I guess that's the consensus. But it isn't really fair to a tiny company to compare used cameras to a new product made in small #s. It is fair when using your wallet though...
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Yeah, used examples of an extremely popular and desirable $5000 to $8000 now-used camera against a new, very limited production camera is hardly a 'fair' comparison. Remember that anyone offering a Leica M digital body for those prices is moving on to something they perceive as "better" too. Also remember that Leica doesn't make a dime from the sale of any used digital M camera... Pixii's manufacturer has to try to make a profit!
Personally, I like the APS-C format quite a lot ... I did a tremendous amount of my camera business work using APS-C and FourThirds cameras; never once had anyone complain that the technical quality of my work was somehow less than satisfactory. And I'm delighted with the Leica CL, my current "standard light camera" for everyday and various other use. I'd consider a Pixii for purposes of having an optical viewfinder/rangefinder focusing camera as well that I could share all the same M-mount lenses on because there are times when I prefer an optical viewfinder to the CL's EVF. In particular, the optical RF viewfinder shines best on bright sunny days, when the eshutter will be at its best as well.
There are always neat, interesting cameras out there to fantasize about. The Pixii is one of them, for me, as is the Sigma fP and various others... But, as always, there are limits to my resources—both money and time—so it isn't worth buying too many of them. LOL!
G
AAlfano
Well-known
I think to distinguish this new model from the original, it should at least informally be called the "Twenty-Sixii."
ranger9
Well-known
I'm not sure; undoubtedly there will be situations when motion distortion occurs, but I suspect it will require faster-moving subjects. I often need to photograph running/jumping ballet dancers with my Fuji X-T 4 in electronic shutter mode (e.g. when shooting from the wings during a performance) and I don't have any issues with movement deformation. I don't know about birds (are you really going to photograph birds in flight with a rangefinder camera that maxes out at a 35mm-equivalent 75mm focal length?) but I'm sure really-fast-moving subjects such as airplane propellers would have the same kind of curved/multiple distortion you often see in airplane pictures or videos made with a phone camera.
For experimentation I tried making my own "propeller" by hot-gluing a white cotton ear swab to the shaft of a 9100-rpm DC hobby motor; using the Fuji X-T 4's electronic shutter at 1/32000 sec. produced a weird "fragmented" effect, where the swab appeared divided into several separate curved segments (although the segments themselves were surprisingly sharp.) Using the mechanical shutter at its top speed of 1/8000 showed the swab as both blurry and distorted into a C-shaped curve. A quick web search suggests real-life airplane propellers seldom spin at faster than about 2,400 rpm, so my hobby-motor test was definitely a worst-case scenario, but I still expect that most electronic-shutter cameras (presumably including the PIXII) wouldn't be good choices for aviation photography.
But this is still all guesswork. My interpretation of Monsieur Barth's reply was that he is *reading* the sensor 30 times per second, but it's possible that the actual *scan* rate is faster (as I suspect is the case as the Fuji X-T 4, which I've been using as a "lab rat" for my experiments.)
I guess we'll never know until some trustworthy, rangefinder-savvy person gets hold of a PIXII! (Almost all the commentary I've read, such as on the 35mmc and DearSusan sites, has started with the disclaimer "I don't use rangefinder cameras very much and don't really like them" or something similar.)
What if 30 of us got together, chipped in $100 each, and bought a PIXII to pass around for our own suitability tests?... okay, I'm sort of kidding, but only sort of...
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Well, maybe if I get off my duff and sell a few of the miscellaneous unused and expensive things cluttering up the closet, that will raise enough money ... and I'll just order one for myself. Then I can tell you what I find with it, and whether it works well for me.
G
Well, maybe if I get off my duff and sell a few of the miscellaneous unused and expensive things cluttering up the closet, that will raise enough money ... and I'll just order one for myself. Then I can tell you what I find with it, and whether it works well for me.
G
Do it... I think it is a pretty nice camera.
james.liam
Well-known
Wonder why they didn't choose an APS-H size sensor. Aside from the cost.
Well cost is probably the reason, not too many APS-H sensors out there for sale. there are probably cheaper FF sensors even. Letâs remember this is relying on an electronic shutter.
Last edited:
ranger9
Well-known
Okay, so I ordered one and promise I'll do a review on my YouTube channel. Once I get it, I'll have 15 days to decide whether to keep it (this is their standard return period) so the clock will be running! All you guys can tell me how stupid I was, but only AFTER that…
Before I ordered, I did some experiments to evaluate what problems the lack of a mechanical shutter is likely to cause, using my Fujifilm X-T4 as a “lab rat” (since its sensor and electronic shutter seem to be similar) and here is a quick summary of what I found with the X-T4 (note that the PIXII might be slightly better or slightly worse depending on scan speed etc.)
Before I ordered, I did some experiments to evaluate what problems the lack of a mechanical shutter is likely to cause, using my Fujifilm X-T4 as a “lab rat” (since its sensor and electronic shutter seem to be similar) and here is a quick summary of what I found with the X-T4 (note that the PIXII might be slightly better or slightly worse depending on scan speed etc.)
- Motion distortion with human-speed movements: I photographed ballet dancers doing fast movements such as grand battement - no issues. I can't guarantee you wouldn't get distortion with faster subjects such as birds in flight, but are you seriously going to photograph birds in flight with a 50mm lens?
- Motion distortion when panning: I tried panning at 1/30 sec to follow leaping dancers. I did get skew distortion of vertical lines such as window frames. It wasn't extreme (about 3 degrees) but if you do a lot of motion-blur panning, you'll probably be happier with a mechanical-shutter camera.
- Flicker and/or banding: Modern flicker-free LEDs (phosphor type) are no problem. Older sequential LEDs are a problem with either electronic or mechanical shutter! Old fluorescents also were a problem with both (my kitchen has a 1950s-vintage fluorescent fixture that's a worst-case scenario!)
- Flash sync: PIXII has NO flash sync, but designer said they might try to add some capability next year (probably for studio flash only.) I was skeptical given that the X-T4 won't even try to sync flash to its electronic shutter, but after messing around with a homemade delay timer I found I could get it to sync at 1/60!… not spectacular, but at least it might be possible.
Cool...someone finally stepped up. Hopefully you can add some non-video thoughts here as well.
agentlossing
Well-known
Excited to hear the real-world experience!
ranger9
Well-known
Sure. I'm already having educational experiences even though I don't have a PIXII in hand yet. For example... I guess I knew this abstractly, but today I realized tangibly that there's a certain amount of paperwork involved in buying something made in a foreign country, and if you don't have an official importer, a distributor, or a gray-market dealer taking care of this, you have to do it yourself.
Specifically, this morning I got a call from a broker at UPS (which handles PIXII's shipping to the USA) telling me that whenever you import something valued at more than $2,000 from overseas, the Border Patrol wants either your tax identification number (if it's for a business) or your Social Security number (if it's a personal purchase.) I knew from working in the financial industry that this is legit -- it's to help the Feds deter money laundering -- so I went ahead and gave the UPS lady a number.
Later the same day I got a text message from UPS (tip: definitely sign up for text notifications if you make an international purchase via UPS; it makes things go more smoothly) saying that I needed to pay an import fee. This fee is owed to the government -- I have no idea whether it's a tariff to protect the thriving U.S. digital-still-camera industry, or just a service charge for inspecting the package -- but is collected by a broker; UPS has its own brokerage service in-house.
The fee wasn't onerous -- $27.75 to the government and $12 to the broker -- and went very smoothly; just a few clicks online is all it took. But it was a process I had never needed to do before, so I learned something.
Specifically, this morning I got a call from a broker at UPS (which handles PIXII's shipping to the USA) telling me that whenever you import something valued at more than $2,000 from overseas, the Border Patrol wants either your tax identification number (if it's for a business) or your Social Security number (if it's a personal purchase.) I knew from working in the financial industry that this is legit -- it's to help the Feds deter money laundering -- so I went ahead and gave the UPS lady a number.
Later the same day I got a text message from UPS (tip: definitely sign up for text notifications if you make an international purchase via UPS; it makes things go more smoothly) saying that I needed to pay an import fee. This fee is owed to the government -- I have no idea whether it's a tariff to protect the thriving U.S. digital-still-camera industry, or just a service charge for inspecting the package -- but is collected by a broker; UPS has its own brokerage service in-house.
The fee wasn't onerous -- $27.75 to the government and $12 to the broker -- and went very smoothly; just a few clicks online is all it took. But it was a process I had never needed to do before, so I learned something.
olakiril
Well-known
ranger9
Thanks for testing it for all of us
One feature that I am really interested and I have never seen anyone report on it is the ability to load custom LUTs to the camera. This is a first for a stills camera as you can replicate any look you want in camera. Coupled with the more streamlined connection to the phone it should offer a very different experience that what we have used to. I just don't understand why they haven't made any proper promotional videos about it.
Thanks for testing it for all of us
One feature that I am really interested and I have never seen anyone report on it is the ability to load custom LUTs to the camera. This is a first for a stills camera as you can replicate any look you want in camera. Coupled with the more streamlined connection to the phone it should offer a very different experience that what we have used to. I just don't understand why they haven't made any proper promotional videos about it.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Wow. You guys get it lucky.
Import fees here in the UK are 20% VAT (sales tax) on both the value of the item + cost of the shipping, plus an additional duty on the value of the item (which varies depending on the category of item - it's 0% for cameras, but 2% for instruments and 12% for clothing!), and a flat rate handling fee on top of that (which is £11 for DHL, who I use at work). I believe this applies to everything valued over £25 these days.
I understand the logic behind it (it's making sure that grey market imports don't ruin the local economy), but it's bloody annoying when you want to get hold of something that isn't stocked in the UK at all.
Hey be thankful, in Chile, the import tax and UPS extortion fees would amount to half the camera price. I would say $40 is ok.
ranger9
Well-known
I guess I spoke too soon about the import process being smooth. It was, right up until the package arrived in my town. Excuse me in advance, I’m going to vent a bit…
UPS had scheduled my delivery for Wednesday, which would have been fine, but then they rescheduled it for Thursday (today) between 11 and 1. Unfortunately, that was the ONE time during the whole week when I had an important appointment. So I logged on to the UPS website and arranged to have the package held at a UPS facility, paying a charge of $5.99 for the privilege. (That's right, UPS charges extra for NOT delivering your package.)
So this morning I headed down to the UPS facility, planning on picking up the package and running a couple of other errands before my 12:15 appointment. I told the UPS counter person my name and my original delivery address, and in a few minutes she brought out my package, setting it on the counter.
”There's going to be a brokerage fee,” she said. “I've already paid that,” I replied, laying out the printout of my receipt that the website had warned me I might need to produce.
This seemed to flummox the UPS lady, and she disappeared to call a supervisor. When she came back, she said: “We can't accept that. You need to call the international department and have them fax (!?) us a release code.”
She gave me a slip of paper with a phone number written on it, and I'm sure she was hoping I'd go away or dissolve or slay myself or something. Instead I pulled out my iPad, turned the speaker phone up to max, and started trying to call the number. I got stuck in voice mail jail, trying various key phrases such as “international”, “fee”, “import”, etc.., as well as “operator” (which netted the infuriating response, “We know you'd like to speak to someone, but I still need more information.”)
Finally the UPS lady twigged to the fact that I was going to stand there at the counter shouting into an iPad for as long as it took. She got her own counter phone, called the number, spoke the magic words (apparently you have to say “more options” twice to get out of voice mail jail) and reached somebody in the international department. She handed the phone to me and told me to give my information to the person on the other end.
Now I was getting somewhere! I had their phone and had every intention of holding it hostage until I got results. The lady on the other end apparently knew what was going on and asked me for my tracking number and home phone number. Then she said she would try to contact the department that issues release codes and would put me on hold.
I held and held (and held onto their phone) while the phone lady checked back with me occasionally to let me know she was still waiting for the other department to pick up. During one of these chats, she told me that none of this should be necessary because the counter people could see for themselves on my tracking detail page that I had paid the brokerage fee. But on we held. It was getting close to my 12:15 appointment and I was afraid I was going to have to cancel it, but there was no way I was walking out (or giving back their phone) until I had my package, which I still could see sitting on the counter a tantalizing six feet away.
Well, there was a lot more to this saga, but the RFF software decided to log me out and discard the rest, so suffice it to say that it took 40 minutes on hold and another 10 minutes to fax (?!) the number, but I escaped with my package! Unfortunately, now I don't have time to take it home and open it, but I'll keep y'all posted…
UPS had scheduled my delivery for Wednesday, which would have been fine, but then they rescheduled it for Thursday (today) between 11 and 1. Unfortunately, that was the ONE time during the whole week when I had an important appointment. So I logged on to the UPS website and arranged to have the package held at a UPS facility, paying a charge of $5.99 for the privilege. (That's right, UPS charges extra for NOT delivering your package.)
So this morning I headed down to the UPS facility, planning on picking up the package and running a couple of other errands before my 12:15 appointment. I told the UPS counter person my name and my original delivery address, and in a few minutes she brought out my package, setting it on the counter.
”There's going to be a brokerage fee,” she said. “I've already paid that,” I replied, laying out the printout of my receipt that the website had warned me I might need to produce.
This seemed to flummox the UPS lady, and she disappeared to call a supervisor. When she came back, she said: “We can't accept that. You need to call the international department and have them fax (!?) us a release code.”
She gave me a slip of paper with a phone number written on it, and I'm sure she was hoping I'd go away or dissolve or slay myself or something. Instead I pulled out my iPad, turned the speaker phone up to max, and started trying to call the number. I got stuck in voice mail jail, trying various key phrases such as “international”, “fee”, “import”, etc.., as well as “operator” (which netted the infuriating response, “We know you'd like to speak to someone, but I still need more information.”)
Finally the UPS lady twigged to the fact that I was going to stand there at the counter shouting into an iPad for as long as it took. She got her own counter phone, called the number, spoke the magic words (apparently you have to say “more options” twice to get out of voice mail jail) and reached somebody in the international department. She handed the phone to me and told me to give my information to the person on the other end.
Now I was getting somewhere! I had their phone and had every intention of holding it hostage until I got results. The lady on the other end apparently knew what was going on and asked me for my tracking number and home phone number. Then she said she would try to contact the department that issues release codes and would put me on hold.
I held and held (and held onto their phone) while the phone lady checked back with me occasionally to let me know she was still waiting for the other department to pick up. During one of these chats, she told me that none of this should be necessary because the counter people could see for themselves on my tracking detail page that I had paid the brokerage fee. But on we held. It was getting close to my 12:15 appointment and I was afraid I was going to have to cancel it, but there was no way I was walking out (or giving back their phone) until I had my package, which I still could see sitting on the counter a tantalizing six feet away.
Well, there was a lot more to this saga, but the RFF software decided to log me out and discard the rest, so suffice it to say that it took 40 minutes on hold and another 10 minutes to fax (?!) the number, but I escaped with my package! Unfortunately, now I don't have time to take it home and open it, but I'll keep y'all posted…
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Ah, the thrills of the modern world. At least you got away with your package: That's a plus, not a given these days! :angel:
Looking forward to reading your unboxing and user notes.
G
Looking forward to reading your unboxing and user notes.
G
Yes, I deal with that type of thing all of the time here in Chile and in Spanish when I can't speak Spanish well. It shouldn't be so hard to buy things in 2021.
ranger9
Well-known
Thanks for all the interest! I've been experimenting with it today during spare moments from work, but it may take a few days to come to grips with it. I tell you what, this thing was designed with absolutely NO concessions to classic-camera nostalgia! Refreshing in a way, but requires some orientation…
ranger9
Well-known
Okay, here's a teaser for you avid Pixiiologists...
One of the knocks I remember from the handful of reviews that got written about the original 12-megapixel PIXII was that high-ISO performance was dismal. Naturally, I was curious to see if the new 26-megapixel megaPIXII does any better, since I take a lot of photos in dimly-lit places. So I managed to blunder through setting up a simple comparison test. As a reference, I used my Fujifilm X-T4, since it has the same size sensor (26mp, 25x17mm). I used the same lens for both, a 35mm f/2 Canon LTM lens with the appropriate adapters. (I like this lens because it's ridiculously tiny and very sharp.) I couldn't get the images to be quite identical because I'm still trying to figure out how to use the profiles/LUTs on the PIXII (there are seven of them, and they are completely undocumented, so I have no idea what the differences are between "Standard", "Standard S0", and "Default," for example.) But they're at least sort of similar.
Comparing the example photos turned out to be a bit tricky because Fujifilm, like the rest of the world except for France, apparently, increments their ISO ratings in 1/3-step intervals. PIXII does its ISOs in one-half stop increments. They do this because it is the PIXII Way, and one does not question the PIXII Way. So, the closest I was able to get to a head-to-head number was ISO 10,000 on the X-T4 vs. ISO 10,200 on the PIXII. Here are links to a couple of Lightroom side-by-side screenshots that you can scroll around in your web browser:
Full-image reference views: http://ranger9.net/pixiifun/xt4vspixii-fullscreen.jpg
300% crops: http://ranger9.net/pixiifun/xt4vspixii-300pct.jpg
So which is which? Let's pretend I forgot and you tell me...
One of the knocks I remember from the handful of reviews that got written about the original 12-megapixel PIXII was that high-ISO performance was dismal. Naturally, I was curious to see if the new 26-megapixel megaPIXII does any better, since I take a lot of photos in dimly-lit places. So I managed to blunder through setting up a simple comparison test. As a reference, I used my Fujifilm X-T4, since it has the same size sensor (26mp, 25x17mm). I used the same lens for both, a 35mm f/2 Canon LTM lens with the appropriate adapters. (I like this lens because it's ridiculously tiny and very sharp.) I couldn't get the images to be quite identical because I'm still trying to figure out how to use the profiles/LUTs on the PIXII (there are seven of them, and they are completely undocumented, so I have no idea what the differences are between "Standard", "Standard S0", and "Default," for example.) But they're at least sort of similar.
Comparing the example photos turned out to be a bit tricky because Fujifilm, like the rest of the world except for France, apparently, increments their ISO ratings in 1/3-step intervals. PIXII does its ISOs in one-half stop increments. They do this because it is the PIXII Way, and one does not question the PIXII Way. So, the closest I was able to get to a head-to-head number was ISO 10,000 on the X-T4 vs. ISO 10,200 on the PIXII. Here are links to a couple of Lightroom side-by-side screenshots that you can scroll around in your web browser:
Full-image reference views: http://ranger9.net/pixiifun/xt4vspixii-fullscreen.jpg
300% crops: http://ranger9.net/pixiifun/xt4vspixii-300pct.jpg
So which is which? Let's pretend I forgot and you tell me...