Pixii - complementary or competition? [Merged]

[frame-it]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

21 minutes ago, ramarren said:

More Pixii lens testing... 

Based on some discussion on one of the forae and a mention, I became interested in the Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50mm f/4 ASPH, affectionately called the MATE (for "Medium Angle Tele-Elmar"). It's in interesting lens: unlike its sibling the 16-18-21mm version ("WATE"), which is a true zoom lens, the MATE is not a zoom ... It's a clever optical design that moves lens elements internally to provide three discrete focal lengths, in order on the focal length ring 35 > 50 > 28 mm. 

The lens's bayonet mount has a little tab that works on a Leica M to shift the frame lines between the 35mm, 50mm, and 28mm frame sets ... Of course, on the Pixii, this is ignored since you set the frame lines (and focal length setting in the EXIF) manually via the menu. 

Anyway, I was interested to see whether this "three in one" lens would prove convenient and perform well enough for me to consider it as a useful tool when I want to minimize the number of discrete pieces of gear I want to carry. The focal length choices on an APS-C sensor seem ideal for the Pixii, using three of the four frame line sets available. I was also interested to explore further the Pixii monochrome raw mode and see how well that worked and how manipulable the MONO-DNG files were. So I set Pixii to MONO, ISO to 200, aperture to f/5.6, and speed to AUTO. All frame by frame exposure tailoring for this set of photos was made with EV Compensation.

Here are the FOV choices that the lens provides in a triptych:

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!

28-35-50 FoV Triptych MATE

And some photos. I've marked the focal lengths in the image title for each:

28 - Roots & Leaves

28 - Pickets

50 - Bus Stop

 

50 - Ground Cover

35 - Fence

35 - Tree, Tree
 

28 - Patterns in Twigs

35 - Tree & Stucco Wall

35 - Security Camera In Use

35 - Ornamentation & Tree

Okay.

The MATE performs well, and if you find yourself always using these three focal lengths, AND can get along with an f/4 lens, it could well be the one and only lens you need. The downsides, for me, are that it's a bit bulky (like most "normal zoom" lenses), and a bit expensive. 

Oh yes: its lens hood does get in the way of the rangefinder window. You *can* see around it to focus, but I found it too annoying and took the hood off. I guess I naturally don't frame my shots in such a way that light flares into the field of view very strongly because I didn't see any flare degradation in this set of photos.

The Pixii's monochrome mode, I have to say, proves quite nice. Whether it's as good as a dedicated monochrome sensor or not at providing higher resolution/higher ISO etc, ... eh? I cannot say from this test. But it proves to give very editable DNG files, a nice grayscale palette, and they're easy to render in Lightroom Classic. 

Enjoy! G

nice photos

 

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

8 hours ago, ramarren said:

its lens hood does get in the way of the rangefinder window. You *can* see around it to focus, but I found it too annoying and took the hood off.

The MATE v1 has a small built-in hood and could be interesting to consider from this viewpoint.

[lct]

MATE v1 (11890):

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!

[SrMi]

On 4/23/2022 at 6:04 PM, ramarren said:

More Pixii lens testing... 

Based on some discussion on one of the forae and a mention, I became interested in the Leica Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50mm f/4 ASPH, affectionately called the MATE (for "Medium Angle Tele-Elmar"). It's in interesting lens: unlike its sibling the 16-18-21mm version ("WATE"), which is a true zoom lens, the MATE is not a zoom ... It's a clever optical design that moves lens elements internally to provide three discrete focal lengths, in order on the focal length ring 35 > 50 > 28 mm. 

The lens's bayonet mount has a little tab that works on a Leica M to shift the frame lines between the 35mm, 50mm, and 28mm frame sets ... Of course, on the Pixii, this is ignored since you set the frame lines (and focal length setting in the EXIF) manually via the menu. 

Anyway, I was interested to see whether this "three in one" lens would prove convenient and perform well enough for me to consider it as a useful tool when I want to minimize the number of discrete pieces of gear I want to carry. The focal length choices on an APS-C sensor seem ideal for the Pixii, using three of the four frame line sets available. I was also interested to explore further the Pixii monochrome raw mode and see how well that worked and how manipulable the MONO-DNG files were. So I set Pixii to MONO, ISO to 200, aperture to f/5.6, and speed to AUTO. All frame by frame exposure tailoring for this set of photos was made with EV Compensation.

Here are the FOV choices that the lens provides in a triptych:

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!

28-35-50 FoV Triptych MATE

And some photos. I've marked the focal lengths in the image title for each:

28 - Roots & Leaves

28 - Pickets

50 - Bus Stop

 

50 - Ground Cover

35 - Fence

35 - Tree, Tree
 

28 - Patterns in Twigs

35 - Tree & Stucco Wall

35 - Security Camera In Use

35 - Ornamentation & Tree

Okay.

The MATE performs well, and if you find yourself always using these three focal lengths, AND can get along with an f/4 lens, it could well be the one and only lens you need. The downsides, for me, are that it's a bit bulky (like most "normal zoom" lenses), and a bit expensive. 

Oh yes: its lens hood does get in the way of the rangefinder window. You *can* see around it to focus, but I found it too annoying and took the hood off. I guess I naturally don't frame my shots in such a way that light flares into the field of view very strongly because I didn't see any flare degradation in this set of photos.

The Pixii's monochrome mode, I have to say, proves quite nice. Whether it's as good as a dedicated monochrome sensor or not at providing higher resolution/higher ISO etc, ... eh? I cannot say from this test. But it proves to give very editable DNG files, a nice grayscale palette, and they're easy to render in Lightroom Classic. 

Enjoy! G

Are you shooting with 12-bit DNGs (Fast mode) or 16-bit DNGs (Fine mode)?

[ramarren]

5 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Are you shooting with 12-bit DNGs (Fast mode) or 16-bit DNGs (Fine mode)?

I tried both the FAST and FINE settings. I can't tell from looking at my raw files which was which; they seem identical based upon the tonal range captured and the quantization. 

I'm not entirely sure that the distinction between FAST and FINE mode is simply the quantization bit depth... ??

G

Edited April 25, 2022 by ramarren

[SrMi]

11 minutes ago, ramarren said:

I tried both the FAST and FINE settings. I can't tell from looking at my raw files which was which; they seem identical based upon the tonal range captured and the quantization. 

I'm not entirely sure that the distinction between FAST and FINE mode is simply the quantization bit depth... ??

G

The only difference between the two modes that I noticed was the bit-size (checked with RawDigger). Also, the sensor readout is faster in fast mode (estimated 33ms vs. 150ms).

I am always using the fast mode.

[loloboubou1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Perfect answer ! 

[ramarren]

Hmm. I'll have to find my copy of RawDigger and look. I'd expect a 16 bit file to be larger than a 12 bit file, and all the Mono-DNG files I have are about the same size on disk. 

(I almost never get into analyzing raw data at the RawDigger level, you understand. It almost never returns anything useful that makes a difference to my photography... )

G

[pop]

8 minutes ago, ramarren said:

Mono-DNG files I have are about the same size on disk.

It's quite possible that the camera uses two bytes (16 bits) for each pixel, regardless of the number of significant bits, i.e. for both 12 and 16 bit depths.

[SrMi]

2 hours ago, ramarren said:

Hmm. I'll have to find my copy of RawDigger and look. I'd expect a 16 bit file to be larger than a 12 bit file, and all the Mono-DNG files I have are about the same size on disk. 

(I almost never get into analyzing raw data at the RawDigger level, you understand. It almost never returns anything useful that makes a difference to my photography... )

G

Pixii file size examples, after compression in Lightroom:

Mono:

Fast: 18MB (12-bit)

Fine: 36MB (16-bit)

Color:

Fast: 22.3MB

Fine: 40MB

[ramarren]

2 hours ago, SrMi said:

Pixii file size examples, after compression in Lightroom:

Mono:

Fast: 18MB (12-bit)

Fine: 36MB (16-bit)

Color:

Fast: 22.3MB

Fine: 40MB

Huh? You import and then export to DNG for the compression? I've not done that at all. I just transfer to my hard drive and use the original raw files... 

G

[SrMi]

44 minutes ago, ramarren said:

Huh? You import and then export to DNG for the compression? I've not done that at all. I just transfer to my hard drive and use the original raw files... 

G

After import, I just ran Update Metadata from within Lightroom, which compresses the file in place.
I normally do not do it, but did it for comparing the file sizes in case they get compressed in one case but not in other.

[ramarren]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

After import, I just ran Update Metadata from within Lightroom, which compresses the file in place.
I normally do not do it, but did it for comparing the file sizes in case they get compressed in one case but not in other.

That's very interesting ... Never saw or knew that. I'll have to experiment.  

... So I went into LR in the folder where the MONO-DNG files from the test session are, selected all, and did the Update DNG Preview & Metadata operation on all of them. The resulting compressed DNGs are all in the 36-41 Mbyte range, so if your info on 12-bit vs 16-bit is correct, all of them were made in Fine mode (16-bit). That's funny because I distinctly remember switching from Fine to Fast at least twice during the session. 

But it points out a problem I'm having with the Pixii ... The controls on mine are somewhat inconsistent and don't always do what you set them to do. The settings dial moves the selection through the menu inconsistently, adjusts the EV Compensation inconsistently, the menu button doesn't always bring me into the menu system, the shutter release sometimes doesn't take my press, etc etc. I'm not sure if its a problem with my Pixii unit or endemic to all, but I have to say it's very hard to work around this kind of inconsistency. 

G

Edited April 26, 2022 by ramarren

[SrMi]

50 minutes ago, ramarren said:

That's very interesting ... Never saw or knew that. I'll have to experiment.  

... So I went into LR in the folder where the MONO-DNG files from the test session are, selected all, and did the Update DNG Preview & Metadata operation on all of them. The resulting compressed DNGs are all in the 36-41 Mbyte range, so if your info on 12-bit vs 16-bit is correct, all of them were made in Fine mode (16-bit). That's funny because I distinctly remember switching from Fine to Fast at least twice during the session. 

But it points out a problem I'm having with the Pixii ... The controls on mine are somewhat inconsistent and don't always do what you set them to do. The settings dial moves the selection through the menu inconsistently, adjusts the EV Compensation inconsistently, the menu button doesn't always bring me into the menu system, the shutter release sometimes doesn't take my press, etc etc. I'm not sure if its a problem with my Pixii unit or endemic to all, but I have to say it's very hard to work around this kind of inconsistency. 

G

I agree that settings are hard to change quickly. My thumb also often hits the menu key accidentally.

- Srdjan

[IkarusJohn]

Interesting camera.  When my TL2 bites the dust, it could be a compact replacement.

Thank you Godfrey, Pop, Laurent & Srdjan for the informative posts - great to get real information once the dust settled.  It took a while ….

Edited April 26, 2022 by IkarusJohn

[pop]

19 hours ago, SrMi said:

My thumb also often hits the menu key accidentally.

Been there, done that. I now use this:

https://www.ebay.ch/itm/224717804513

It's not a perfect fit, but it helps holding the camera in some situations and it keeps my thumb away from the button and the wheel. In time I might find a better one.

[IkarusJohn]

Thinking about this further, my reservations about the APS-C format are - (1) probably baseless prejudice for larger sensors, with the advantages of better resolution (think about that - it’s not just more pixels but more larger pixels); (2) familiarity with field of view based on 24x36 format (not critical); (3) depth of field (narrower with larger format for a given field of view); and (4) availability of wider lenses (the M lenses have that combination of size, speed and field of view).

So, what would a Pixii camera offer?  

It has two immediate advantages that I can think of - diminutive size and using the centre of my existing M lenses, avoiding the problems with using M lenses on other than Leica cameras designed for their use.  So, expanding the use of my existing M lenses, in a more compact form.  That would mean:

• 28 Summaron-M giving an effective 42mm field of view - slow
• 35 Summilux-M pre-asph, 52mm field of view - nice fast lens, not without its challenges
• 50 Summitar TLM, 75mm field of view - good speed, but extreme bokeh wide open

I see no point in using my larger M lenses 21-28-35-50-75.  I think I would need a wider image than 42mm, hence my use of the 11-23 TL zoom on the TL2, and my 7 M lenses in 21-28-35 focal lengths.  Nice camera, though.  If I went down that route, I’d be looking for something like the 18 or 21 Super Elmar, to give roughly 28 or 35 fields of view (still not especially wide), with slow lenses.  This is probably my overall reluctance for APS-C …

[pop]

4 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

diminutive size

It's about the size of an M camera. One of my other APS-C cameras, a Sony NEX, is much smaller.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Mattias Burling]

On 4/26/2022 at 3:40 AM, ramarren said:

That's funny because I distinctly remember switching from Fine to Fast at least twice during the session. 

Choosing "fast" under the sensor menu has nothing to do with the type of jpeg it produces. It chooses the readout speed of the sensor. "Fast" makes rolling shutter artifacts very rare. As opposed to "Fine" which will have higher ADC precision and better for still life/landscape/tripod.

[IkarusJohn]

2 hours ago, pop said:

It's about the size of an M camera. One of my other APS-C cameras, a Sony NEX, is much smaller.

Then I see little benefit for me - I have a Monochrom, M10-D & M-A, with all the benefits they entail.