willie_901
Mentor
Because there is no inherent advantage to perceived, technical image quality using a basic sensor ISO of 50.
What about the need for unusally long shutter times when the native ISO is 160? This is achieved using ND filters.
Details
A camera's basic (native) ISO setting depends on:
- the sensor photosites' DC voltage levels responding in a linear fashion to exposure.
- when these DC voltage levels become equal to the maximum input value of the analog-to-digital converter. This voltage level is known as the photosites' full well capacity (FWC). The FWC depends on the amount of photo site of conversion gain which in turn is set by the capacitance used for the initial gain (voltage swing) in the photodiode.
A native camera ISO of 160 describes the sensor's standard output sensitivity and recommended exposure index used by the light meter. That's it.
A camera with a native ISO of 50 might have a lower perceived image quality (signal-to-noise ratio) than a camera with a native ISO of 160 at all light levels. This would be the case when the FWC and read noise properties of the ISO 50 sensor are inferior to those of the ISO 160 sensor. Of course, a native ISO of 50 does not necessarily mean inferior perceived image quality (signal-to-noise ratio).
Contemporary sensors in most brands (and certainly those with the Sony IMX571 sensor) are ISO variant - the read noise level is independent of camera ISO setting.[1] A native ISO of 50 does not mean less read noise.
1. The Sony IMX571 sensor supports dual-conversion gain technology. The sensor conversion gain can automatically switch to a higher value at higher camera ISO setting. Now there are two native camera ISO settings; one at 160 and another at 800. In bright light the sensor is gain is optimized for dynamic range and for low light the sensor the gain is optimized for minimum read-noise levels. I have no idea if the Pixii 26MP camera uses dual-conversion gain.
Emile de Leon
Well-known
HTML:
Because there is no inherent advantage to perceived, technical image quality using a basic sensor ISO of 50.
What about the need for unusally long shutter times when the native ISO is 160? This is achieved using ND filters.I dont want to use ND filters at F1.0 or .95. Too much trouble and expense for big glass.
But this cam doesnt shoot video either..so that point I guess is moot..as that is 50% of why I would buy a diggy cam...VIDEO..
Considering this is a fun cam..and that they would have beat Leica M out for video in an m10..I think they missed an opportunity there..
I'm not sure this super niche camera would be better if it was just like every other camera. I think its quirks are part of its appeal.
willie_901
Mentor
James Evidon
Member
So, buy a 21mm Voigttlånder viewfinder for your 21mm lens and be done with it.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
cboy
Well-known
IMO Too much competition on the aspc market to offer a competition in terms of value / features. Most would just opt for an either an xpro, used M digital / CL / Q.As much as id like to applaud them in entering a niche market perhaps If it had gone FF then the price of entry to pixii would be easier to swallow...Perhaps have it all entirely assembled in asia to reduce cost? Partner with some third party manufactures?
Why epson never continued with their rd1 series really is baffling as im feel many looking into rangefinders are wanting mid tier digital rangefinders that the market has yet to fulfill.
Why epson never continued with their rd1 series really is baffling as im feel many looking into rangefinders are wanting mid tier digital rangefinders that the market has yet to fulfill.
Out to Lunch
Menteur
An overview & price of the new pixii here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gnigwb-MXw
olakiril
Well-known
These feel like they are generated by an algorithm and offer no extra information. They just recite the specs. It is very common in YouTube in order to generate traffic.
That being said, Pixii company should actually try sending some review units to people so we can get some extra information about this camera. I had the same problem with the first version for which I think I only could see a couple of reviews none of them glowing.
Range-rover
Mentor
This is great news for people who want's a rangefinder camera that takes M lenses. Leica for many is just to expensive now
with there wack-out prices even used.
with there wack-out prices even used.
I don’t think this is competition for APSC cameras at all. This is simply competition to other rangefinder cameras. The only camera that really is an option at this price, is the M240/m262 used. I’m sorry, but the M8/M9 aren’t great buys these days. This is obviously a super niche camera … which can’t possibly compete with mainstream camera companies. People who end up buying this want something different from the mainstream. It isn’t going to be their only camera either.
olakiril
Well-known
If not after the close integration with smartphones or the modern aesthetics, then I am not sure many people will prefer this over a used M240/M262 that you can easily get with less than 3K.
Range-rover
Mentor
Some people don't like to buy used, so a new option would help.
ranger9
Well-known
I was curious about the shutter, and I'm on the company's email notification list, so when the notification for the new model came out I sent a reply asking about whether the shutter was global or sequential, expressing concern about flicker-prone light sources such as LED stage lights.
I got back the following prompt response from David Barth, founder of PIXII (by the way, don't expect this from the head of Canon or Sony... or even Leica, unless you're the Sultan of Brunei):
"Regarding shutter, the new sensor has a regular electronic shutter, read:
non-global. We use a fast readout and an SDRAM to drive the sensor at
30FPS+. This is similar to what Fuji does, or similar to the design adopted
by the Sigma FP ie, sans mechanical shutter.
There can indeed be issues with artificial light sources. This can be
solved by choosing an appropriate exposure for the type of source in
presence (typically multiple of 1/100 or 1/120)."
I happen to have a Fujifilm X-T 4, which he cites as similar, and I also have access to a theater with LED stage lights... so I sneaked in early one day, turned some lights on, set my X-T 4 to use electronic shutter only, and shot test photos of the gray stage floor at a variety of shutter speeds and light levels. I got no banding; the results looked exactly the same as some comparison photos I shot at the same time using the mechanical shutter.
Note that these were the newer "flicker-free" type of LED, which use a blend of phosphors to fill in the gaps in the light spectrum. Phosphors don't stop glowing immediately between LED cycles, so flicker-free LEDs don't generally produce banding regardless of shutter type or speed; they're essentially continuous light sources. The older "pulsed" LEDs, which you'll still find on some stages and in setups such as DJ lighting rigs, use separate red, green and blue LEDs and pulse them at high speeds to create the appearance of white light or light of various colors. I have a small older video light that uses pulsed LEDs, and a similar but newer one that uses flicker-free LEDs, so I tried both of them against the X-T 4. The flicker-free LED was band-free with either electronic or mechanical shutter. The pulsed LED produced banding with BOTH the electronic and the mechanical shutter; the results looked different, but I'd consider both unusable. In other words, you can't condemn the electronic shutter for producing bad results with pulsed LEDs, because a mechanical focal-plane shutter does no better! (I'm guessing the only solution would be a leaf shutter, but I didn't have a leaf-shutter camera to use for testing.)
Monsieur Barth's suggestion to use a multiple of the power-line frequency unfortunately didn't help with the pulsed LEDs, because their pulse rate does not depend on power-line frequency; they're varied by pulse-width modulation (PWM) which uses a microcontroller that runs at an independent clock speed, usually much higher than the 50hz or 60hz used for line/mains power. This technique might help with old-style fluorescent lights, although when I experimented with an ancient fluorescent fixture in my kitchen, it produced severe banding with either electronic or mechanical shutter and regardless of shutter speed unless you were prepared to go as slow as 1/30 or so.
In short (and sorry for the excursion into LED peculiarities) based on my experiments with the X-T 4's shutter, I would guess that the fact that the new PIXII uses an electronic/sequential shutter rather than a global shutter or mechanical shutter doesn't seem likely to cause much of a problem with common light sources, except in cases when a mechanical shutter also would have a problem! Whether it will cause distortion with fast-moving objects is something I haven't been able to test (a mechanical shutter will do this too if the object is moving fast enough, of course.)
For the types of photography which you're likely to tackle with a rangefinder camera, I'm guessing the electronic/sequential shutter won't cause too many limitations... unless of course you want to use flash, since the PIXII lacks flash sync in any form, at least at this release.
In other words, to me the PIXII still sounds like a very promising camera... although at the moment it seems that the only way to find out for sure is to buy one. Dang, where's that winning lottery ticket?
olakiril
Well-known
Thanks for the info!
This is what I was afraid of... 30fps is actually very slow, it is the same readout speed as my A7rIII. For landscape shots that the FP was aimed at it is no problem. Also daylight with minimal motion, it will be fine as well.
Unfortunately any fast movement can look deformed and ugly. Running/jumping children, moving cars/trains, flying birds, etc.
The night shots will also be hit or miss. With many lights you don' get any banding, but it will almost definitely happen in some situations.
On the positive side it will be silent
All in all I still find this camera a bit too expensive. My guess is that the target audience is people with many M-mount lenses that want to have a nice integration with their smartphone. I hope this market is big enough for them to survive and keep making new improved models. Hell, even convince Cosina and Epson to make an R-D2
Very useful, thanks for the informative post, ranger!
Emile de Leon
Well-known
My Sigma FP bands like crazy under certain lighting conditions and certain shutter speeds..
I think I'm a little weird in that I like a focal plane shutter the most... I like to feel exactly when I took the photo. Even leaf shutters trick me sometimes.
Well I thought I was sure.
Turns out the previous version had a global shutter, the current version does not.
Stephen
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
It's a cool little camera. Not 100% sure about the crop factor, though, at that price. It's in used M240 territory.