Pixii - complementary or competition? [Merged]

[Chris W]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

19 hours ago, loloboubou1 said:

Different camera luts, different renders

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What lenses are you using? The one thing that is bothering me about Pixii (crop factor).

[loloboubou1]

1 hour ago, Chris W said:

What lenses are you using? The one thing that is bothering me about Pixii (crop factor).

I don't listen to what I read on the forums... except when it's well argued and technically sound. For example for this crop question what Ranger9 writes on the Rangefinder Forum thread dedicated to the Pixii.
In fact, I prefer to experiment. On pixii I use:
- an uncoupled heliar 15 4.5 CV (and obviously super simple for focusing). For the frame I use a 21 external viewfinder and it's perfect keeping the outer edge of the frame.
- an elmar 24 3.8 (excellent) with, for the frame, a marvelous Leica SBOOI external viewfinder (35mm). I often say that you have to have seen the world at least once in your life through the glass of an SBOOI. For information, to all those who say (Fujiists x Leicaists), without having tried, that the lenses intended for the APS-C format are better than those in M mount manufactured for the FF, take images (with adapter ring) with a Elmar 24 against any XF 23...
- Apoqualia 2.0 28 (VF frame)
- CV Apo Lanthar 2.0 35. (VF frame)

- CV Nokton 1.5 50 (VF frame)

- CV  Heliar 2.5 75 I frame a little wide around the patch
- Summicron 90 i frame ... in the patch

I should be trying out a CV 12 soon, maybe a cron 40 (CL) and am looking for a loan for a 9 Iaowa.

In short, I don't see where the problem would be with the crop factor. Unless you want to mount a visoflex with a 135 but that's another problem! 😉

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

1 hour ago, loloboubou1 said:

In short, I don't see where the problem would be with the crop factor.

Neither do i with any crop camera. I don't even understand what can be bothering in that. It is rather the opposite IMHO. Same superb M lenses w/o corner issues. Worked fine with the R-D1 and still works fine with the digital CL. Only problem comes from the fact that WA and UWA M lenses are either too big or too slow on crop cameras. Now Pixii is not the culprit in that, aside from the fact that a crop format has been chosen for a rather expensive camera but it is another story. 

[ramarren]

Even the term "crop format" has a certain degree of prejudice in it, as if 35mm film's 24x36mm format is somehow superior to anything else. Rubbish! 

The fact that a "from scratch" designed, hand-built camera with an M-mount uses a 16x24mm sensor is not relevant to any notion of "... it ought to have ..." or price. The only questions that make sense are:

• "What lenses work well on it?" and "Do I have/like those lenses?"
• "How well does the sensor perform?"
• "Are the size, weight, and ergonomics in use what I am looking for?"
• "Is the quality of the camera worth the money to me?"

An f/4 lens is just fine on a RF camera for my needs, particularly if ISO 1600-3200 performs well. I suspect the Pixii in my hands will find itself fitted with either the Color-Skopar 28mm f/3.5 or Color-Skopar 21mm f/3.5 most of the time. Of course, the Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Special will also work beautifully...

G

[GLAUMAX]

Pixii went to the beach (with the Minolta Rokkor-M 28mm). DNG files lightly processed in LR.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

[pgk]

52 minutes ago, ramarren said:

Even the term "crop format" has a certain degree of prejudice in it, as if 35mm film's 24x36mm format is somehow superior to anything else.

I have no prejudice as such, but I do use really good 20/1mm full-frame field of view lenses on various cameras (21/3.4 SEM, 20/1.8FE) and to me it is essential to have such a lens. I do not want zooms. So to me the 'crop format' has far less interest because of what I want to do. Qulitywide the pixii looks pretty good (I must download some .DNGs though). If they made a simple full-frame RF camera like a digital M4 I'd be VERY interested assuming it wasn't as stratospherically expensive as the M11.

Edited April 9, 2022 by pgk
typo

[Chris W]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I seem to be having this argument in multiple places.

The crop issue for me is all about my personal experience and not influenced by others.

My best two Leica M lenses are the 35mm f2 and the 50mm f1.4. Both are great optically and very small in size and weight. My favourite lens type (or whatever you want to call it) is equivalent to 35mm (medium wide). I often try 50mm equivalent but never enjoy it as much as 35. I also sold my Leica Q because I didn't get on with 28mm.

I have an M28mm f2.8, but it's bigger than the other two and not as good optically.

I owned a Voigtlander 21mm f4 and didn't think it was very good (plenty of purple fringing for example).

*So* the crop factor issue for me is all about classic M lenses - which IMO tended to be 35mm and 50mm... and having to buy some other lens to achieve 35mm on a Pixii.

I had this same dilemma when I owned the Epson RD1s in the early 2000's and more recently with a used M8. 

 

[Chris W]

1 hour ago, ramarren said:

 

• "What lenses work well on it?" and "Do I have/like those lenses?"
•  

Yes, the issue for me is that I don't have the lenses. I have cherished M lenses that are suddenly not wide or 'normal' (35 and 50mm) and I haven't yet found a lens that equals medium wide (35) on these crop sensor cameras - like the Pixii, RD1 or M8 - that I thought was as good as my M35mm f2.

Edited April 9, 2022 by Chris W

[Chris W]

Pixii looks great and the images posted are also great.

it’s surprising that my enquiry about lenses prompted a lot of projection about ‘prejudice’.

my attitude about the ‘crop’ comes from fairly long term ownership of the RD1 and M8.

In the end - an M mount camera that renders my best M lenses redundant to me is much less appealing.

if I have to buy different, new lenses, it’s like a new system camera to me.

i asked about the lenses that people were using so I could evaluate whether I wanted to ho down that road (buying more lenses). It was a genuine question.

I still might. But having owned an RD1 an M8 and currently a CL, I find the medium wide lens becoming more like a 45 to 50mm is not what I enjoy using.

 

[lct]

57 minutes ago, Chris W said:

I owned a Voigtlander 21mm f4 and didn't think it was very good (plenty of purple fringing for example).

*So* the crop factor issue for me is all about classic M lenses - which IMO tended to be 35mm and 50mm... and having to buy some other lens to achieve 35mm on a Pixii.

I had this same dilemma when I owned the Epson RD1s in the early 2000's and more recently with a used M8. 

The Skopar 21/4 does not produce significant purple fringing in my experience. Its problem is red edges on some FF cameras but it worked fine on my R-D1 except for soft corners. It was a camera from 2004 though and i got no significant problem on the digital CL since then (link at f/4). This way my usual lenses on those crop cameras (sorry Ramarren ) are 21, 35 and 50 with the Skopar 21/3.5 asph instead of the 21/4 when i'm after sharper corners. But the 21/3.5 produces more purple fringing than the 21/4. Just for info.

[ramarren]

2 hours ago, lct said:

The Skopar 21/4 does not produce significant purple fringing in my experience. Its problem is red edges on some FF cameras but it worked fine on my R-D1 except for soft corners. It was a camera from 2004 though and i got no significant problem on the digital CL since then (link at f/4). This way my usual lenses on those crop cameras (sorry Ramarren ) are 21, 35 and 50 with the Skopar 21/3.5 asph instead of the 21/4 when i'm after sharper corners. But the 21/3.5 produces more purple fringing than the 21/4. Just for info.

Hmm. Last two posts I made to this thread disappeared into the ether. 

I has a Color-Skopar 21/4 for a few years. It didn't excite me and didn't seem to perform well on the M9, although it did very nicely on the Ricoh GXR. I recently purchased the new version Color-Skopar 21mm f/3.5 v1. I haven't tested it on a FF camera so far, but it performs superbly on the Leica CL. I see very little color fringing in my tests of it, and what I see is all simple red-green chromatic aberration that LR removes completely with the lens corrections panel. No purple or green fringing at all, at least with my example and the CL sensor. 

Color fringing is often a mismatch between the particular lens and a particular sensor stack, so I reserve judgement on how it performs on the Pixii until I have a Pixii in my hands to test it with.  

G

[ramarren]

3 hours ago, Chris W said:

I seem to be having this argument in multiple places.

The crop issue for me is all about my personal experience and not influenced by others.

My best two Leica M lenses are the 35mm f2 and the 50mm f1.4. Both are great optically and very small in size and weight. My favourite lens type (or whatever you want to call it) is equivalent to 35mm (medium wide). I often try 50mm equivalent but never enjoy it as much as 35. I also sold my Leica Q because I didn't get on with 28mm.

I have an M28mm f2.8, but it's bigger than the other two and not as good optically.

I owned a Voigtlander 21mm f4 and didn't think it was very good (plenty of purple fringing for example).

*So* the crop factor issue for me is all about classic M lenses - which IMO tended to be 35mm and 50mm... and having to buy some other lens to achieve 35mm on a Pixii.

I had this same dilemma when I owned the Epson RD1s in the early 2000's and more recently with a used M8. 

 

3 hours ago, Chris W said:

Yes, the issue for me is that I don't have the lenses. I have cherished M lenses that are suddenly not wide or 'normal' (35 and 50mm) and I haven't yet found a lens that equals medium wide (35) on these crop sensor cameras - like the Pixii, RD1 or M8 - that I thought was as good as my M35mm f2.

 

3 hours ago, Chris W said:

Pixii looks great and the images posted are also great.

it’s surprising that my enquiry about lenses prompted a lot of projection about ‘prejudice’.

my attitude about the ‘crop’ comes from fairly long term ownership of the RD1 and M8.

In the end - an M mount camera that renders my best M lenses redundant to me is much less appealing.

if I have to buy different, new lenses, it’s like a new system camera to me.

i asked about the lenses that people were using so I could evaluate whether I wanted to ho down that road (buying more lenses). It was a genuine question.

I still might. But having owned an RD1 an M8 and currently a CL, I find the medium wide lens becoming more like a 45 to 50mm is not what I enjoy using.

Well, if you really want to keep and use the lenses you have, and want the FoV and rendering qualities as they are currently expressed on a 35mm FF format, you have no choice but to buy a 35mm FF format camera. I'd suggest the Pixii would be foolish to buy if that's your goal ... I'd put that money into a used M10 or similar. To me, this is just common sense and says nothing negative about the Pixii or you: it's just what you want and the Pixii, by its definition and specification, cannot deliver it. 

I've used my M-mount lens kit since I re-invested in M-mount equipment starting in 2011 on several cameras, both APS-C and FF format. Depending on whether a camera is APS-C or M-mount simply defines which particular lenses I use more of the time. The cameras I've used these lenses on include but are not restricted to the Ricoh GXR-M, Leica M4-2, M9, M-P 240, SL, M-D 262, and CL. 

• A FF equivalent FoV to a 35mm lens means using a 24mm lens on the Pixii. The 24mm I have is an MS Optical Aporia 24mm f/2 ... It's a teensy lens that performs beautifully on the Leica CL; can't wait to try it on the Pixii.
• A FF equivalent for a 50mm lens means using a 35mm lens on the Pixii. I have a 1972 Summilux 35mm f/1.4 v2 that I use on the CL ... a genuine Walter Mandler original ... one of my most favorite lenses.

I'll use both of these on the Pixii.

There're also the Voigtlander Color Skopar 25mm f/4 P (CameraQuest.com still has some of these in stock) and the ZEISS Biogon T* 25mm f/2.8 ZM Lens, both of which have great reviews from a lot of folks who have them. 

G

Edited April 9, 2022 by ramarren

[lct]

29 minutes ago, ramarren said:

Color fringing is often a mismatch between the particular lens and a particular sensor stack, so I reserve judgement on how it performs on the Pixii until I have a Pixii in my hands to test it with.

Will be interesting to see on the Pixii but it's rather obvious on the M240 (left). Easy to fix in PP though (right).

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[loloboubou1]

I will add to the list 2 lenses of very high quality:
- the elmar 24 3.8, often shunned by owners of leica M which performs remarkably on Pixii (taking advantage of its very good behavior up to 5200 ISO)
- the zeiss biogon ZM 25 2.8 and its magnificent 3D effect. It is easier to find on occasion than the Elmar and at very reasonable prices for this quality.

Ramaren I am waiting with great impatience for the rendering of Master Myazaki's 24 MS-Optics! I myself used the apoqualia 2.0 28 which I find excellent in the street in artificial light as well as in landscape (and yes despite its tiny size) after f 5.6

[ramarren]

12 hours ago, pgk said:

I have no prejudice as such, but I do use really good 20/1mm full-frame field of view lenses on various cameras (21/3.4 SEM, 20/1.8FE) and to me it is essential to have such a lens. I do not want zooms. So to me the 'crop format' has far less interest because of what I want to do. Qulitywide the pixii looks pretty good (I must download some .DNGs though). If they made a simple full-frame RF camera like a digital M4 I'd be VERY interested assuming it wasn't as stratospherically expensive as the M11.

For APS-C, that's about a 14mm focal length so a Voigtländer Helier 15/4.5 Aspherical III would likely work well, modulo whether it shades the RF window by too much. Of course, on APS-C, the DoF of that lens (like my HyperWide 10mm) is so great you can pretty much scale focus with perfect confidence.  

7 hours ago, loloboubou1 said:

I will add to the list 2 lenses of very high quality:
- the elmar 24 3.8, often shunned by owners of leica M which performs remarkably on Pixii (taking advantage of its very good behavior up to 5200 ISO)
- the zeiss biogon ZM 25 2.8 and its magnificent 3D effect. It is easier to find on occasion than the Elmar and at very reasonable prices for this quality.

Ramaren I am waiting with great impatience for the rendering of Master Myazaki's 24 MS-Optics! I myself used the apoqualia 2.0 28 which I find excellent in the street in artificial light as well as in landscape (and yes despite its tiny size) after f 5.6

The Aporia 24mm f/2 is delightful and teensy! 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

I posted a little set of test shots with it, used on both the CL as in the photo above and fitted to the Hasselblad 907x as well...

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmWp2g1w

It's a wonderful, tiny lens with beautiful rendering and color. I have heard that some have found the RF cam calibration is slightly off as delivered. I haven't tested mine for that ... Perhaps I'll do that tomorrow using the M4-2. But in any event, that can be corrected easily. 

On the CL, it shows a bit of softness at edges and such wide open, but by f/4-f/5.6 is razor sharp everywhere on APS-C format. This is similar to the Summilux 35mm f/1.4 (1972 edition) ... Pick your softness effect with the aperture.

I've never had the Zeiss Biogon 25 to shoot with, but by all reports it is a wonderful lens too. I had one of the Elmar-M 24mm for a time ... should have kept it. Oh well... 

G

"Equipment is transitory. Photographs endure."

[ramarren]

8 hours ago, lct said:

Will be interesting to see on the Pixii but it's rather obvious on the M240 (left). Easy to fix in PP though (right).

This is the worst I've found with the Color-Skopar 21mm f/3.5 V1 on the Leica CL ... Simple RG-CA right at the edge of the frame with bright sky behind.

One click in LR Classic eliminates it. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Chris W]

Zeiss Biogon is £700, the M Elmar £2000.

I'm just talking about a camera aimed at M lens owners, which renders a wide lens a 'normal lens' and a 'normal' lens to a portrait.

It just becomes much less appealing.

Yes, I already have an M240.

[lct]

2 hours ago, Chris W said:

[...] I'm just talking about a camera aimed at M lens owners, which renders a wide lens a 'normal lens' and a 'normal' lens to a portrait.

It just becomes much less appealing. [...]

Or much more appealing depending on what you do with it. Great to use a 50 as a 75 for instance. I like much my Summilux 75/1.4 but is it bulky and heavy so i bring it less and less since i can use a vast choice of 50mm lenses on APS-C. Sonnar 50/1.5 for portraits, Summilux 50/1.4 asph for landscapes, etc. Another example is the MATE 28-35-50/4. I don't know how it works on the Pixii but it makes for a handy little zoom of the highest optical quality doing 40/50/75 on the CL. Also for those "seing" at 50mm it is great to retrieve the character of their favorite 35mm lenses on this FoV. Here Summicron 35/2 v4 on CL. YMMV.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[ramarren]

As lct suggests, the smaller format can be appealing depending on how you view the combinations. No lens is a "normal" or "wide" without the context of the format it is illuminating. When you go from FF to APS-C, you've changed the context so "normal" shifts from 50 to 35 mm. That's all. 

As I said before, if you want a digital camera that preserves the FoV and DoF of your existing lenses as you see it with your M, the only sensible choice is another FF camera: the Pixii cannot do that. It is neither disparaging to you or to the camera if that is what you want. It is simply what the Pixii offers that is different from what the M typ 240 offers. 

A MATE would be a great all-in-one lens for the CL or Pixii. From the diagram of where the Pixii cutoff for the RF window occurs, it looks like it would fit *just* within the cutoff and not occlude the RF window. Hmmmmm ...

G

Edited April 10, 2022 by ramarren

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[SrMi]

3 hours ago, ramarren said:

As lct suggests, the smaller format can be appealing depending on how you view the combinations. No lens is a "normal" or "wide" without the context of the format it is illuminating. When you go from FF to APS-C, you've changed the context so "normal" shifts from 50 to 35 mm. That's all. 

As I said before, if you want a digital camera that preserves the FoV and DoF of your existing lenses as you see it with your M, the only sensible choice is another FF camera: the Pixii cannot do that. It is neither disparaging to you or to the camera if that is what you want. It is simply what the Pixii offers that is different from what the M typ 240 offers. 

A MATE would be a great all-in-one lens for the CL or Pixii. From the diagram of where the Pixii cutoff for the RF window occurs, it looks like it would fit *just* within the cutoff and not occlude the RF window. Hmmmmm ...

G

The problem with MATE is that every time you change the focal length on MATE you need to go into the menus to change the framing guide as well.