Pixii : A new M mount rangefinder

[setuporg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, adan said:

You do realize that that is a Leica M240 with a new skin?

It looks like it that least by the buttons but the PM says it's all different components inside...

Edited July 9, 2020 by setuporg

[nicci78]

17 hours ago, lct said:

Sounds like you're disturbed by that darned question of "equivalence"... A 1:1 VF is a VF with 100% magnification. Allows you to shoot both eyes open, better so than with the 0.91x VF of the M3. You cannot do that with any other VF be it 0.91x, 0.85x, 0.73x, 0.72x, 0.55x, 0.68x or 0.67x a la Pixii. Such 100% magnification allows also the rangefinder of the R-D1 to have a longer EBL than that of the Pixii in spite of its smaller mechanical length. Got it?

Why are you so upset ?
I think that I got it right.  
just wait to get in hands the Pixii to know the truth. 

I do think that Pixii and Epson R-D1 have the same viewfinder magnification. 
Otherwise something did not compute well with Pixii specs. 
 

If true, Pixii will have slightly better EBL than Epson’s 
 

Please remember that equivalency is just equivalency. Some kind of virtualisation that help you compare stuff between each other. It is not reality. 

Edited July 9, 2020 by nicci78

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[nicci78]

I think that Leica got it right with M8 1.33x crop factor. 
APS-C 1.5x crop is a step too far for M lenses 

[pop]

vor 18 Stunden schrieb nicci78:

I think that they said that EBL is 49.2mm because it got the equivalent of 1x viewfinder when converted from APS-C to full frame. 
So 49.2mm x 1 = 49.2mm 

Is it a valid maths ? I am not sure. Maybe. Maybe not. 

It may be "valid" "maths", but it's a useless bit of computation.

The viewfinder has a magnification of 0.67X. That means that everything you see through that viewfinder is two thirds smaller than what you see with the naked eye. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the format of the image the camera can capture. It still would be a .67X viewfinder if if was attached to a large format camera which exposes 8" by 10" sheet film.

lct is right in that they possibly confused "effective base" with "mechanical base".  

[pop]

vor 14 Minuten schrieb nicci78:

APS-C 1.5x crop is a step too far for M lenses 

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "too far for M lenses". I have used M lenses on several APC-C cameras, and there's nothing "too far" about the experience. As a matter of fact, the 40mm Summicron is one of my favorite lenses for that format; it feels much more natural to me than a 50mm does on a Full format camera.

[jaapv]

Of course you don't understand - it is rather meaningless - most if not all M lenses perform brilliantly on APS-C. I share your enthusiasm for the Summicron-C and the Summilux 24 is an absolute favourite of mine.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, nicci78 said:

Why are you so upset ?
I think that I got it right.  
just wait to get in hands the Pixii to know the truth. 

I do think that Pixii and Epson R-D1 have the same viewfinder magnification. 
Otherwise something did not compute well with Pixii specs. 
 

If true, Pixii will have slightly better EBL than Epson’s 
 

Please remember that equivalency is just equivalency. Some kind of virtualisation that help you compare stuff between each other. It is not reality. 

I am not upset at all, sorry if i sound like this. It is just that what you say is not accurate, sorry again. The R-D1 and the Pixii have not the same VF magnification given that the R-D1 is 1:1 and the Pixii 0.67x. As for Pixii to have a better EBL, it is not possible as i suggested above. EBL (effective base length) is MBL (mechanical base length) multiplied by VF magnification. Makes for Epson: 38.2mm MBL x 1 = 38.2mm EBL and for Pixii: 49.2mm MBL x 0.67 = 32.96mm EBL. To get better results, the Pixii would need either a longer MBL or a higher VF magnification or both .

[nicci78]

What you did not understand, is if Epson already converted in 24x36 term its viewfinder or not ?

Confusing ? Yes it is. I suspect that it is the case. Because both R-D1 and Pixii are APS-C cameras. And both viewfinder show 28mm at the shortest and 75mm at the longest. 

Because 0.68x VF over APS-C is equivalent to 1x VF over 24x36 
I mean that the field of view coverage is identical. But the magnification is different 

If it is not the case. Pixii has a very tiny and almost unusable viewfinder. But I don’t think so. 
 

Easiest way to know it. Is just to compare them side by side.

 

Edited July 9, 2020 by nicci78

[lct]

7 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

What you did not understand, is if Epson already converted in 24x36 term its viewfinder or not ?

Confusing ? Yes it is. I suspect that it is the case. Because both R-D1 and Pixii are APS-C cameras. And both viewfinder show 28mm at the shortest and 75mm at the longest. 

Because 0.68x VF over APS-C is equivalent to 1x VF over 24x36 
I mean that the field of view coverage is identical. But the magnification is different 

If it is not the case. Pixii has a very tiny and almost unusable viewfinder. But I don’t think so. 
 

Easiest way to know it. Is just to compare them side by side.

 

Sorry but there is nothing to "convert" in matter of VF magnification. Just to take an example, both my M8.2 and M240 have 0.68x VF magnification. The fact that the M8.2 is APS-H and the M240 FF has nothing to do with that. 

[pop]

vor 10 Minuten schrieb nicci78:

What you did not understand, is if Epson already converted in 24x36 term its viewfinder or not ?

The viewfinder is entirely independent of the image format. It has nothing to do with the size of the negative or the sensor. You can use the same view finder for a 6x9cm folding camera. Of course, if the finder has framelines which indicate how much will fit into your image, they must be drawn at the correct scale. But then, even the framelines will look the same for a sensor with an aspect ratio of 3:2 and a lens where the focal length corresponds to the diagonal of the image.

The only thing which changes with the magnification of the rangefinder is your ability to accurately focus the thing. A longer base and a larger apparent image makes you more accurate. A shorter base and a smaller apparent image (in the finder, not in the camera) makes you less accurate.

[UliWer]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

Of course you don't understand - it is rather meaningless - most if not all M lenses perform brilliantly on APS-C. I share your enthusiasm for the Summicron-C and the Summilux 24 is an absolute favourite of mine.

Perhaps it is not the „performance“ which might bother some people using M lenses with an APS-C sensor, but it might be the field of view.

To get the FOV of a 35mm lens on an APS-C camera you need a 24mm - not so many people have one. You cannot get wider than 28mm - and you need an M-lens with 18mm for this.
 

Of course there is more room for narrow FOVs... though this is not really the most popular range for M users and the small magnification of the viewfinder doesn‘t help.

Other APS-C cameras have their own set up of lenses which avoids these limitations. Then adapted  M-lenses might serve as a welcome addendum. But with an M-mount only APS-C seems to be wayward. 

[pop]

vor 1 Minute schrieb UliWer:

Perhaps it is not the „performance“ which might bother some people using M lenses with an APS-C sensor, but it might be the field of view.

To get the FOV of a 35mm lens on an APS-C camera you need a 24mm - not so many people have one. You cannot get wider than 28mm - and you need an M-lens with 18mm for this.
 

Of course there is more room for narrow FOVs... though this is not really the most popular range for M users and the small magnification of the viewfinder doesn‘t help.

Other APS-C cameras have their own set up of lenses which avoids these limitations. Then adapted  M-lenses might serve as a welcome addendum. But with an M-mount only APS-C seems to be wayward. 

Yes, but you can get away with cheaper FF lenses on the APS-C because the APS-C doesn't see the border regions of the image. Some lenses are expensive because projecting larger images becomes progressively more complex and, hence, more expensive. Thus, you can buy lenses with very short focal lenghts for that format, if you want to. Personally, I rarely need very wide angled lenses, so I'm often happy with APS-C.

[UliWer]

vor 5 Minuten schrieb lct:

Sorry but there is nothing to "convert" in matter of VF magnification. Just to take an example, both my M8.2 and M240 have 0.68x VF magnification. The fact that the M8.2 is APS-H and the M240 FF has nothing to do with that. 

Remember that the M8 had framelines for 24mm which the models with full format don‘t have? 
As pop said, you have to adjust the framelines to the field of view a lens with a certain focal length  gives on a sensor which is not „full“ size. 

[UliWer]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb pop:

Yes, but you can get away with cheaper FF lenses on the APS-C because the APS-C doesn't see the border regions of the image. 

Sure, though M-lenses are not so well known to be cheap - jaapv‘s 24mm Summilux with APS-C as an equivalent for a 35mm on full frame is perhaps a good example. A „proper“ APS-C camera could use „cheap“ lenses made for APS-C - but an M-mount camera with APS-C...?

[lct]

1 minute ago, UliWer said:

Remember that the M8 had framelines for 24mm which the models with full format don‘t have? 
As pop said, you have to adjust the framelines to the field of view a lens with a certain focal length  gives on a sensor which is not „full“ size. 

Framelines have nothing to do with EBL but you know this already don't you. There are only two factors to calculate EBL: mechanical base length and VF magnification.  

[pop]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb UliWer:

Sure, though M-lenses are not so well known to be cheap - jaapv‘s 24mm Summilux with APS-C as an equivalent for a 35mm on full frame is perhaps a good example. A „proper“ APS-C camera could use „cheap“ lenses made for APS-C - but an M-mount camera with APS-C...?

 - Not all M mount lenses are made by Leica, and even not all lenses made by Leica are expensive, really expensive, that is. Then, there are lenses made for the M39 mount, if you want to play.

[UliWer]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb pop:

...and even not all lenses made by Leica are expensive, really expensive, that is

Yes, the „cheap“ 24mm Elmar is better in the edges than the 24mm Summilux. Though you pay a lot of money for a 1:3.8/36mm equivalent, if you use it on APS-C. Of course you might think of Voigtländer etc. Though I think they are even more expensive than original Fuji lenses for APS-C, though I may be wrong since I am not familiar with the prices. 

[adan]

49 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

Because both R-D1 and Pixii are APS-C cameras. And both viewfinder show 28mm at the shortest and 75mm at the longest. 

Not really.

They have framelines for use with 28, 35, (40) and 50mm lenses. Cropped by 1.5x

Those show the equivalent fields of view (counting the crop factor) for 42, 52, (60) and 75 lenses.

Your 50 becomes an effective "75mm" - AND your 28 becomes an effective "42mm." What you gain at the long end, you lose at the wide end. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

That is the problem with APS-sensor rangefinders - one winds up with 3 slightly different "normal" lenses, plus one short telephoto, as far as the internal viewfinder goes. BOR-ing!

[jaapv]

55 minutes ago, UliWer said:

Perhaps it is not the „performance“ which might bother some people using M lenses with an APS-C sensor, but it might be the field of view.

To get the FOV of a 35mm lens on an APS-C camera you need a 24mm - not so many people have one. You cannot get wider than 28mm - and you need an M-lens with 18mm for this.
 

Of course there is more room for narrow FOVs... though this is not really the most popular range for M users and the small magnification of the viewfinder doesn‘t help.

Other APS-C cameras have their own set up of lenses which avoids these limitations. Then adapted  M-lenses might serve as a welcome addendum. But with an M-mount only APS-C seems to be wayward. 

Maybe it is just me, but I am not hung up about angle of view. I compose my photographs by the way the composition presents itself to me, Framing can just  as well be done by moving forward or backwards -  often better perspective too. I pay little attention to the number on the barrel. Same with DOF. It is  just  one  of many  ways  to separate  components  of a composition. If you need fuzzy ears-nosetip to get a portrait you have chosen the wrong background. Except when photographing Bunnies - of course.

The only time it gets really relevant is  when shooting specialized stuff like extreme wideangle or tele, or purposeful shallow DOF  (about 3% of the wide-open images I see really please me )

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[nicci78]

6 hours ago, pop said:

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "too far for M lenses". I have used M lenses on several APC-C cameras, and there's nothing "too far" about the experience. As a matter of fact, the 40mm Summicron is one of my favorite lenses for that format; it feels much more natural to me than a 50mm does on a Full format camera.

Why too far. Easy :

full frame M allow use of Leica M lenses from 28mm to 135mm. Down to 16mm with external OVF  

But M8 1.33x crop only give equivalent field of view of 24mm (32mm) to 90mm (120mm). Down to 16mm (21mm) only with external OVF 
 

And now APS-C M-mount will only give you access to equivalent field of view of 28mm (42mm) to 75mm (112.5mm) Down to 16mm (24mm) with external OVF 

So it is much more limited.