Pixii : A new M mount rangefinder

[tom.w.bn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 15 Stunden schrieb lct:

Same problem as Epson in 2004. Too expensive for a non Leica body. The R-D1's price started at 3,000 EUR if memory serves me well but it had no competitor then. Its price was reduced to 2,000 EUR (R-D1s) two years later but it was too late then.

The problem of the Epson was the crop factor. Most people had a problem that their expensiv 28mm or 24mm lens is not a wideangle on that body. When that camera is your only digital rangefinder camera to mount these lenses on, crop factor is an important factor. Only when you consider this as your 2nd ord 3rd camera body and you already have a fullframe camera for the lenses, you won't see the problem.

[jaapv]

People didn't have much of a crop problem with the M8. Nor with the Nikons of the day that donated the sensor of the RD1.

[lct]

56 minutes ago, jaapv said:

People didn't have much of a crop problem with the M8. Nor with the Nikons of the day that donated the sensor of the RD1.

Exactly. I had an APS-C Nikon D70 then and was quite happy to use my M lenses on the R-D1. BTW the latter was using the sensor of the D100 which had a bit less acutance but less moiré problems than the D70. 

[tom.w.bn]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb jaapv:

People didn't have much of a crop problem with the M8. Nor with the Nikons of the day that donated the sensor of the RD1.

It seems you know other people than I do and you use a CL yourself. It seems you are a "tele person" while I am more a "wide person". I had the M8 for years. Never really used the 50mm lens. Too long on the M8, ideal on a full frame sensor. Mainly used my 28mm and 35 lens as a normal lenses on the M8 and wished many times to have something wider than a crop 28. What a relief the M9 was when I could use 28 and 50 again with their intended characteristic.  I know 4 other people who used M8 and R-D1 (not much I know). None of them were happy with the crop. If you are a Tele person then I can understand that a crop might make you happy.

[lct]

FF was not an option for M lens users in 2004. It was R-D1 or nothing digital. Full frame Ms appeared only in 2009.

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, tom.w.bn said:

It seems you know other people than I do and you use a CL yourself. It seems you are a "tele person" while I am more a "wide person". I had the M8 for years. Never really used the 50mm lens. Too long on the M8, ideal on a full frame sensor. Mainly used my 28mm and 35 lens as a normal lenses on the M8 and wished many times to have something wider than a crop 28. What a relief the M9 was when I could use 28 and 50 again with their intended characteristic.  I know 4 other people who used M8 and R-D1 (not much I know). None of them were happy with the crop. If you are a Tele person then I can understand that a crop might make you happy.

You are forgetting that virtually all sensors back then were variants on APS. You could basically only buy a Canon 1D it Kodak if you wanted full frame. It was even seen as a bit of nonsense marketing. There were.for the Leica and Epson fine Voigtlander wides. 

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I used the M8 with a 24mm lens (near enough to a 35 on FF). If you wanted wide-angles, the problem wasn't the crop factor, it was the lack of wide-angle lenses. And FWIW I had a Canon 1DS and bought the 20mm for it which I was never happy with. Full frame, yes. Wide-angle lens, yes. Good enough results, no. May have been the copy I had but I suspect not because I was not alone in finding the 20mm problematic on the full frame Canons. Today there are more wide-angle options for M mount. I don't see the format as so much of a problem as the price.

[jankap]

A high start price is to cream off the early buyers and reviewers. See the Sigma interview, at first the fp sold very well.

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

I used the M8 with a 24mm lens (near enough to a 35 on FF). If you wanted wide-angles, the problem wasn't the crop factor, it was the lack of wide-angle lenses. And FWIW I had a Canon 1DS and bought the 20mm for it which I was never happy with. Full frame, yes. Wide-angle lens, yes. Good enough results, no. May have been the copy I had but I suspect not because I was not alone in finding the 20mm problematic on the full frame Canons. Today there are more wide-angle options for M mount. I don't see the format as so much of a problem as the price.

There was a very nice Sigma semi-fisheye 16 mm for Canon which could be postprocessed into a rectilinear 21 on the crop sensor of my 10D and (hacked) Rebel backup. I had a 1Ds for a short while but disliked it intensely. 

[IkarusJohn]

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

You are forgetting that virtually all sensors back then were variants on APS. You could basically only buy a Canon 1D it Kodak if you wanted full frame. It was even seen as a bit of nonsense marketing. There were.for the Leica and Epson fine Voigtlander wides. 

Yet another reason I stuck with film for so long ...

[jaapv]

35 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Yet another reason I stuck with film for so long ...

As I had lost my darkroom in the mid-nineties, sticking with film was not much of an option. I was not much of a film-format fanatic anyway, using anything from 110 to 645.

[IkarusJohn]

Perhaps there was nothing in it, but I never got my head around crop factors.  Silly, I know.  Even zooms were a bit discomforting - I would tend to use the extremes - wide or long, everything in between felt like cheating.  When the M9 came out, digital made sense.  In medium format, I still wish my X1D II had a 6x6 format (imagine the heat it would generate!)

Edited July 11, 2020 by IkarusJohn

[jaapv]

i wouldn't say silly - just a way of looking at things. I am not really a wideangle type, it takes a conscious effort to switch my compositional mindset. 6x6 was a great format - I started out on 6x9 and 6x6.