New Pixii 26MP

[Coldkennels]

I've had a basic spreadsheet for years that I use to help me get my head around this:



While yes, I understand that using 35mm as a standard is far from perfect (and might be outright frustrating if you're a die-hard 6x7 evangelist, for example), that does tend to be the way most photographers think, so it's a handy point of reference.

I can't upload .ods files as an attachment, but if this is useful to someone, I'm happy to recreate it on Google Sheets or something for people to tinker with.

 

[Godfrey]

Well, if you want an *extremely simple* little Excel program ... example: put 50 in in the upper left box, read my six 35mm (FF) lens choices from Ultra Wide, Wide, Normal, Medium Portrait, Portrait, and Tele:


If you want the FourThirds list, put 25 in the upper left box ...



Of course, you can edit the formulae in the second column boxes to suit your favorite set of lens focal lengths. 🙂
It produces pretty accurate equivalents based on my test with FourThirds, APS-C, FF, and Hasselblad X formats, but you can always tweak it to reflect your personal preferences.

lens_equiv.xlsx

enjoy!
G

 

[Godfrey]

I've had a basic spreadsheet for years that I use to help me get my head around this:
...

LOL! Two great minds with a single thought. I started writing my post earlier this afternoon but dozed off in my chair. Just pushed the send button and then saw your post pop up... 🙂

...
The link in mine goes to an "RFF-Share" directory on DropBox. It's a convenient way to share miscellaneous files. Let me know if it works for you folks. 🙂

G

— Oh Yes:
Given a known "normal" focal length, the FoV of any other category, to first order approximation, is that normal value times the proportion of the other categories. For my six favorite 35mm focal lengths, the multipliers are

Ultra Wide 0.42x
Wide 0.70x
Normal 1.0x
Medium Portrait 1.5x
Portrait 1.8x
Tele 2.7x

The focal length values are quite close in my check against the four formats I've worked with a lot (FourThirds, APS-C Leica, 35mm FF, and Hasselblad X), but you can tune them to whatever works best for you very easily.

Have fun!

 

[ranger9]

Of course crop factors are a real thing. They're a way to easily understand what the angle of view a lens with a given focal on one camera will be on another camera. Because a huge number of photographers are most used to 35mm film (and more recently "full frame" digital) cameras, using that sensor/film size as a common reference makes great sense.

I have no real idea what the angle of view in degrees is for the lenses I use is, but I definitely know intuitively how a 50mm lens looks on my 35mm cameras. Just because people in the past were more likely to think in those terms doesn't mean that people thinking in different terms is somehow wrong or not real.

"A huge number of photographers" -- I would guess nearly 100% of new photographers -- have come into and are coming into photography through using phone cameras and finding they enjoy image-making enough that they want to use a more interesting camera. (Side note: Pixii founder/CEO David Barth has stated that an explicit design goal for Pixii was to create "a camera that would be interesting to use.")

Crop factors are completely useless to these photographers -- or almost anybody else, really. What photographers need to know is what's going to be in the picture. They don't need to know what would have been in the picture if they had been using a particular camera/lens combo that was popular back in Grandpa's day.

It makes absolutely no sense to force photo newcomers to look up hard-to-find sensor and lens specifications, then do high-precision math to convert them to one obsolete-film-camera "equivalent", then yet again to another obsolete-film-camera "equivalent" to find out, for example, how the picture they take with their newly-acquired Yashicamat 124G (or whatever) compares to what they're used to seeing through their phones. On the other hand, if they look up the angles of view (readily available and easy to compare) they'll be able to see exactly what the difference means in terms of real-world photography.

Incidentally, that's another reason angles of view are useful and crop factors are not: Knowing your lens' angle of view makes it easy to answer questions such as "If the stage is 20 feet wide and I'm shooting with Camera X and Lens Y, how far away do I need to be to include the whole band?" Crop factors are completely useless here.

Admit it: The only reason we still talk about crop factors on RFF and other nostalgia-centric forums is that most of us are crabby old guys who learned photography on film cameras and want to force photo newcomers to do things our way. We imagine that this will make them want to sit at our feet and fawn on us and bow down to our superior experience and arcane knowledge.

But they don't and they won't. They'll think the whole thing is stupid and walk away. And they're right.

PS -- I'll admit that crop factors are useful for direct conversions: "What Simplex-format accessory viewfinder do I need to use a lens of 90mm marked focal length on my Epson R-D1?" (90 x 1.53 and round; job done.) On the other hand, if you find a cool Linhof finder that's marked for 4x5 you'll need to jump through more hoops... or make things easy on yourself by comparing the angles of view.

 

[enasniearth]

what I find confusing is the selection of the Leica m mount which is set up for 24x36 image size
the camera is beautiful & interesting , however as a user who shoots mainly wide angles the m lenses
with the crop factor are not just wide enough . so I find the camera limited by that selection .

 

[Godfrey]

what I find confusing is the selection of the Leica m mount which is set up for 24x36 image size
the camera is beautiful & interesting , however as a user who shoots mainly wide angles the m lenses
with the crop factor are not just wide enough . so I find the camera limited by that selection .

The choice of lens mount was probably based on "what people interested in a rangefinder digital camera might have", and also probably because a Leica M-mount lens is a simple, mechanical interface with no need for any trickery to integrate it with the camera, and also probably because there are a LOT of Leica M-mount lenses available from Leica, Zeiss, Voigtländer, TTArtisans, etc. Focal lengths available from 10mm to 135mm easily, longer with adapters.

If you are primarily a wide angle photographer, the traditional Leica M "28-35-50-75-90-135" lens range is replaced for the Pixii by something like "18-24-35-50-75-90", which for most people who have the traditional set is closely approximated by simply adding a 15 or 18 mm lens. I have 10, 15, and 21 mm lenses, which go from ultra-ultra-wide to wide on APS-C.

G

 

[Archlich]

Feels like we're back in 2004...hope CV could churn out a new set of "D" finders...

 

[Godfrey]

Not sure there's much need for a D finder. Just pick a finder for the equivalent focal length if youre outside the built-in range. How many lenses do you really intend to use?

A 28mm finder works fine for the 21mm, a 21mm for the 15, a 15 for the 10mm in my case. I happened to have all of them already.

G

 

[armadsen]

The only reason we still talk about crop factors on RFF and other nostalgia-centric forums is that most of us are crabby old guys who learned photography on film cameras and want to force photo newcomers to do things our way.

I consider myself neither old, nor crabby. I'm a millennial who didn't start shooting on a "real" camera until after I already had an iPhone. My first serious camera was an APS-C sensor Canon DSLR. I still think about lens focal lengths in terms of 35mm, as does my gen Z little brother, also an avid photographer. I shoot every format from Minox up through 4x5 and find crop factors to be a nice, easy to remember, easy to calculate way understand how given focal length will perform on a given sensor. Certainly it's a lot easier than memorizing fields of view for a whole set of lenses for each camera, or even creating a spreadsheet to calculate them for me.

This seems like a pretty explicit complaint that "back in the day" you all had it right and the newcomers are the ones doing it wrong when they use crop factors:

People, people, people... "crop factors" are NOT a real thing! They're just one of those aberrations spawned by the Internet.

Back in the day, nobody went around saying, "So, if I have a 47mm Super-Angulon on my Super Technika, then the crop factor on my Hasselblad 1000F would be..." Instead, they thought about lenses in terms of angles of view. Here's a spiffy chart...

"If the stage is 20 feet wide and I'm shooting with Camera X and Lens Y, how far away do I need to be to include the whole band?"

Personally I find it downright easy to multiply 35mm by 1.5 to get about 50mm, thus telling me that my 35mm lens will have about the same field of view on my Fuji mirrorless as my 50mm has on my Canon A-1, which I'm very used to. By contrast, I'd have to bust out a pen, paper and a calculator to do the trigonometry needed to figure out how far back to be from a 20ft stage I should shoot given the viewing angle in degrees of my lens. And that would only be possible if I had already memorized a whole table of focal lengths vs sensor size vs. angle of view.

 

[enasniearth]

if you grew up shooting film - you can look at the scene and decide the lens from your shooting background
the pixii is a beautiful camera - with some innovative software & technical features - I hope they succeed
if you are shooting the pixii and have a lens you use on it - its kinda the same as old school - you know the field of view
before the camera comes to eye .
its just a tool - like a circle saw , battering ram , inclined plane or wheel
anytime you try to analyze it - you have lost the shot

 

[enasniearth]

I tried to edit my above post - there doesn't seem to be a way on the new. rff
my just a tool comment is my ny sarcasm showing itself - as photographers
we each have a way of looking at & doing things photographic
the pixii is a really beautiful camera that I would like to shoot with &
that I find interesting

 

[boojum]

I bought the camera because it was interesting and seemed to have nice color and IQ. This has proved to be true in my use. I explain it in terms I understand by saying it is less M9 Kodachrome and more Agfachrome but without the sometimes orange Agfachrome skin tones. Not as sparkley and more valid. Lenses, I like it with my '57 J8 or Cooke Amotal. It does OK with a Canon 28mm LTM f/2.8 and Canon 35mm LTM f/2.0. But the two 50's are good and what I usually use. Field of view, crop factor or any of that interest me little. All I care about is a good picture with good light and color and maybe some interest. I try to put an interesting image inside the frame-lines and then press the shutter button. All the rest is above my pay grade.

 

[Whitten]

The problem with the crop factor is that most people with Leica M lenses own 28mm, 35mm and 50mm. My favourite Leica lens is my pre-asph 35, f2. I like the look of the images in 35mm and don't want to find myself shooting 'normal' (50-65mm) equivalent. My least good Leica lens is my 28 f2.8 and even that doesn't get me to 35mm on a Pixii. So apart from the cost of Pixii I will find myself buying a new Voigtlander lens (21mm, 24mm?).
That's 3.5k when there are full frame Leica rangefinders available for 2.5k
It's the choice of M mount with the crop that is the issue for me. Obviously Nikon and Fuji (just for example) offer a wide variety of high quality wide angle lenses at a reasonable price.
The other issue for me is the electronic shutter. I've had issues indoors with artificial light and my Sigma FP.
Other than that (which are two big deals for me unfortunately) I would love to own and use a Pixii.

 

[Godfrey]

I don't recall seeing any issues with indoor lighting using the Pixii... my home illuminated almost entirely with LED bulbs and fixtures now, which is where i tend to shoot with artificial light most. What sorts of lighting circumstances are you seeing issues with the Sigma fp under?

Regards M-mount lenses, well, I doubt the Pixii market is constrained to only those who already have a full complement of Leica M-mount lenses. Like with any other new camera purchase, i'd assume that most buyers will buy the camera and a lens or two to use on it, in addition to what they already have. For M-mount wides, there are a range of reasonably priced and decent performing choices nowadays in focal lengths from 10 to 24mm. A fast (f/1.4) 21mm (very useful focal length on APS-C) from Voigtlander alone can be had for $900, or $400 for a more modest speed lens. Others like TTArtisans and such are also available. Voigtlander also has excellent performing 10, 12, and 15 mm lenses available at not unreasonably expensive pricing.

Whether the Pixii is the right camera rather than a secondhand Leica depends a lot on the individual buyer's desires and needs, and whether the feature set of the Pixii (as well as its haptics and imaging performance) suits. I decided against it after testing it for a few weeks and went for a new M10-M body instead, and am very glad I did so even though the M10-M cost a substantial amount more, and is more specialized; I'm fortunate that I could afford to, but believe me that it wasn't an easy decision. That remains a lot of money for any purchase, to me.

G

 

[raid]

Do you mean the M10 Monochrom?

 

[Godfrey]

Do you mean the M10 Monochrom?

Yes, M10 Monochrom ... shorthand M10-M on most forums. 😉

G

 

[Whitten]

I don't recall seeing any issues with indoor lighting using the Pixii...

A couple of the (rare) online reviews mention it.
I had it with mixed LED lighting that was varying in strength.

 

[LCT]

The problem with the crop factor is that most people with Leica M lenses own 28mm, 35mm and 50mm. My favourite Leica lens is my pre-asph 35, f2. I like the look of the images in 35mm and don't want to find myself shooting 'normal' (50-65mm) equivalent. My least good Leica lens is my 28 f2.8 and even that doesn't get me to 35mm on a Pixii. So apart from the cost of Pixii I will find myself buying a new Voigtlander lens (21mm, 24mm?).
[...]

Same with Epson R-D1 or digital CL, similar with Leica M8. The advantage is 50mm lenses becoming compact equiv. 75's too. CV 21/4 on R-D1 here.

 

[jsrockit]

"A huge number of photographers" -- I would guess nearly 100% of new photographers -- have come into and are coming into photography through using phone cameras and finding they enjoy image-making enough that they want to use a more interesting camera. (Side note: Pixii founder/CEO David Barth has stated that an explicit design goal for Pixii was to create "a camera that would be interesting to use.")

Crop factors are completely useless to these photographers -- or almost anybody else, really.

Well, except for these users have to use available lenses for the Pixii. Which means they need to know about crop factors. The math is not hard.

By the way, the specs on Apple's website convert the iPhones cameras to, you guessed it, 35mm equivalents.

 

[Whitten]

I accepted it on the RD1 because it was 12 years ago and Leica didn't have a digital M at the time. Historically (pro) Leica M users have been split between 28/35 and 50mm photographers. The RD1 frameline selector only had those options. So for me it's a negative that a brand new M mount camera is still APSC.