Pixii - complementary or competition? [Merged]

[nicci78]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 minutes ago, pop said:

All the store owners in Paris anxiuously follow this thread and none dare ordering one because of all the bean counting going on here.

It's a new kind of camera. It's at least in the same league as the original CL, even if it has no framelines for 75mm or 90mm.

Fun fact one Parisian store used to sell the first Pixii : Photo Vincent at rue Sainte Anne. 
But I guess that the first version performed too poorly for him to try again. 

[nicci78]

6 minutes ago, lct said:

By comparison, the film CL's EBL is 18.90mm (31.50mm x 0.60).

18.90mm EBL may be ok for full frame film photography. But 32.8mm is it really enough for 26MP APS-C (same pixel pitch as 100MP full frame) ? 

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

5 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

18.90mm EBL may be ok for full frame film photography. But 32.8mm is it really enough for 26MP APS-C (same pixel pitch as 100MP full frame) ? 

It is just a matter of CoC (circle of confusion) value. At standard values (0.03mm for FF, 0.02mm for APS-C), the Pixii's EBL is large enough to focus most lenses from 12mm to 50mm. Only 50/0.95 and 50/1 lenses should be difficult to focus, at least in theory.

[pop]

12 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

But 32.8mm is it really enough for 26MP APS-C (same pixel pitch as 100MP full frame)

I tested the camera with the 40mm f/2.0, the 50mm f/1.5, the 28mm f/2.8 and the 90mm f/4.0 at 1.5m. The tests revealed a  backfocus of about 4 to 6 cm for all lenses which I then was able to improve. That tells me that the rangefinder is good enough for my set and my eyes. YMMV.

[ramarren]

Well, all this stuff about RF baseline aside (since it's certainly good enough to focus a 10 to 43 mm lens very accurately, and that's most of what I use on my digital CL with APS-C sensor), after the abortive try with a TT Artisan 17mm f/1.4 lens on the CL, I decided to buy one of the newer Voigtlânder Color-Skopar 21mm f/3.5 type 1 (I prefer that design of focus mount over the type 2). This will work nicely on both the digital CL and the Pixii. 

I had one of the Voigtländer Color Skiopar 21/4 P lenses in LTM mount in the past. It was a very nice lens on film but suffered a lot of color artifact issues on a digital sensor, which is why I sold it. The new 21/3.5 model supposedly corrects that issue and remains very small and handy. 

It's fair tempting to press the button and order a Pixii now... But I'll wait a little bit yet, since I still have some upcoming expenses to deal with in the car restoration project.

G

[jaapv]

6 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

M240 != M9

But anyway, you can use it even at higher iso if you wish, but results will be highly different and you will definitely see much more noise compared to a newer generation sensor.

Personally I wouldn't use a M9 not even for free.

I love the M9 - it renders beautifully, and with modern denoise programs I can even do ISO 2500 with clean results.

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

49 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I love the M9 - it renders beautifully, and with modern denoise programs I can even do ISO 2500 with clean results.

The M9 and I never bonded very well, too many "not quite right" things about it. The color rendering of its JPEG engine in particular I found to be too far off-base to use at all, but the raw files were good. Its haptics, the noisy, slow recock, etc, made it a no brainer to trade on for an M-P typ 240 when the sensor corrosion hit mine and Leica made me that offer. 

But the way modern raw conversion implementations have gone has been delightful. My very ancient Olympus E-1 ... which in its early days I found noisy enough to be mostly useless at anything over ISO 800, 400 preferred ... nowadays allows good color work at ISO 1600 and good B&W work at ISO 3200. Dynamic range has been expanded well and noise significantly constrained... I don't use any add-on denoise programs, just what's available in LR Classic. It's remarkable how far the technology has come!

G

[jaapv]

Interesting. I never really bonded with the 240 and I  was never 100% happy with its files, despite it being an excellent camera. But I could never bring myself to part with my M9. 

[Simone_DF]

16 hours ago, jaapv said:

I love the M9 - it renders beautifully, and with modern denoise programs I can even do ISO 2500 with clean results.

Yes, I know it has a cult following and many people love it, but I never liked the colors produced by the camera. I'd rather use a Sony. The M240 was ok-ish in that regard.

I think the M10 is when things started to come together on the digital side of the M line. All IMHO, of course.

[loloboubou1]

Hello, I have had the new Pixii since November and I am ready to answer your questions!
I use it with the following focal lengths CV 4.5 15 not coupled to the rangefinder of course (I see wide), Zeiss Biogon 2.8 21, Elmar 3.8 24 (a pillar!), MS Optics Apoqualia 2.0 28 (amazing ...), CV APO Lanthar 2.0 35 (the other pillar!), CV Nokton 1.2 50 and CV Héliar 2.5 75. Below the 24 with external viewfinder (a ricoh 21 28 viewfinder), for the 24 it's full viewfinder or a good old SBOOI 35 and for the 75 it's the patch + 2 mm! On the move I have in my bag (which has become light and it's a pleasure!): 15, 24 or 35 on the pixii and 50.

For the whiners of the lack of full frame I actually have more depth of field but not necessarily less nice bokeh when you know how to position your subject and when you use wide aperture lenses (around 2.0 or nokton 50 which would become a 75 1.2). In any case, I have no restraint in using the best part of lenses that are already exceptionally sharp, right down to the angles! Hence the massive use of the Elmar 3.8 24 and the APO Lanthar 2.0 35 (of which Sean Reid says a lot of good compared to that of Leica without even talking about price...)

One of its strong points that I discovered during use is the possibility of having two kinds of DNG. Yes DNG not JPEG. David the magician has managed to invent a treatment that directly annihilates the action of the Bayer matrix. Side by side with the raw from my M Monochrom, it doesn't look out of place... on the contrary! I hadn't bought it knowing this possibility, it was implanted afterwards but it's as if I had been offered a second bodysuit!

For those who are interested in this fabulous box from the DXOmark results, know that they do not surprise me! The post-processing with LR (adobe derawtise the DNG Pixii is already a great recognition!) offers a very wide latitude, especially in low light with a dynamic and a colorimetry that delight me with each treatment. I specify that the other raw that I process in parallel come from a Hasselblad 907x, an M Monochrom 1 and previously an M10. I have and I had something to compare ...

If you want to see pictures I started a FLickr group: Pixxi and new Pixii, I also have an instagram page laurentbouchard.photography and a Facebook in my name: Laurent Bouchard
I can also on request send native monochrom or "bayer" dngs on request for those who want to "see" beyond the DXO results.

Edited March 3, 2022 by loloboubou1

[loloboubou1]

I guess this ranking makes people talk :  

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!

[jaapv]

Hmm.just look though this forum over the years and see the disconnect between DXO rankings and real world results...

[ramarren]

I ignore DXO just as much as I ignore most other online reviews. Most of them, with just a couple of exceptions, are little more than entertainment and advertising. 

As an example of one of the exceptions: The review impressions on new Leica products that Jono Slack writes are amongst the best reviews out there, for my purposes in reading on online review. 

DXO is specifically ignorable because they do not publish the methodology that they use to generate their numbers. 

G

Edited March 3, 2022 by ramarren

[oldwino]

DXO validity notwithstanding, Laurent @loloboubou1 seems very please with the Pixii.

[ramarren]

13 minutes ago, oldwino said:

DXO validity notwithstanding, Laurent @loloboubou1 seems very please with the Pixii.

Yes, he does.

I don't know Laurent yet, he's only made two posts in the year and some he's been on the forum, but I hope to see more from him. (I don't do much on Facebook or Instagram, but I intend to look up the "Pixii and new Pixii" threads he's mentioned on Flickr.com.)

... Hmm, Flickr.com search does not find any "Pixxi and new Pixii" groups. A search on Pixii generically pulls up about 700+ photographs, many look very nice, but not a lot of groups as yet. 

G

Edited March 3, 2022 by ramarren

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, ramarren said:

DXO is specifically ignorable because they do not publish the methodology that they use to generate their numbers. 

The problem with DXO is that they measure the (processed) camera output and (understandably) not the sensor performance as such, but present this as "sensor rating". The result is that cameras with the same sensor will have wildly varying results and that sensor size, which is crucial, will result in weird values. So mid-format sensors will always underperform compared to small sensors which obviously runs counter to real life photography. Can anybody seriously believe that the X-Vario outperforms the Leica S ?

[jaapv]

 

2 hours ago, ramarren said:

Yes, he does.

I don't know Laurent yet, he's only made two posts in the year and some he's been on the forum, but I hope to see more from him. (I don't do much on Facebook or Instagram, but I intend to look up the "Pixii and new Pixii" threads he's mentioned on Flickr.com.)

... Hmm, Flickr.com search does not find any "Pixxi and new Pixii" groups. A search on Pixii generically pulls up about 700+ photographs, many look very nice, but not a lot of groups as yet. 

G

Maybe, but a weird statement like this does not confer much confidence in the value of his posts.

10 hours ago, loloboubou1 said:

David the magician has managed to invent a treatment that directly annihilates the action of the Bayer matrix

The Bayer process is a well-defined optical-digital process that cannot be "annihilated" Does he mysteriously dissolve the colour filter in front of the sensor? Can he somehow reverse the demosaicing and interpolation steps of the colour creation from a monochrome device like a sensor? Does he short-circuit the ADC converters?  

[oldwino]

4 minutes ago, jaapv said:

 

Maybe, but a weird statement like this does not confer much confidence in the value of his posts.

The Bayer process is a well-defined optical-digital process that cannot be "annihilated" Does he mysteriously dissolve the colour filter in front of the sensor? Can he somehow reverse the demosaicing and interpolation steps of the colour creation from a monochrome device like a sensor? Does he short-circuit the ADC converters?  

That's the "pixie" part, @jaapv

[ramarren]

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

Maybe, but a weird statement like this does not confer much confidence in the value of his posts.

...

I don't know what's "weird" about it. I went to look for the Flickr groups and couldn't find them. I was hoping Laurent would comment as to where the group is, if he inadvertently spelled the name incorrectly, etc. 

It's a simple thing, with no intent to disabuse the value of Laurent's posts. 

G

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

I did not refer to your comment.
The point is that the advantage of a monochrome sensor cannot be magically “annihilated”.
It means that the poster suffers from the “ this is the best camera in the world” syndrome. Understandable, we have all been there. If we made the right choice a new camera will be just that.

Objectively, the Pixii should be pretty good for its high price,  the closest competitor is the CL. The only difference is an EVF vs an optical RF and less versatility by the use of a vintage mount. The two probably balance one another out. The Pixii more expensive but has a newer generation sensor. Less noise but Topaz and DXO make it not very relevant photographically. 

Then there is the offering of the choice between standard DNG and linear DNG. I can understand that. There are some advantages to linear DNG, especially for monochrome files  but the format is not accepted by all software. To avoid having to convert in the computer a more mainstream output is needed. Pixii is too small to expect the postprocessing world to comply like they did for Leica Monochrome files. That Adobe works is not a surprise. Linear DNG is a part of their own standard only third party developers often leave it out because it is rarely used. 
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/linear.htm

A buyer will be taking a risk for long-term service support. Leica has struggled in that respect from time to time, Epson was a disaster,  these guys are even smaller and new to the game. To me that signifies a bit of a gamble.