cboy
Well-known
There's no NEW FF rangefinder that can be had at that price. So in that sense it's cheapest entry point to a NEW FF rangefinder rather than resorting to Leica secondhand. I remember here on the forum there were those who would argue that it wouldn't make sense for PIXII to challenge Leica's M line so I'm glad PIXII did just that.
Buying a NEW digital Rangefinder shouldn't be only accessible to the affluent few. Many YouTube posers and hipsters call going to buying into the Leica M system as their 'dream' camera, but in reality the damn system is older than SLR tech so why should it be priced higher than even current mirrorless tech? More expensive components? Your joking right a couple hundred should cover it's production not a couple of 1000s. You break down a Leica M and no way it's production cost is that much. At least Pixii is trying to correct that, which I applaud. That craftsman/quality BS is why Leica gets a stink on the general photographic community.
So thankyou PIXII for providing a competitive option and I hope more manufacturers follow. I don't understand why rangefinders which we love here in this forum are so niche, when the main issue was just simply its price entry point. Sadly buying a new FF rangefinder is so expensive that it has priced out most enthusiast photographers, which in reality is what digital rangefinders nowadays are really targeted towards to, and so it good for PIXII trying to correct the trend.
Next well probably see Leica make a new M-E variant that's a m10/R rehoused as new...
Buying a NEW digital Rangefinder shouldn't be only accessible to the affluent few. Many YouTube posers and hipsters call going to buying into the Leica M system as their 'dream' camera, but in reality the damn system is older than SLR tech so why should it be priced higher than even current mirrorless tech? More expensive components? Your joking right a couple hundred should cover it's production not a couple of 1000s. You break down a Leica M and no way it's production cost is that much. At least Pixii is trying to correct that, which I applaud. That craftsman/quality BS is why Leica gets a stink on the general photographic community.
So thankyou PIXII for providing a competitive option and I hope more manufacturers follow. I don't understand why rangefinders which we love here in this forum are so niche, when the main issue was just simply its price entry point. Sadly buying a new FF rangefinder is so expensive that it has priced out most enthusiast photographers, which in reality is what digital rangefinders nowadays are really targeted towards to, and so it good for PIXII trying to correct the trend.
Next well probably see Leica make a new M-E variant that's a m10/R rehoused as new...
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
For those interested, either fans or soup spitters, here is a link to the latest review of the Max specs. There must be only a very few apha or beta Max's around and I bet that David knows where they are at all times. I am looking forward to user impressions.
Here is the spec review and analysis.
If you want the spec sheet here is the B&H link: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1838826-REG/pixii_pixii_max_digital_rangefinder.html
Here is the spec review and analysis.
If you want the spec sheet here is the B&H link: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1838826-REG/pixii_pixii_max_digital_rangefinder.html
Godfrey
somewhat colored
(bolded) Why? If the dubiously "middle-affluent many" wanted more RF cameras, surely the camera manufacturers would have noticed and offered them products before this. Interchangeable lens RF cameras became a niche product after inexpensive SLRs obsoleted them in the 1960s/early 1970s because the SLR made lens interchangeability easier and less expensive. Leica themselves went mainly to SLRs and then EVF cameras for this reason.
The interchangeable lens RF (ILRF) camera is an anachronism, made in small numbers (and because of that, at high prices due to the high precision required). It's remarkable that Leica has kept the M line going and profitable, and even re-created the film M6 model due to market demand. Others before Pixii who offered ILRF cameras in recent times all found the same: a lack of audience meant a lack of profitability, and that has always resulted in a short production life.
Pixii is working hard to produce a reasonably priced ILRF in a what is become a tiny niche market. They're evidently selling well enough to fund further development, witness this new model. This success is great. Why dis Leica because Pixii is making some decent cameras at a more modest price? While the Pixii could be seen as a competitor to the Leica M line, in a sense this is not really true: Pixii does not make their own lenses or own their own lens mount, they exist only because other vendors (Leica and Cosina mostly) produce lots of good M-mount lenses, and the M-mount patents are long past Leica's total control. If Cosina stopped making lenses, Leica would not have any problems continuing on where I suspect Pixii would find itself scrambling for a lens manufacturer.
As I said before: Bravo to Pixii for continuing on with a new model! And piffle to all those who celebrate the RF camera here on the RFF and dis Leica for whatever silly reason. Buying a camera is always a luxury thing, unless you are a photographer making an income from taking photographs, so whatever Leica prices their goods at is fine if people are willing to pay for them at those prices. If you're not, and you want to do photography, well ... just buy something else. It's not like there is a dearth of cameras on the market.
G
panatomic
Member
The “buying a camera is always a luxury thing” brush may be a little too broad. A lot of Internet toxicity, financial stress, and hindered artistic and business development has resulted from Dr. Kaufmann’s effective strategy for turning Leica’s business around. Turning Leica into a luxury brand and saying that it had no negative consequences is like the meme of a cartoon dog sitting in a coffee shop surrounded by flames saying “This is fine.”
gzisis69
Established
The prices are of course not fine. An old film leica shouldnt cost more than 3-400 like an old nikon canon minolta pentax etc. Its good for the company to have such prices but not so good for the photography. Many good photographers i know shoot film with old cameras and would love a leica but can not afford one. On the other side many collectors and rich people have leicas but dont use them the way it could be used, all the time on the hand, street photography etc. I dont know the reasons why a new leica with technology 50 years old should cost like a small car but i would take tha car every time. I could understand a camera that costs 5-600 more than another just for the name, the lenses form factor etc. But now its just a niche market that i cant even imagine owning one. 15 years ago one could buy an m3 with a summicron for 1000, did the cameras get better to have such a price increase ? Film wont die anytime soon but companies dont help us stay on it.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Old Leicas cost what they cost because demand is high relatively compared to supply. It helps that they can still be serviced and repaired of course.
However, if you consider the price of other M mount rangefinders - Zeiss Ikon or Bessas - they are also high. So I would conclude this is simply a case that demand for rangefinder cameras overall is high compared to supply. This is, of course, a consequence of the success of the slr, which exists in vastly higher numbers across the world.
It would be lovely if old Leicas cost the same as old Nikons or Canons, but then you might find repair uneconomic.
You can still buy an M2, 3 or 4 for a lot less than an M-A and you don’t need a Summicron.
joe bosak
Well-known
Yes the supply of old cameras is fixed, so demand causes prices to be high, but in turn part of the reason secondhand prices can get so high is because the price new (ie the main alternative) is so high. And part of the reason Pixii may not make much difference to Leica prices is because its not the whole caboodle, it's even more niche - it's an imperfect substitute.
gzisis69
Established
Thats exactly how i see it. I want rangefinder, cant afford it so go to slr. I am a human beeing and can adopt to every machine, not every machine can adopt to me. I make good photos with slr and very possibly a rangefinder will not bring me more except maybe better handling and smaller lenses. But if leica prices of m4-6( i dont have interest for 2 and 3 cause the film changing system is not what i want to adapt to) were like nikon f2-6 id surely have tried one to see what i prefer. Now i just cant. So i keep in my mind that maybe sometime ill have money that i dont care to invest or care my basic or secondary needs to try one. Every other rangefinder brand is to me a substitute whose prices exploded, like voightländer whose cameras where really snobed in the past and now they cost like the leicas, zeiss one that costs like leica and although its in some aspects a lot better it cant be repaired, contax g2 that is a ticking bomb and some others i forget. Pixi is an interesting camera but doesnt have a reason to cost more than an already overpriced fuji x100. People should get more on the streets and take nice/or not so nice fotos than looking such overpriced stuff. That is for me too. Everyone would like a small rangefinder or autofocus camera with good small lenses and a very well thought design but camera brands dont care about us..
Disappointed_Horse
Well-known
Marketing is not selling customers what they want to buy. Marketing is getting consumers to buy what you want to sell at the highest price the market will bear.
Want to buy a TV without SMART* features? Screw you, we only sell SMART* TVs. (*Surveillance Masquerading As Revolutionary Technology).
Want to buy an appliance like a washer or dryer or thermostat or pretty much anything that runs on electricity without wi-fi and internet connectivity (and that might last more than five or so years)? Screw you, we want your data so buy our latest internet-of-things contraption and replace it when it dies after three years or we decide to brick it remotely.
Want to buy a new quality interchangeable lens film camera? Screw you, or pay Leica extortionate prices. We'll get all those hipster influencers on YouTube to constantly talk up our cameras, so you won't even mind paying more for a Leica than a new Rolex.
No brand cares about its customers. They only care about their shareholders, and the shareholders are the only ones they are legally required to care about.
Used camera pricing reflects the fact that people want things that manufacturers don't really want to sell anymore. Take a look at the ongoing "Pocketable Camera for Vacation" thread and read how many people want to buy a high quality compact digital camera. Why are they so hard to come by? Because the manufacturers would rather sell you a $2,000 body and several $1,000 lenses than a one-and-done compact with a built-in lens.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
If you want to rant to let off your personal frustrations, please go see a therapist. 
The prices for used things are set by the people who buy them and by the people who market used things ... Leica as a manufacturer has no say in the matter. Bitching about it and calling it Leica's fault is hilarious. Well, perhaps it is Leica's fault ... for making products that are compelling for whatever the niche of people who have the money to afford them might be. Surely you cannot blame Leica for doing that. I owned Nikon F, F2, F3, and many other pieces of desirable photographic gear, as well as Leica cameras, over the course of the past sixty-odd years. There's a reason that I personally still use the Leicas and don't have or use most of the others (yes, I still have Nikon, Hasselblad, and Olympus equipment, amongst a couple others), and it has nothing to do with drinking the Leica Kool Aid.
The prices for new things are set by the manufacturers, dependent upon the cost of materials, labor, and time to produce them; new development costs are always a relatively small part of the cost of new hard goods. Leica is no different from any other manufacturer in this regard. I don't have the data to say exactly how much of these three things go into the making of each M film or digital body, but it's pretty obvious from the serial numbers and sales volume that they don't make all that many of them (compared to other camera manufacturers), and it's also pretty obvious that there's a finite amount of material in a given piece of equipment, so the equation comes down to how much labor and time are needed in the production process given that we know the gross margins are also pretty similar to other manufacturers' gross margins. Since most Leica owners are actually pretty happy with the quality and performance of their equipment, and many more seem to aspire to owning them for their quality and performance, one could infer that the quality/cost of the labor invested and that the amount of time invested in the making are worth the high prices. Maybe not to you personally, if you cannot afford one, but to the market audience as a whole.
The assertion that no brand cares about its customers is a rather dark view of the world. Having worked for a volume manufacturer of hard goods for most of my working life, my personal experience suggests it is an unwarranted view: the most passionate meetings of my career were always having to do with just what the value proposition of some product, feature, or capability would do for the buyers, rather than the crudities of how much profit would result from various production and detail changes. I doubt it is any different at Leica ... or at Pixii—to finally return to the brand featured as the basis of this thread in its title.
Why not, rather than ranting on and on about Leica, spend more time concentrating on what the value proposition of said Pixii FF camera might be, how it will differ from the existing Pixii APS-C camera, and what to look forward to? Certainly the advantages of the Pixii cannot be reduced to the crudity of saying: "It must be good because it is not Leica" or "...cheaper than Leica" or whatever. It is a bold and risky thing to introduce and deliver a new camera into the competitive landscape of photo equipment sales ... especially in an era when the 99th percentile photographic equipment need seems to be a good smartphone ... and the good folks at Pixii should be lauded on their cajones in doing so. 🚀
G
The prices for used things are set by the people who buy them and by the people who market used things ... Leica as a manufacturer has no say in the matter. Bitching about it and calling it Leica's fault is hilarious. Well, perhaps it is Leica's fault ... for making products that are compelling for whatever the niche of people who have the money to afford them might be. Surely you cannot blame Leica for doing that. I owned Nikon F, F2, F3, and many other pieces of desirable photographic gear, as well as Leica cameras, over the course of the past sixty-odd years. There's a reason that I personally still use the Leicas and don't have or use most of the others (yes, I still have Nikon, Hasselblad, and Olympus equipment, amongst a couple others), and it has nothing to do with drinking the Leica Kool Aid.
The prices for new things are set by the manufacturers, dependent upon the cost of materials, labor, and time to produce them; new development costs are always a relatively small part of the cost of new hard goods. Leica is no different from any other manufacturer in this regard. I don't have the data to say exactly how much of these three things go into the making of each M film or digital body, but it's pretty obvious from the serial numbers and sales volume that they don't make all that many of them (compared to other camera manufacturers), and it's also pretty obvious that there's a finite amount of material in a given piece of equipment, so the equation comes down to how much labor and time are needed in the production process given that we know the gross margins are also pretty similar to other manufacturers' gross margins. Since most Leica owners are actually pretty happy with the quality and performance of their equipment, and many more seem to aspire to owning them for their quality and performance, one could infer that the quality/cost of the labor invested and that the amount of time invested in the making are worth the high prices. Maybe not to you personally, if you cannot afford one, but to the market audience as a whole.
The assertion that no brand cares about its customers is a rather dark view of the world. Having worked for a volume manufacturer of hard goods for most of my working life, my personal experience suggests it is an unwarranted view: the most passionate meetings of my career were always having to do with just what the value proposition of some product, feature, or capability would do for the buyers, rather than the crudities of how much profit would result from various production and detail changes. I doubt it is any different at Leica ... or at Pixii—to finally return to the brand featured as the basis of this thread in its title.
Why not, rather than ranting on and on about Leica, spend more time concentrating on what the value proposition of said Pixii FF camera might be, how it will differ from the existing Pixii APS-C camera, and what to look forward to? Certainly the advantages of the Pixii cannot be reduced to the crudity of saying: "It must be good because it is not Leica" or "...cheaper than Leica" or whatever. It is a bold and risky thing to introduce and deliver a new camera into the competitive landscape of photo equipment sales ... especially in an era when the 99th percentile photographic equipment need seems to be a good smartphone ... and the good folks at Pixii should be lauded on their cajones in doing so. 🚀
G
Out to Lunch
Ventor
To my knowledge, Zeiss still services the Zeiss-Ikon.
Disappointed_Horse
Well-known
@Godfrey Thanks for the reply. Sorry for the thread drift and my apologies for the rant. I don't want to keep going on about it but when I was referring to Leica's pricing I was thinking about the film cameras, not in reference to their digital cameras or in comparison to the new Pixii offering. Totally off topic and again my apologies.
I completely agree with you that Pixii should be lauded for having the audacity to introduce a completely new line of cameras. I'm very intrigued by these cameras and Pixii's clean sheet approach to designing a digital camera that works with a smartphone rather that trying to make a camera that operates like a digital approximation of a film camera.
I completely agree with you that Pixii should be lauded for having the audacity to introduce a completely new line of cameras. I'm very intrigued by these cameras and Pixii's clean sheet approach to designing a digital camera that works with a smartphone rather that trying to make a camera that operates like a digital approximation of a film camera.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
I just ran across a Max review online by some outfit and it brought to mind the one thing Pixii does that no one else can: native DNG mono and color. I understand that the black magic costs an f-stop but the tradeoff is 16-bit mono in the same camera that will shoot Bayer/color. I do not understand the tech end of this but if it were easy Pixii would not have been the first to do it. Maybe others could do it - and this is dipping into the pool of rabid marketing paranoia - but they will not so that they can sell you two cameras. This could be the case. I am sure it is true. The voices keep telling me so. ;o)
Anyway, it is a nice option to have and unique to Pixii, not just Max. It lives in my A2572. I struggle with color and mono eludes me. It takes more skill that I have. But I can try now and again and get it in 16-bit native DNG.
Anyway, it is a nice option to have and unique to Pixii, not just Max. It lives in my A2572. I struggle with color and mono eludes me. It takes more skill that I have. But I can try now and again and get it in 16-bit native DNG.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
To the best of my knowledge:
The Pixii monochrome mode is calculated ... That is, the sensor has an RGB Bayer array of microlenses over the photosites. When you switch the camera into monochrome mode, the internal software instead of writing out the RGB array of photosite values directly does a calculation ... The strength of the R,G,B microlenses is well-defined as are their positions, so the calculation looks at the values of the photosites and adjusts them to compensate for the light loss of the RGB lenses that separate them into colors and outputs the values as a monochromatic array. It still takes the total of nine photosites to generate each monochrome pixel so there's no increase in acutance. I believe the loss of one stop sensitivity is due to the averaging needed to compensate for the differential absorbtion of light that the filter array causes in order to get smooth grayscale without too much random pixel-by-pixel variation. Since the values are all calculated anyway, it's no big deal to output them as 16-bit vs 12- or 14-bit values, and in my testing with a continuous tone ramp (white to black) capture, they did a fairly good job of approaching a 16-bit discrete approximation.
I suppose other manufacturers could do similarly, presuming they can come up with algorithms that do not infringe upon the Pixii patents.
True monochrome sensors (like in the Leica M10 Monchrom et al, the Pentax K monochrom model, etc) tend to net more sensitivity, greater acutance at the rated pixel output, and better tonal separation. But of course they are limited in that they cannot do color capture (without extraordinary effort, that is, shooting static subjects with RGB discrete exposures with different filters and then combining the results in post — which is, by the way, how the cameras on space craft like the Voyager 1 and 2, or James Webb Space Telescope operate to get color results).
Aside from being fun to try out and a darn good camera modulo some of its annoyances to me, the Pixii's big win to me was convincing me that I really would enjoy a true monochrome digital camera and inspired me to buy the Leica M10 Monochrom ... which I count as possibly the best camera purchase I've ever made, bar none. I owe it to the Pixii for finally convincing me that it was valuable enough...
G
Changing Room - Mountain View 2023
Leica M10 Monochrom + Summilux 35mm f/1.4
The Pixii monochrome mode is calculated ... That is, the sensor has an RGB Bayer array of microlenses over the photosites. When you switch the camera into monochrome mode, the internal software instead of writing out the RGB array of photosite values directly does a calculation ... The strength of the R,G,B microlenses is well-defined as are their positions, so the calculation looks at the values of the photosites and adjusts them to compensate for the light loss of the RGB lenses that separate them into colors and outputs the values as a monochromatic array. It still takes the total of nine photosites to generate each monochrome pixel so there's no increase in acutance. I believe the loss of one stop sensitivity is due to the averaging needed to compensate for the differential absorbtion of light that the filter array causes in order to get smooth grayscale without too much random pixel-by-pixel variation. Since the values are all calculated anyway, it's no big deal to output them as 16-bit vs 12- or 14-bit values, and in my testing with a continuous tone ramp (white to black) capture, they did a fairly good job of approaching a 16-bit discrete approximation.
I suppose other manufacturers could do similarly, presuming they can come up with algorithms that do not infringe upon the Pixii patents.
True monochrome sensors (like in the Leica M10 Monchrom et al, the Pentax K monochrom model, etc) tend to net more sensitivity, greater acutance at the rated pixel output, and better tonal separation. But of course they are limited in that they cannot do color capture (without extraordinary effort, that is, shooting static subjects with RGB discrete exposures with different filters and then combining the results in post — which is, by the way, how the cameras on space craft like the Voyager 1 and 2, or James Webb Space Telescope operate to get color results).
Aside from being fun to try out and a darn good camera modulo some of its annoyances to me, the Pixii's big win to me was convincing me that I really would enjoy a true monochrome digital camera and inspired me to buy the Leica M10 Monochrom ... which I count as possibly the best camera purchase I've ever made, bar none. I owe it to the Pixii for finally convincing me that it was valuable enough...
G
Changing Room - Mountain View 2023
Leica M10 Monochrom + Summilux 35mm f/1.4
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
The previous review if spec has been updated by removing the chatter about FOV and so on. So here is the new, abbreviated review of specs.
Last edited:
Freakscene
Obscure member
I am not sure how the Pixii works. But the RGB array is not part of the microlens assembly. The top substrate of a regular camera CMOS sensor comprises a cover, the microlenses and the Bayer RGB array each as a separate layer on top of the top semiconductor layer, above the bonding layer with the lower substrate (also made of several layers) underneath.
My first concern about colour digital cameras with the RGB array removed to make them a monochrome camera is that the microlenses get removed when the Bayer RGB filter gets removed. This lowers the light capture efficiency of the individual cells about a third on average but by up to half on some sensors.
I don’t know how the Pixii works, and I’m sure that the Pixii people (Pixxiies?) are not saying, but there are ways to read the sensor pixel-by pixel to get the final monochrome image if the read architecture supports it. But I doubt there are any available sensors where the underlying architecture in the lower substrate is wired to read the cells individually. The best way to check would be for a Pixii owner to assess if the acutance improvement is provided in the monochrome mode. My guess is no.
My second concern about colour digital cameras with the RGB array removed to make them a monochrome camera is that the additional acutance just isn’t there when the cameras are still calculating each pixel value from 9 pixels. Removing the sensor cover doesn’t magically make the underlying sensor architecture and in-camera processor start reading individual pixels and software such as Monochrome2DNG does another set of adjustments to these files that extrapolates these values and can make them worse not better.
The cameras in those spacecraft, as an aside, are all CCD sensor cameras and capable of photographing well beyong the range of visible light. They have a lot of filters in their assemblies to photograph at a range of wavelengths. A lot of astrophotography is done at the hydrogen alpha spectral line at 656nm, at which the sensitivity of astro cameras such as the Nikon d810A are maximised.
Marty
Last edited:
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
If you want someone with a little technical background I know as little as anyone. But, from reading and listening to David I understand that the mono DNG sacrifices one f-stop. This is what I have read not what I know.
Here are a pair done with the A2572 APS-C CMOS BSI. Just as an example of the technology not as statements of skill or art. Oh, rats, these were both shot as JPG. If you would like I can repeat a test like this in DNG. Just give me a shout.
Here are a pair done with the A2572 APS-C CMOS BSI. Just as an example of the technology not as statements of skill or art. Oh, rats, these were both shot as JPG. If you would like I can repeat a test like this in DNG. Just give me a shout.
shawn
Veteran
Every pixel is always recorded individually in a raw file. Each pixel measures luminance which is impacted by the CFA on it. How much that alters the luminance varies depending upon which color the filter is. Essentially each pixel has a filter factor that varies for the different colors of the filters. In a traditional RAW file each color channel of pixels is saved (as luminance values) and then when an image is rendered interpolation occurs. With something like RawViewer you can look at each channel of pixels individually and it will display them as a B&W image and each channel has varying luminance levels due to the differences in the filter factor.
The Monochrome mode in the Pixii sounds like it basically normalizes the luminance of each channel (applies a filter factor) and then writes the data as a single monochrome channel to the RAW file. Would be interesting to see what a RAW from that looks like with a traditional B&W filter on a lens. That might throw off the normalization unless it is also using white balance to adjust the normalization.
Edit: I believe it is also possible to process a traditional RAW file to monochrome by just using the channels directly. Iridient Developer has a number of different methods of Monochrome conversion and that includes direct raw conversion without going to color first.
Last edited:
Freakscene
Obscure member
Sure, I understand that, but the extrapolated luminance value is no more useful than a monochrome converted raw file - the results of my test of pixel values from a converted sensor camera processed in Monochrome2DNG were like those from this site: monochrome camera conversions – the quest for improved resolution | JMC Scientific Consulting Ltd - but when I then also compared it against a monochrome sensor, there was a lesser improvement in resolution from the converted sensor than for a monochrome sensor of the same size and pixel density using the same lens. So something is going on, and the amount of information processing by the camera is unclear to me. The information written directly into the DNG file might explain it, but I don’t have the option with my Monochrom of using a different raw format. It could also, of course, be an effect from losing the microlenses.
olakiril
Well-known
Exactly, Pixii might have a "unique - patent-pending - algorithm" that "computes the raw monochrome sensor values" as they say, but that can be applied in the raw file in the computer as well. They follow with "Conventional B&W modes found in other cameras apply a film effect to an 8-bits JPEG file" which gives us a clue to what they compare their method to. Pixii Monochrome
As DxOMark review states it: "a dedicated monochrome DNG option lends a more analog-like user experience that enthusiasts will find attractive".