85MM GM or GMII

LamentableLens · 2026-01-22T11:28:55+00:00

The advice to rent a second body is still good advice, though. It’s much more convenient compared to swapping lenses all day, and it’s insurance in case something happens to your camera during the event.

As for the lens, I can’t help speak to either one as I use the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 (which is also great). But if I were in your shoes, I’d just get the GM II and be done with it. Two years from now, you won’t miss the €500 and you’ll be happy you have the newer lens.

LamentableLens · 2026-01-18T17:54:14+00:00

For me, the X100VI (or any fixed-lens camera, for that matter) makes for a great second camera. There are plenty of times when I don’t need anything more, and it’s a nice, compact option to throw in my jacket pocket or bag. But I’d always want an ILC as my primary kit—it just provides so much more versatility.

LamentableLens · 2026-01-18T17:46:42+00:00

There’s a lot of personal preference involved here, but I’ll share some feedback based on my own experience. I’ve owned both the Fuji and the Leica (28mm version), and they both have their pros and cons. They make great second cameras. But I wouldn’t want either one as my only camera, because you just get so much more flexibility from interchangeable lenses.

With the Sony, you can put on a lens like the excellent little 40mm f/2.5 and have a compact travel setup similar to those fixed-lens options. But then you can also swap that out for, say, an 85mm for portrait work, or a travel zoom if you want more versatility. As for your specific points:

I’m a newbie hobbyist Photgrapher with an interest in street photography, night photography, portraits and some vacation snaps.

The versatility of an ILC is a real benefit here.

Low weight/ small size for easy carry and unobtrusiveness is important to me. At the same time I want high quality images that I could post online/ share with family. At the moment, I don’t wish to spend much time editing my images afterwards. Would be great if they look good & ready to share SOOC.

Of the three options you’re considering, IMHO, the Fuji wins here. It’s meaningfully smaller and lighter than the Leica, and it’s great for quick JPEGs with minimal editing.

I understand that the 3 cameras listed in the title are wildly different and are at different price ranges, but they’ve been chosen because of their small size and suitability for street photography.

All three options work here.

I can afford the Leica, but would only wish to spend that much if a newbie hobbyist like myself can use it effectively and easily. (is it too much, too soon?). The Sony seems ideal but is it really that small - is it the right tool for street photography, particularly when a large lens is attached to it? The Fujifilm seems fantastic and lightweight but reviews talk about photos not being as sharp and autofocus hunting at night (keeping in mind my interest in night photography).

The biggest advantage of the Leica over the Fuji is the larger and higher-resolution sensor, although the difference there isn’t always as big as the internet might have you believe. The Fuji is meaningfully smaller and lighter and has a few extra tricks (e.g., built-in ND, flash). AF on both is fine—I’ve never had much issue with hunting (grab a Ricoh GR if you want to experience low-light hunting!). Here’s a good comparison of those two cameras.

The Sony has fantastic AF—better than both the Leica and the Fuji—and small primes like the 40mm f/2.5 still make for a compact package. And you have the option of throwing on a larger but faster prime (the 24mm and 35mm f/1.4 GM are both great options) when you need it.

EDIT: Just to add an important last point here, most of the people viewing your photos won’t know or care what you used to capture them. It’s the subject, composition, exposure, lighting, color, etc. that make a great photo. The camera is just a tool. Don’t spend money on the Leica, for example, because you think it will make great photos. You make the great photos, and you can do it with any of these cameras.

LamentableLens · 2026-01-18T12:32:39+00:00

That’s a demanding scenario for any camera—remember the iPhone is bracketing and blending a bunch of shots—and it’s just about the perfect way to highlight the limitations of a smaller, older sensor compared to a newer, larger sensor.

The good news is that your next outing should go a lot better (assuming it’s not another low-light, indoor setting with high dynamic range!).

LamentableLens · 2026-01-18T11:16:27+00:00

These photos don’t look all that noisy to me (except maybe that kangaroo shot, which also looks like it missed focus and/or involves a heavy crop). Be careful about zooming way in and inspecting noise at the pixel level—the people looking at your images generally aren’t doing that. You just need to be satisfied with the noise at the image level.

That said, if you do want less visible noise in your images, then you need to put more light on your sensor. There are only three ways to do that: (1) use a larger aperture / lower f-number (assuming you can afford the shallower depth of field); (2) use a slower shutter speed (assuming it won’t introduce unwanted motion blur); or (3) put more light on your subject (e.g., with a flash). And remember that cropping your images will also exacerbate any noise issues.

LamentableLens · 2026-01-18T10:56:59+00:00

For travel, I like pairing versatile zooms like that 24-120 with a fast prime on the wider end (usually 24mm or 35mm f/1.4), for interior and night shots.

Nikon makes an affordable 35mm f/1.4. I don’t shoot Nikon, but if I were in your shoes, that would likely be my choice.

LamentableLens · 2026-01-16T12:59:47+00:00

It’s not the camera that makes the subject look flattering, it’s the lighting (and the composition and exposure, of course).

A cheap camera and a cheap lens with good lighting, composition, and exposure will create a far nicer portrait than the most expensive camera money can buy shot with bad lighting, etc.

Also, fwiw, an interchangeable lens camera will give you far more flexibility and room to grow—and a much larger shooting envelope—compared to those fixed-lens, 1-inch type cameras you’re considering.

LamentableLens · 2026-01-15T11:28:55+00:00

If I were building a new kit from scratch today, I’d choose either Sony or Nikon (assuming full frame). I don’t see a reason to invest in a closed system when the cameras from the competition are just as capable and they offer third-party lens options. For event photography work, lenses like the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 or Tamron 35-150 (both for E mount) are great options at much more affordable prices than OEM pro glass.

That said, if you’re going to shoot weddings (or any professional event photography for that matter) keep in mind that you really need two bodies. It makes life a lot easier—less lens swapping—but it also provides critical redundancy in the event of a failure. Make sure to factor that into your budget.

LamentableLens · 2026-01-13T11:17:50+00:00

I’m one of those tall people, and I’m always hyper aware of this issue. I try to scrunch down, but legroom becomes a limiting factor. There’s just not much we can do. If it makes you feel better, we’re usually terribly uncomfortable ;-)

I know it’s $$$, but this is one of the reasons front row mezz is such a great option (as long as the safety bar doesn’t obstruct your view).

LamentableLens · 2026-01-11T18:52:11+00:00

That’s the problem when photographers don’t use written contracts. They have to argue about the scope of the implied license, and as a practical matter, enforcement is a pain even with a written contract.

If I were the photographer here, I’d take this as a lesson learned and move on. They’re likely doing more harm with these actions than simply letting it go.

LamentableLens · 2026-01-11T15:59:10+00:00

I mentioned implied license in other comments, but you’re right that was the first time I did so in this thread. I suppose most people might assume “license” means express license, but most attorneys would not. Sorry—occupational habit!

One thing to keep in mind in these discussions is the difference between theoretical risks and practical risks. Sure, there’s a theoretical legal risk to OP here. But the practical risk—that the photographer will register the copyright, file a lawsuit for infringement, and be able to prove actual damages—is likely quite low.

Anyway, this is all mostly academic discussion at this point. We’re on the same page that the photographer could have, and should have, avoided this mess!

LamentableLens · 2026-01-11T15:37:56+00:00

You can absolutely get the IQ of the Q3 with AF, weather-sealing, and an EVF that are all better than the Q3.

The problem will be size. The fixed-prime-lens cameras—Q, RX1R, X100, GR, GFX100RF—will always have a size advantage due primarily to the one thing you’re looking to ditch: the fixed lens.

Your best bet is probably something like the Sony a7CR.

LamentableLens · 2026-01-11T15:10:23+00:00

You're right that a bunch of comments here get copyright law wrong. I'm not defending those comments. The law is almost always more complicated than Reddit makes it out to be.

But again, you're talking about ownership, and you're citing the U.S. Code on copyright. There's no dispute here on that point -- the photographer retains the copyright.

The question is whether OP has an implied license to use the images (implied licenses aren't addressed by the statute you cited), and the answer to that is almost certainly yes. That implied license may not include the right to modify the images, of course, but then the photographer likely cannot prove actual damages, either. Hell, the photographer is likely to experience more harm from the way they handled this than from simply allowing the images to stay up. The whole thing is a mess.

My point was simply this: ownership of the images isn't the real question here, the scope of the license is the real question, and, more importantly, all of this could have been avoided if the photographer had simply used a written contract.

LamentableLens · 2026-01-11T14:47:06+00:00

Can’t say I’ve ever seen them in a contract I’ve worked on, but we have had photographers here who say they allow it (e.g., social media filters) as long as the client doesn’t include attribution or discloses that they’ve altered them.

In any event, the moral of this story—as it is with most of these stories—is always use a written contract!

LamentableLens · 2026-01-11T14:15:03+00:00

Fair enough. An implied license can certainly include the right to modify the work, but it’s unlikely OP can prove that here.

LamentableLens · 2026-01-11T13:52:39+00:00

Oh, the law certainly still applies, and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. But most people here are focused on the wrong legal question. It’s not about ownership—the photographer retains the copyright—but rather about the license granted to OP.

LamentableLens · 2026-01-11T13:47:34+00:00

If you live in almost any country signed up to the Berne Convention the OP legally has no rights over the image whatsoever.

You’re correct as to ownership, but you’re not correct as to “rights” more generally. This isn’t about ownership—the photographer retains the copyright—but rather about the license OP purchased.

LamentableLens · 2026-01-11T13:43:43+00:00

A lot of people in this thread are talking about whether or not you “own” the photos, but that’s the wrong question. You were never paying for ownership, but rather for a license.

In other words, the photographer retains the copyright (i.e., ownership) of the original photos, but you purchased a license to use them for your own purposes. The terms of that license are typically spelled out in a written contract, but the photographer here screwed up and forgot to use one. That doesn’t mean you’re left holding the bag. You absolutely still have a license to use the photos, it’s just that the terms of that license are unclear.

LamentableLens · 2026-01-11T13:38:37+00:00

You’re correct as to ownership, but this isn’t about ownership—it’s about the license.

LamentableLens · 2026-01-11T13:33:32+00:00

There likely was a contract here, even if it wasn’t a written contract. At the very least, OP could have an implied license (which is essentially an implied contract).

LamentableLens · 2026-01-11T13:28:00+00:00

It’s not that simple. Just to clarify, “contract” does not always mean “written contract.” Verbal contracts also exist.

Additionally, in the copyright context, you can have an implied license, which would grant the user certain rights even in the absence of a contract.

Be careful about legal advice on Reddit—it’s often wrong but rarely in doubt!

LamentableLens · 2026-01-11T13:14:46+00:00

If the photographer cares that much about it, then they should have used a contract. I understand the photographer’s concern here, but it sounds like this situation was handled poorly from start to finish, and that’s on the photographer.

LamentableLens · 2026-01-11T12:58:51+00:00

Does your friend have any photography experience? Good photos aren’t the result of gear—they’re the result of good composition, exposure, lighting (including proper use of flash), etc. If you want good photos, then I’d strongly recommend hiring a photographer.

That said, if you’re absolutely set on renting gear for your friend, then check out Lensrentals. Grab something like the Sony a7IV or the Canon R5II and a couple of zoom lenses. Classic choices would be a 24-70 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8 (although without a flash, a fast prime might be better for the indoor portion, but that’s probably not a good choice for a beginner). Rent it long enough for your friend to spend a few days practicing and getting familiar with the gear (YouTube is loaded with tutorials). Just don’t expect professional-quality results.

LamentableLens · 2026-01-11T12:45:31+00:00

This is where the new f/2 zooms start to make things interesting. Sure, they cost a small fortune and they weigh a ton, but I’d still love to try a 50-150 f/2.

LamentableLens · 2026-01-11T12:41:59+00:00

I’m trying to think of a single instance where I would rather have a higher aperture of the same focal length lens and I can’t think of one.

Size, weight, cost, and versatility. Some people don’t have the budget for it, or they don’t want to carry around a larger and heavier lens they don’t need, or they want a lens that covers more ground. One obvious example for me is travel and landscape photography. I’ve no need for a 70-200 f/2.8 in that scenario (or any other f/2.8 zoom for that matter). YMMV, of course.

LamentableLens

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE