Godfrey
somewhat colored
The issue is that the Pixii viewfinder optics show approximately a 24mm FOV (approximately what a FF 35mm lens would cover) at the limits of the optical frame, according to the Pixii.fr website and manual. To provide a wider field of view requires a different set of viewfinder optics, which will net a smaller RF patch and lower RF accuracy.
They could put framing lines highlighting the edges and showing parallax without changing the optics, I believe, but how much utility that has is hard to say. I haven't hear of a "Pixii WA" in any of this thread or other discussions, but the suggestion that they might add 24mm frame lines was hilited at one point in the thread.
Since I have 21mm and 10mm lenses in M-mount, I'll simply put a 28mm viewfinder in the accessory shoe for the 21mm (close enough) and a 15mm viewfinder for the 10mm. Frame lines are only an approximate guide in any event on a tunnel-optical camera ... Once you learn what the lens sees, you use them as a reference to orient what the lens will actually cover. For example, my Hasselblad SWC viewfinders only ever presented about 85% of the coverage of the lens and I never seemed to have any difficulty getting exactly what I wanted into the frame. If I needed copy-camera accuracy for close-up repro work with that camera (it was an excellent repro copy camera!), I used the ground glass focusing back.
With the Pixii, you can achieve the same thing using the camera's ability to send an image preview immediately to your smartphone: such focusing work requires a camera stand and setup anyway so you can lock the focus and positioning properly and then make the final exposure.
It is, after all, not a TTL viewing system and cannot be expected to do what a TTL viewing system can do.
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I don't recall anything said by anyone about a "Pixii WA" version ... Only that Pixii might add a set of 24mm frame lines to the existing camera.
Given the amount of negative commentary from the very limited number of reviews and threads about this camera so far extant, I can't imagine that "someone in China" would be interested at all in producing a Pixii clone. "Someone in China" would be more interested in something like a Pixii if most of the threads and reviews were ballyhooing it as the best thing since sliced bread, I suspect. That might indicate a bit of enthusiasm that would translate into sales.
And... Jeez: Companies in China are created and worked at by normal human beings too. I have done business with several different Chinese companies over the years, on various products, and the wonderful people who I worked with there are just like you and me. "Someone in China" is such a prejudicial way of referring to them.
I'm interested in the Pixii because of what "someone in France"—aka: the Pixii engineering folks—have defined and created, it seems an interesting camera to me not because it's a "good cheap version of what Leica should have done" but because it does what I'm looking for. I don't care what it is compared to what Leica has done ... I care only about what the Pixii is.
G
Emile de Leon
Well-known
Dude..did you forget to take your meds today...lol..
olakiril
Well-known
...and realized that they can make it for 2K maybe?
But looking at the success (or lack of) of the YI mirrorless cameras I am not sure they would try it on a rangefinder camera with a relatively tiny market.
If anything I would rather see a rangefinder-styled camera like the X-E4 with a high quality large magnification EVF. Much cheaper to manufacture, far larger market and currently there is nothing like it out there.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Emile, I have no idea who you are or where you're from. I don't know who you know. And neither do you know me.
I can only respond to what I read, and in English the use of an expression like "... someone in China ..." is a vast over-generalization and a way of sublimating all the people of China to one stereotype. You can make any stupid assumptions you want about me, and express them however you want, But when you're writing, you should be aware that expressions carry connotations as well as denotations. I can only respond to what I see written for the vast majority of the people I correspond with since it's the only way we know each other.
Whether someone sees the tiny Pixii market place as a fruitful possible audience, given all the negativities the the press (including yours), well, my opinion is that the possibility is small. Rangefinder cameras gave way to TTL viewing cameras 70 years ago for a reason.Whether a company in China can make it less expensively or not, or as well as, or with features more to your liking, eh? That's a level of conjecture I'm not at all interested in. Good luck with waiting for it to happen.
I'd rather enjoy trying what has been made and seeing how well it works, whether it suits me, and whether it makes good photographs. That's what matters to me, not whether it's $3000 or $2.50. G
Emile de Leon
Well-known
Godfrey,
I never said make a Pixii clone..as I'm quite sure that is not the way to go..
I never said make a Pixii clone..as I'm quite sure that is not the way to go..
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I don't know how to refer to a group of people who aren't me in English without saying "them". It's how the language works. Me, you, us, them ... capisco?
But to use an expression ... "someone in China" ... drags in all the various notions of what that group of people are imagined to be as well as what they are.
---
Let's get past the semantic debate, okay?
---
At the time that the SLR appeared at a reasonable price on the market ... call it 1962 ... there were a ton of rangefinder cameras, at all kinds of prices. Nearly every single one of them but for Leica disappeared within the next 12 years or so. I was doing photography then and I watched it happen.
The folks at Pixii are doing something very risky and incredible. I'm willing to buy one to help support their efforts, as well as take advantage of as good a camera as they've already achieved. I hope they survive and flourish, but in the end I'll have a cool camera to make photographs with if they don't, and as long as the camera lasts.
I strongly doubt that reinventing the inexpensive rangefinder camera is going to cause enough sales to flourish such that a big industry of such cameras will be selling profitably. Who knows? I could be wrong, but you convince a few investors to go in for $100Million or two to develop a good, inexpensive RF camera, make one, and than we can see what happens.
Okay?
Meantime, let's focus in this thread on what the Pixii is, how well it works or doesn't for various purposes, and what it can do. Let's start seeing what photos people make with it. That's what I'd like to see and talk about.
What a Pixii costs, after you decide buy one, is the least important thing about it.
Mine will be here soon, and I can't wait to get to work with it.
G
But to use an expression ... "someone in China" ... drags in all the various notions of what that group of people are imagined to be as well as what they are.
---
Let's get past the semantic debate, okay?
---
At the time that the SLR appeared at a reasonable price on the market ... call it 1962 ... there were a ton of rangefinder cameras, at all kinds of prices. Nearly every single one of them but for Leica disappeared within the next 12 years or so. I was doing photography then and I watched it happen.
The folks at Pixii are doing something very risky and incredible. I'm willing to buy one to help support their efforts, as well as take advantage of as good a camera as they've already achieved. I hope they survive and flourish, but in the end I'll have a cool camera to make photographs with if they don't, and as long as the camera lasts.
I strongly doubt that reinventing the inexpensive rangefinder camera is going to cause enough sales to flourish such that a big industry of such cameras will be selling profitably. Who knows? I could be wrong, but you convince a few investors to go in for $100Million or two to develop a good, inexpensive RF camera, make one, and than we can see what happens.
Okay?
Meantime, let's focus in this thread on what the Pixii is, how well it works or doesn't for various purposes, and what it can do. Let's start seeing what photos people make with it. That's what I'd like to see and talk about.
What a Pixii costs, after you decide buy one, is the least important thing about it.
Mine will be here soon, and I can't wait to get to work with it.
G
olakiril
Well-known
Agreed.
Well, no. If the camera was $500 maybe the majority of us would have one already, whereas if it was $10000, nobody would. So cost is an important parameter. (Same reason we don't all own M11s
) Its great to have actual users input!
backwardation
Newbie
Practical question now for you aficionados....I sold my last rangefinder and lens back in the early 2000s (an M6 and 35mm summicron) to cross to the digital dark side (Canons of all sensor sizes - sorry, then Fujis - not so sorry!).
I therefore need a snag a starter lens ASAP. Something readily available and not preposterously expensive (maybe I'll go down the more expensive and more weird next....)
Narrowed it down (I think) to:
Thanks in advance!
Edit:
p.s. what about the Voigtlander 40mm F1.4?
I therefore need a snag a starter lens ASAP. Something readily available and not preposterously expensive (maybe I'll go down the more expensive and more weird next....)
Narrowed it down (I think) to:
- Voigtlander 28mm F2. Like the effective focal length as a predominantly 35mm shooter, F2 fast enough for me at that focal length. Heard gripes about close focusing rangefinder lenses. No idea how big a deal thing would be in practice.
- Zeiss 35mm F2.8. Only concern for me is that having one lens only being a 2.8 on APS-C might be frustrating. Sounds like a wonderful lens otherwise.
- Voigtlander 35mm F1.4 II. Has the speed but some reviews are sniffy about performance wide open.
Thanks in advance!
Edit:
p.s. what about the Voigtlander 40mm F1.4?
You cannot go wrong with any of these lenses, but Zeiss is one of my favorites. That said, I haven't tried the newer Voigtlander lenses like:
https://shop.cameraquest.com/voigtla...h-vm-ii-black/
https://shop.cameraquest.com/voigtla...cal-vm-type-i/
https://shop.cameraquest.com/voigtla...on-ii-black-m/
https://shop.cameraquest.com/voigtla...n-ii-silver-m/
These seem to be priced well, have a great size and are available I think...
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I've been working with Leica mount rangefinder cameras off and on since 1968 or so... Comments below refer to lenses I've owned and used in the 2010-present time period. Strong views and banal personal experiences: free of charge.
BTW: Most rangefinder lenses in M-mount have a close focus distance of around .7 to 1 meter ... My new Color-Skopar 21mm f/3.5 V1 can focus down to .5m but not even my M4-2 rangefinder can follow it all the way there, it stops at about .65m. That's just a fact in using RF cameras: you get used to it.
Second to that, you can find a Voigtländer Color-Skopar 28mm f/3.5 LTM used for around $750 or so, and I can't say anything bad about that lens at all; it's an excellent wide-normal. The Voigtländer Nokton 40mm, in either MC or SC version, is another excellent choice, albeit on the long-normal side of the fence, usually sells for a bit less than the Color-Skopar 28mm.
Otherwise, I'd try the Zeiss Biogon 35mm f/2.8. It's not hellishly pricey new at $1000 and has a big following.
By and large, all of the lenses listed above, with the exception of the Ultron 28mm, have proven to make me some excellent photographs if I've used them at all. Even the Ultron did as long as I kept it stopped down to f/4 or smaller. On APS-C format, I mostly find myself setting f/5.6 as my default, most-used aperture with most lenses between 21mm and 50mm.
Have fun!
G
BTW: Most rangefinder lenses in M-mount have a close focus distance of around .7 to 1 meter ... My new Color-Skopar 21mm f/3.5 V1 can focus down to .5m but not even my M4-2 rangefinder can follow it all the way there, it stops at about .65m. That's just a fact in using RF cameras: you get used to it.
- I had a Voigtländer Ultron 28mm f/2 and was not terribly impressed with it. Not only not particularly sharp wide open, but some focus shift evident as well. And a little bulky. It worked okay if kept stopped down at f/4 or so... The earlier, LTM Color-Skopar 28mm f/3.5 proved to be smaller, lighter, very sharp wide open and a far better lens overall; f/3.5 has proven to be fast enough for most things with what is effectively a FF 40mm lens FoV on APS-C, for me. I still have the Color-Skopar 28 and use it a lot; I sold the Ultron.
- 35mm is a "normal lens" (50mm equivalent) on APS-C. I've never had the Zeiss Biogon 35mm f/2.8 to work with. I expect it's an excellent lens although I've heard the Biogon 35s have some quirkiness near wide open ... either curvature of field or center-sharp/edge-soft, or something like that. Of course, many will likely say "That's what's magic about it!" and I can't disagree. Just have no experience with this particular lens.
- I had the Voigtländer Nokton 35/1.4 (not the II) and the Nokton 40/1.4 MC. They seemed very similar overall, with the 40mm of course being kind of a "long normal". Slightly jangly bokeh wide open, nice and smooth at f/2 or smaller. Good lenses. I preferred and kept the Nokton 40 for a while, but sold it when I found a reasonably priced Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Special. The 43/1.9 is one of my all time favorite lenses, but they're somewhat rare (around 2200 lenses made, half silver and half black) and a little difficult to find. It's a little bit "longer normal" of course.
Second to that, you can find a Voigtländer Color-Skopar 28mm f/3.5 LTM used for around $750 or so, and I can't say anything bad about that lens at all; it's an excellent wide-normal. The Voigtländer Nokton 40mm, in either MC or SC version, is another excellent choice, albeit on the long-normal side of the fence, usually sells for a bit less than the Color-Skopar 28mm.
Otherwise, I'd try the Zeiss Biogon 35mm f/2.8. It's not hellishly pricey new at $1000 and has a big following.
By and large, all of the lenses listed above, with the exception of the Ultron 28mm, have proven to make me some excellent photographs if I've used them at all. Even the Ultron did as long as I kept it stopped down to f/4 or smaller. On APS-C format, I mostly find myself setting f/5.6 as my default, most-used aperture with most lenses between 21mm and 50mm.
Have fun!
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
...Well, no. If the camera was $500 maybe the majority of us would have one already, whereas if it was $10000, nobody would. So cost is an important parameter. (Same reason we don't all own M11s
I think you missed the word "after" in my statement... lol!
I doubt that everyone would buy an M11 anyway, even if it did cost $500.
G
lamefrog
Well-known
Hello, Has anyone looked into the "native monochrome mode"? Mentioned on the site ( "Monochrome mode produces true, 16-bit single-plane, monochrome DNG files from a color sensor, no need for another B&W camera" ) but not in the manual . Not sure what that means as the sensor is Bayer. Thanks
olakiril
Well-known
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I'm not sure either ... A person on another forum sent a link around to a collection of 21 Pixii raw files, about 8 of which are native B&W DNG files. They look good but without knowing more about the capture methodology, etc, it's hard to say anything definitive.
From what's been said earlier on this thread, there's some interesting software manipulation being done with the sensor in this mode. I'll be doing some testing with the native monochrome mode soon as I get my Pixii: I want to evaluate the spectral response, sensitivity characteristics, and see how the spatial resolution differs from the 'standard' color mode.
G
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Do you have testing equipment to evaluate spectral response, sensitivity characteristics, and spatial resolution of the Pixii II sensor in color and monochrome mode.
backwardation
Newbie
... Strong views and banal personal experiences: free of charge.
Thanks for this - very kind to provide so much detail. Out of interest was your 28 F2 the version 1 or 2 Ultron? I am trying to work out the very confusing nomenclature around Voigtlander...
For those talking about WA versions, 24mm framelines etc., David at Pixii confirmed that they are adding (or maybe have added) 24mm support: no framelines but you can select 24mm as the focal length for your EXIF, with the full viewfinder being just a little wider. Shame there are so few options at that length! (Or indeed at 28mm.)
Interesting that Mattias Burling (buried deep in the comments) has settled on a 21 mm (too wide even for the window let alone the framelines!) and a 40mm which sounds like a nice focal length pairing.
Anyone else have thoughts?!
aizan
Veteran
Nuts. I'll be on the sidelines until there's a WA or full frame version for those 28mm and 35mm framelines.
ranger9
Well-known
I'm not sure how you narrowed it down to these specific lenses; I don't own any of them, so I can't give any specific advice. Currently I'm just using older lenses on my Pixii, although I'm interested in getting a modern 35mm since it's my most-used focal length and my "vintage" options fall short in some areas -- most often in terms of full-aperture performance and resistance to backlight (important because there's a lot of backlight where I work.)
Currently I'm leaning toward the latest 35mm f/2 Voigtlander Ultron as a mainstream normal lens for my Pixii -- it seems very compact (important to avoid rangefinder-patch intrusion) and YouTuber Matt Osborne seems to like it a lot -- so I'd be very interested in hearing any user impressions of it.
One thought re the OP's list: Personally, I don't think using an f/2.8 lens on a Pixii-size sensor would be frustrating... I often need to shoot at f/2.8 or smaller anyway for close-ups, to avoid running out of depth-of-field (f/2 with a 35mm lens isn't enough to keep both eyes in focus on a three-quarter-view headshot, for example; you'll see this in some of the example photos linked below.) Dirty little secret: When I do need to get a background more out of focus, the latest version of that neural "depth blur" filter in Photoshop is embarrassingly effective...
In case it helps anyone, here's a quick take on the lenses I have been using the most lately:
- 28mm f/1.9 Voigtlander Nokton -- this is an LTM lens dating from the early 2000s; I use it with an LTM-to-M adapter. I don't think its sharpness is very good below f/2.8, and it gets pretty mushy under backlit conditions, so I'll probably look for something different eventually -- although it's not a priority as I don't use 28mm very often. Another nuisance with this particular lens on the Pixii is that the lens hood intrudes into the rangefinder patch, so I usually have to take it off, which of course doesn't do its backlight performance any favors.
- 35mm f/2 7Artisans -- this is a Sonnar-formula lens, and I like the way it looks for personal shooting. Its central sharpness is good even at f/2, but I don't think its corner sharpness is quite up to snuff for the more "commercial" pictures I need for work.
- 35mm f/2 Canon -- this is an LTM lens from the early 1960s. It's ridiculously tiny and very sharp, especially at f/2.8 and slower. My only kick is with backlight resistance (1960s coatings, y'know...)
- 50mm f/1.5 Voigtlander Nokton -- another LTM lens from the same vintage as the 28/1.9 (I bought them both around 2004 to use on my then-new Epson R-D1.) Like the 28/1.9, its hood intrudes a bit into the Pixii's rangefinder patch, so I usually remove it, but that doesn't hurt the 50's backlight performance nearly as much as it does the 28's. I can't complain about its sharpness either. One thing that does bother me about it -- and this goes all the way back to my R-D1 days -- is that small, bright areas against dark backgrounds acquire a compact but harsh "glow" effect that's nothing like the pretty glow of a Sonnar. I suspect it may be due to light bouncing off the sensor and being reflected from the rear element of the lens back onto the sensor, but I can't think of any way to mitigate it. I can live with it, but it's annoying enough that eventually I'll want to replace this lens too... I'm just not sure with what.
The way I like to produce this kind of photo is kind of old-fashioned -- it involves closely observing what people are doing, sometimes over a long stretch of time, and then trying to take a photo at the "story-telling moment" -- and I have to say the Pixii has worked out absolutely superbly at it. Although the viewfinder magnification is low-ish at 0.67x, it provides a very sharp view that makes it easy to see subject details, and the rangefinder snaps in very quickly.
Here's an Adobe Lightroom gallery showing some typical pics I made with the 35mm f/2 Canon lens: https://adobe.ly/3x7blFx
And here's one using the 50mm f/1.5 Voigtlander LTM Nokton: https://adobe.ly/3LDKyoq
In case anybody is interested in using these two specific lenses on a Pixii, this should give you a rough idea of the kind of look you might get...
Godfrey
somewhat colored
My testing equipment is very, very simple: an Xrite Color Chart for spectral response, a Tri-Tone exposure test target for assessing sensitivity characteristics, and an Air Force standard resolution chart for spatial resolution.
Procedure:
—For spectral response and sensitivity—
- Set up each target, one at a time, such that it's evenly lit.
- Set up the camera on a stand or tripod such that the target fills the frame.
- Make reference exposures of the color and tri-tone charts using a known good incident reading exposure meter, in both color and monochrome mode. Capture seven (1/3 step) or five exposures (1/2 step), set manually, using the reference meter's reading from -1 to +1 EV using both the color and the monochrome settings.
- Set up the resolution chart.
- Pick a lens and a distance from the resolution chart that nets between 6 and 8 foot distance with the chart filling the frame.
- Stop the lens down to what you feel is the optimal f/stop.
- Set exposure manually for that f/stop.
- Set focus.
- Make exposures using both the color and the monochrome settings.
Absolute numbers don't really matter to me. I'm interested in the practical, visible differences between the two modes in order to use the monochrome mode to best advantage. Another test would be to then render the color to B&W, using my standard B&W rendering workflow, and do the same checking of all three parameters.
G