mnutzer
no title
I think similarly, since the Pixii's sensor is even smaller than the M8, which over all ten years of use I've found to be a significant disadvantage, especially when shooting with wide-angle lenses.... But as one review is saying, "even 28mm lens is 42mm on it".
This is no go to person like me who have wide vision
A camera that cannot take the full format of the attached lenses is way too backwards for me.
As an aperture priority shooter, not having metering in manual on the CLE is no biggie for me.
As for 35/50mm frames, in the rare times I attach a 35, I'll use an aux viewfinder. Alternatively, 35 is ~halfway between the 28 and 40 frames, so 35 should be pretty simple to estimate.
When I use one of my Sonnar or Summitar 50s, I'll add an SBOOI aux vf, which for those who haven't ever used one, is a fantastic, life-size visual experience, far better than any built-in view.
Hern
Established
Having owned both the Hexar and the Ikon, it's nice to see them both share the lead. I'm leaning towards the Hexar, however, because to me it truly does feel like what a "modern" Leica would feel like, without compromising on how it should feel in the hand. A little annoying that it runs off CR2s, but that's not a big deal considering what features it has to offer.
ranger9
Well-known
[sigh] This topic was pretty clearly labeled as concerning "non-Leica M cameras"; there are plenty of other threads where you can wave your flag...
ranger9
Well-known
A 28mm lens is a 28mm lens on it... just as a 50mm lens remains 50mm whether you're using it as a tele on your Bolex, a normal on your Contax, a wide on your Hasselblad, or a super-wide on your Linhof 4x5. (Okay, there was no 50mm for the Linhof, but there was a 47mm Schneider Super-Angulon...) Meanwhile, Granny's +2 diopter reading glasses retain their 500mm focal length whether Granny is wearing them or not.I would jump on it. But as one review is saying, "even 28mm lens is 42mm on it".
This is no go to person like me who have wide vision
On the Pixii's Super 35-format sensor a 28mm lens covers a horizontal angle of 46 degrees, which I agree is only semi-wide at best (although very familiar for people who started out in photography using "compact 35" cameras with similar view angles.) There are plenty of lenses that let you go wider; you just have to use an accessory viewfinder, which I concede is a PIA.
agentlossing
Well-known
Ouch! That scathing review is scathingly accurate, for my experience as well. The T does what it does so well, but the novelty does wear off, especially when you add the necessity to find hotshoe viewfinders for every new lens. On top of the price for desirable M-mount lenses, it got to be just too much for me. Still, I admire the camera for what it is. One of the best rangefinder mechanisms I've seen, so crisp and clear to focus... that is, when you have time to focus and then reorient yourself to the hotshoe finder for framing. It's a camera with admirable simplicity, crossed with inconvenient complexity of use. Unless you're zone focusing, which was great... but then the shutter sound was quite loud.
The Bessa-T is almost heartbreaking in its near misses, when you consider what it does right.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
A 28mm lens is a 28mm lens on it... just as a 50mm lens remains 50mm whether you're using it as a tele on your Bolex, a normal on your Contax, a wide on your Hasselblad, or a super-wide on your Linhof 4x5. (Okay, there was no 50mm for the Linhof, but there was a 47mm Schneider Super-Angulon...) Meanwhile, Granny's +2 diopter reading glasses retain their 500mm focal length whether Granny is wearing them or not.
On the Pixii's Super 35-format sensor a 28mm lens covers a horizontal angle of 46 degrees, which I agree is only semi-wide at best (although very familiar for people who started out in photography using "compact 35" cameras with similar view angles.) There are plenty of lenses that let you go wider; you just have to use an accessory viewfinder, which I concede is a PIA.
I'm familiar with this way of wording of simple problem. Which is: you are paying premium for 28 lens, but the image it provides is from cheaper 40mm lens.
Not familiar with PIA, for my location (GTA) Google gives "Pakistan International Airlines".
shawn
Mentor
The 28 frame lines on the CLE are basically a tight 35mm frame line. I've compared the 28mm frame lines side by side with a 35mm on mirrorless.
Interesting, I haven't done a comparo, but will do so
santino
FSU gear head
What about the Zenit M? 😁
Is it a Leica or a non Leica m mount camera? The tech is Leica, software and design KMZ.
Is it a Leica or a non Leica m mount camera? The tech is Leica, software and design KMZ.
Scrambler
Well-known
If (like me) you get a range of cameras, and a range of lenses, and muck around, you find this is a very narrow view. Many lenses will cover much larger areas than the format they are on. I have a 75mm normal lens from a 645 that I use as an ultrawide on 4x5. Was it fitted to a camera that "cannot take the full format"? Yes, but it was the factory lens, equivalent to a 45mm on 35mm film. But on a 4x5 that lens has a viewing angle equivalent to a 20mm on a 35mm camera. I could, if I wanted, mount it on a 35mm film, and get the viewing angle of a ... 75mm lens.
I use a 21mm on my Epson R-D1 for a wide, equal to a 32mm lens on a 35mm camera. The beauty is, I can use it as a wider lens again on my Bessa R. Same with all the lenses. If you want "wide vision" you buy a lens that gives you "ultrawide vision" on 35mm, and have 2 uses for 1 price.
What about cameras that have different format backs? Where a "normal" becomes a "portrait" lens with a swap of which film is loaded? Does this also feel "backward"? My TLR for 120 that has a factory 35mm insert comes to mind. Does the fixed 80mm lens get somehow harmed by using it on 35mm at a "portrait" angle, rather than as a "normal" lens?
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I always found the Bessas to be a little clacky which is not a sensation I got from my RD1 when I had it. They have a really solid feel to them. I still can't believe that Epson couldn't be bothered giving that camera an upgrade with a better sensor and a few other minor improvements. I have total respect for that camera and the boldness of Epson in creating it.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
So now the issue is the cost of appropriate lenses. Kostas, you make me laugh.
PIA == "pain in the buttocks" (replace "buttocks" with the three letter homonym)
G
Pioneer
Mentor
Over the past two or three years I have slowly but steadily moved from Leica to a Zeiss Ikon ZM and the Contax II. It reached the point this year that I realized I hadn't used the Leica in over 6 months. I finally sold it last month. I guess I've become a Zeiss person in a Leica world. 😀
Godfrey
somewhat colored
You had purchased a Leica M-A IIRC, some years back... Is that correct?
I've owned and used a lot of different cameras over the years. It's what the cameras produce that's important to me. The Zeiss ZM is a very nice body ... My buddy over in the UK has one and I've used it several times when I was visiting.
G
Pioneer
Mentor
Yes Godfrey. I purchased my M-A from the San Francisco store back in 2014 when they first came available. As I remember it arrived at my door in November that year.
Please don't misunderstand, I still love that camera and I certainly got my use out of it. It was one of my daily users for almost nine years. I would not discourage anyone from buying one. I still consider them to be right at the pinnacle of the rangefinder world. It wasn't the camera that went bad, it was just me that moved on and I finally realized it when I recognized which cameras I was picking up and using regularly.
Maybe in the future I will decide to get another one but at this point I don't think so. For me there is life after Leica.
You are right about what counts. It really is the print that counts in the end; but it is also nice to work with good equipment and lenses. But there are definitely times when I think we worry too much about the camera that is in our hands and not enough about the light and the composition. No one would go wrong with either the Leica or the Zeiss cameras; or most any camera for that matter. In the end I think that most of them are imminently capable of competently translating the photographer's vision if that photographer truly understands his equipment.
The Zeiss Ikon ZM is probably not as robust as the Leica; but for me it has other features that make up for that. For an example, that viewfinder is absolutely stunning. It reminds me of the viewfinder in the Pentax LX. I think the only time it gets better is looking down into the viewfinder of a good TLR or into the ground glass of a good 8x10 camera.
As for the Contax II I was just very lucky to chance upon an excellent example and had the funds at the time to have it completely overhauled by a true genius. At the time that camera was manufactured Zeiss Ikon was a premier camera manufacturer and it shows in that camera and the lenses that they provided along with it. It really is a professional's tool and I probably only put 50 or so rolls a year through it. I will never use it as hard as Robert Capa or others like him did, so it will almost certainly outlive me.
Please don't misunderstand, I still love that camera and I certainly got my use out of it. It was one of my daily users for almost nine years. I would not discourage anyone from buying one. I still consider them to be right at the pinnacle of the rangefinder world. It wasn't the camera that went bad, it was just me that moved on and I finally realized it when I recognized which cameras I was picking up and using regularly.
Maybe in the future I will decide to get another one but at this point I don't think so. For me there is life after Leica.
You are right about what counts. It really is the print that counts in the end; but it is also nice to work with good equipment and lenses. But there are definitely times when I think we worry too much about the camera that is in our hands and not enough about the light and the composition. No one would go wrong with either the Leica or the Zeiss cameras; or most any camera for that matter. In the end I think that most of them are imminently capable of competently translating the photographer's vision if that photographer truly understands his equipment.
The Zeiss Ikon ZM is probably not as robust as the Leica; but for me it has other features that make up for that. For an example, that viewfinder is absolutely stunning. It reminds me of the viewfinder in the Pentax LX. I think the only time it gets better is looking down into the viewfinder of a good TLR or into the ground glass of a good 8x10 camera.
As for the Contax II I was just very lucky to chance upon an excellent example and had the funds at the time to have it completely overhauled by a true genius. At the time that camera was manufactured Zeiss Ikon was a premier camera manufacturer and it shows in that camera and the lenses that they provided along with it. It really is a professional's tool and I probably only put 50 or so rolls a year through it. I will never use it as hard as Robert Capa or others like him did, so it will almost certainly outlive me.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
IIRC it was a rebadged M240 with a redesigned "Zenit-M" topcover - produced in the Leica Portugal factory in a limited run.
As such, assuming my memory serves me correctly, I don't think it belongs on the list.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I'm really surprised that the Epson didn't do better!