version, and I will do some time, but for now, i'm happy with it.

 

[alanbeeb]

Nikon z5 and the 28-75mm f2.8? Just gives you a bit more light....

 

[Rockmeister]

But much heavier and that combo over my 1200 limit Alan. Lovely lens however, and no shortage of sharpness or resolution with that combo.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

I've onwed lots of Fuji's still own some and have recently bought a Q3 - at the request of @JTC I'm going to write a short review as I'm now a month in regarding my experience, but I haven't written it yet, maybe in the next few days!

With regard to the Fuji lenses as @Cesare, pointed out the regular 18-55 lens is excellent and saves considserable weight (but you do loose Weater Resistance (WR)) There is a new version of tihs lens coming, rumoured to be XF16-50 F2.8 - F4.5, not absolutely clear if it has WR, but that fact that its coming suggests that perhaps the optics of the older 18-55 are not up to the pixel density of the 40MP X-T5

The Leica is a fantastic camera, its a completely different experience to the Fuji's, the build quality, tactile feel, etc, and that lens - I ve X100 series cameras a lot and am finding it more challenging than I expected to come around to the 28mm FOV (I'm getting there!). The high resolution sensor menas that there is a lot of cropping available.

90mm Crop Oultine


240203 90mm Crop Outline by David Yeoman, on Flickr

Resultant Crop - Image shot at F1.7


240203 90mm Crop by David Yeoman, on Flickr

The huge downside to the Leica is the entry price tag - though considerable savings could be made by going for a Q2 (I felt the Q3 specs were just enough to justify the Q3, and the fact that a really clean Q2 still commanded decent money) or even the new Fuji X100VI (same cropping ratios, but loose out on the wide end)

I'm very pleased with my decision (my bank account less so), and its certianly made me question some of my lens choices for the GFX (but thats another thread!)

I want to LOVE this camera for its personality, ease of use, looks, and build.

The Q series has this in spades

 

[alanbeeb]

But much heavier and that combo over my 1200 limit Alan. Lovely lens however, and no shortage of sharpness or resolution with that combo.

The 28-75 + z5 will be 40g over your 1200g limit.

Other one then is the 24-50 which only weighs 195g! So 870g total on a z5. But f4-6.3 is compromised.

The Z 28 and 26mm f2.8 primes are both excellent, both tiny too.

 

[steveinspain]

Another lens to think about is the fuji 16-80 f4 which is quite a bit lighter and longer than the 16-55.
It's my walk around on an XT-5, comfortably lighter that the 16-55 I still own, must get round to selling it so if you want a used one I'll be posting a thread in a few days!

 

[Sonority]

My XT2 is still in use with a good friend - he went F1.4 35mm.
He really likes it, and it goes pretty much everywhere with him.
I sold my 8-16 & 16-55, while absolutely superb lenses, the weight just ended up too much.
The standard 10-24 was also a great lens, and 'slightly' less weight.
The Q3 has been sublime so far.
As above - it is not cheap, but has all your requirements by the bucketload.

 

[Rockmeister]

Thanks gents for the help and advice so far.
Budget is? It's 'that' time of life when money in the bank is losing it's appeal, wheras something very special is whispering 'why not' in my ear
I think I'd go Leica if I could convince myself that some temple interior in deepest Malaya would'nt need a 24 or even wider, but you can't have everything. And then there is also that red dot which will mean keeping eyes in the back of my head in various less secure city environments....can I out run a thief these days? Hahahahaha. NO.

I think I need some STOP THINKING!! therapy and then go buy the Fuji with the rumoured new lens and call it a day.

or.....

 

[Mr Perceptive]

Thanks gents for the help and advice so far.
Budget is? It's 'that' time of life when money in the bank is losing it's appeal, wheras something very special is whispering 'why not' in my ear
I think I'd go Leica if I could convince myself that some temple interior in deepest Malaya would'nt need a 24 or even wider, but you can't have everything. And then there is also that red dot which will mean keeping eyes in the back of my head in various less secure city environments....can I out run a thief these days? Hahahahaha. NO.

I think I need some STOP THINKING!! therapy and then go buy the Fuji with the rumoured new lens and call it a day.

or.....

For that wider shot - you can always make a 2-3 shot pano - with the Leica you would have to consider the wide angle lens and include plenty of overlap.

I, too, thought about the red dot, I regularly shoot in some quite dodgy areas in the UK - but to date have no issues with the GFX, though I have got adept at quickly putting it in my shoulder bag!! These days they would probably be more interested in your phone - and also I think this is what insurance is for.

The Leica is also IP rated so has actually been tested against dust and water ingress (and although the latter eating is quite low, at least they are brave enough to submit it for tests)

 

[tuga]

Thanks gents for the help and advice so far.
Budget is? It's 'that' time of life when money in the bank is losing it's appeal, wheras something very special is whispering 'why not' in my ear
I think I'd go Leica if I could convince myself that some temple interior in deepest Malaya would'nt need a 24 or even wider, but you can't have everything. And then there is also that red dot which will mean keeping eyes in the back of my head in various less secure city environments....can I out run a thief these days? Hahahahaha. NO.

I think I need some STOP THINKING!! therapy and then go buy the Fuji with the rumoured new lens and call it a day.

or.....

Ricoh GR plus wide and tele converters?

 

[Cesare]

Thanks gents for the help and advice so far.
Budget is? It's 'that' time of life when money in the bank is losing it's appeal, wheras something very special is whispering 'why not' in my ear
I think I'd go Leica if I could convince myself that some temple interior in deepest Malaya would'nt need a 24 or even wider, but you can't have everything. And then there is also that red dot which will mean keeping eyes in the back of my head in various less secure city environments....can I out run a thief these days? Hahahahaha. NO.

I think I need some STOP THINKING!! therapy and then go buy the Fuji with the rumoured new lens and call it a day.

or.....

And there's currently a £250 off deal on the Fuji camera.

Save up to £500 on selected X Series products | Promotion | FUJIFILM Digital Camera X Series & GFX – UK

Save up to £500 on selected FUJIFILM X Series products

fujifilm-x.com

And it's also available on the kit deal with the 18-55 lens.

 

[JTC]

FWIW I just received a 16-80/4 with my XH2 and I'm probably going to sell it on. I thought I might like to have one lens to replace several primes, but I now think it's unnecessary. So, if you want a basically brand-new 16-80/4 for a decent price let me know. The Q3 or a Q2 is the answer, but if you go Fuji XT or XH, the zoom might be the answer. I can say, however, that the 16-80/4 doesn't really threaten the 28/1.7 on the Q2 if you take the same shot at (say) f5.6 with the Fuji set to the same FOV. It's good, but not Summilux good.... as it should be, given that it's a fraction of the price....

 

[JTC]

Actually, with your requirements I'd skip the XT or XH or the Q3, save yourself a decent wedge of cash and try out the doubtless plentiful X100Vs that must be about to flood the market. It won't trouble the Q3 but equally it will probably be more than good enough.

But if you do end up going down the XT or XH route and need a zoom lens, the 16-80/4 is a good option - in-built OIS, weather sealed and surprisingly decisive, fast focus (much better than the 18-55).

 

[Rockmeister]

As to the x100v, trendy tho it is, 35mm is never wide enough I am however looking at primes for the XT and seeing that Sigma do a good light range and Zeiss do x mount Touit’s and I love Zeiss! So maybe 3 primes from Fuji, Zeiss and Sigma? 15/16 fast for indoor work, super sharp 23 for walk around and 50 for detail and portraits? Might well work. I have a good rucksack that’ll soak up that weight easy.
Hmmm.

 

[Cesare]

Actually, with your requirements I'd skip the XT or XH or the Q3, save yourself a decent wedge of cash and try out the doubtless plentiful X100Vs that must be about to flood the market. It won't trouble the Q3 but equally it will probably be more than good enough.

But if you do end up going down the XT or XH route and need a zoom lens, the 16-80/4 is a good option - in-built OIS, weather sealed and surprisingly decisive, fast focus (much better than the 18-55).

Drifting a fair way from the 24-100 equivalent focal length requirement though...

And as far as Q3 image quality, I think you'll find that what is really going on is some cheeky in body processing applied to 'fix' the lens, and so you aren't really saying the lens on the Q3 is excellent, but rather the integrated lens + body + image processing is great, and this is I guess a modern interpretation of what this means.

I personally have quite a dim view of some of the modern ultra-sharp but somewhat grim out of focus effects that seems to be trendy at the moment when designing lenses, and prefer an older less processed look, and the camera doing less to impose this on me.

I do a fair bit of film photography, and I think my expectations are set by this, rather than the photoshop ultra-sharp look that pops off the screen, but there is of course no right or wrong, just creative choices. The OP may have a very different opinion than I do as to what makes a good lens and image so i'd really not like to impose a view other than saying everything discussed so far is capable of great images.

 

[Rockmeister]

Oh, thanks for all the kind offers of kit. Very grateful.

 

[Rockmeister]

Drifting a fair way from the 24-100 equivalent focal length requirement though...

And as far as Q3 image quality, I think you'll find that what is really going on is some cheeky in body processing applied to 'fix' the lens, and so you aren't really saying the lens on the Q3 is excellent, but rather the integrated lens + body + image processing is great, and this is I guess a modern interpretation of what this means.

I personally have quite a dim view of some of the modern ultra-sharp but somewhat grim out of focus effects that seems to be trendy at the moment when designing lenses, and prefer an older less processed look, and the camera doing less to impose this on me.

I do a fair bit of film photography, and I think my expectations are set by this, rather than the photoshop ultra-sharp look that pops off the screen, but there is of course no right or wrong, just creative choices. The OP may have a very different opinion than I do as to what makes a good lens and image so i'd really not like to impose a view other than saying everything discussed so far is capable of great images.

I have a lot of experience with different bodies, lenses and processes engines,and many more years locked in a darkroom.

It takes time and experimentation to match a lens to a camera body and to know that ‘look’ so you can produce what you need. This is why I posted above the thought of three different lens makes to start with. I know Sigma and Zeiss glass well enough. Currently I don’t know Fuji.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

And as far as Q3 image quality, I think you'll find that what is really going on is some cheeky in body processing applied to 'fix' the lens, and so you aren't really saying the lens on the Q3 is excellent, but rather the integrated lens + body + image processing is great, and this is I guess a modern interpretation of what this means.

This is true, but a lot of the 'correction' is to resolve the some of the traditional wide angle lens distortion, but I agree the result is very sharp (brutally sharp on occassions - it still loses out in the corners if you are of a pixel-peeping nature.), but the roll off is also excellent. Various opinions suggest the lens is actually wider than 28mm and is corrected to approximately 28mm!

I've only been using mine for a month, perhaps half a dozen trips out, and so far I've been very impressed. Its a fairly compelling package (assuming your pockets are deep enough!!) and is so nice in teh hand, it has enormous kerbside appeal and makes you want to use it. Minimal controls help as well, nothing seems to get in the way of concentrating on the image.

The dynamic range is very good as well (a notable better than the Q3) and the shadow/highlight recovery seems on par with my GFX50S.

Drifting a fair way from the 24-100 equivalent focal length requirement though...

Its not the tool for everyone, as anyone with focal length anxiety will note

 

[Rockmeister]

I certainly have FLA! ^
Our photo trips tend to also be big holidays. Everything from up mountains to dim bar interiors, and really, 20 - 600 would be better but as mentioned, the ancient bits have decided lighter kit would be a clever idea.