ranger9
Well-known
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it! The lens front does make a difference in rangefinder cutoff (often it's a lens hood that's the problem) but the critical dimension seems to be at the base of the lens (the part just ahead of the lens mount.) From playing around with a caliper, I think the upper limit for base diameter is about 58mm -- much bigger than that and you won't be able to reach the release catch and might get cutoff in the RF window.
I have the old screwmount CV 50/1.5 Nokton, and its base is right at the borderline of being too fat for the release catch -- I can just barely reach it with a fingernail. It looks to me like the newer M-mount Nokton might be a bit slimmer, but it's hard to tell for sure from the photos on the CameraQuest website.
I still wish they'd designed in more clearance, but in practice, the mount limitation might work out as an unintentional "sanity check." The rangefinder's effective base length is only about 33mm (the Pixii website says it's 49.2mm, but I think they forgot to multiply in the 0.67x finder magnification.) That's longer than the effective base length of the Leica and Leitz/Minolta CL, the Minolta CLE, and the Bessa R and R2 (according to Stephen Gandy's handy chart) and only slightly shorter than the Bessa R3 and Epson R-D1, but it's quite a bit shorter than any Leica M model, and I suspect that it won't be accurate enough for close-range focusing of a lot of the fatter, wider-aperture lenses people might be tempted to mount on it. At least those people will get fair warning the first time they try to install a lens and then have to resort to a toothpick or the corner of a credit card to get it off again!
I have the old screwmount CV 50/1.5 Nokton, and its base is right at the borderline of being too fat for the release catch -- I can just barely reach it with a fingernail. It looks to me like the newer M-mount Nokton might be a bit slimmer, but it's hard to tell for sure from the photos on the CameraQuest website.
I still wish they'd designed in more clearance, but in practice, the mount limitation might work out as an unintentional "sanity check." The rangefinder's effective base length is only about 33mm (the Pixii website says it's 49.2mm, but I think they forgot to multiply in the 0.67x finder magnification.) That's longer than the effective base length of the Leica and Leitz/Minolta CL, the Minolta CLE, and the Bessa R and R2 (according to Stephen Gandy's handy chart) and only slightly shorter than the Bessa R3 and Epson R-D1, but it's quite a bit shorter than any Leica M model, and I suspect that it won't be accurate enough for close-range focusing of a lot of the fatter, wider-aperture lenses people might be tempted to mount on it. At least those people will get fair warning the first time they try to install a lens and then have to resort to a toothpick or the corner of a credit card to get it off again!
seajak
Well-known
The maximum diameter of the latest Nokton 50/1.5 is 55.3mm so it should be fine. Not that I'm ever actually going to need it, but then you never know 
.
.
olakiril
Well-known
Thanks a lot for this ranger9 !
To answer your question in the video: Personaly I wouldn't. The (relatively) slow electronic shutter being the major issue for me. Also the slow transfer speeds and unintuitive (lack of?) custom profile support reduce the major advantage of this camera, a good integration with smartphones. If I were to spend that kind of money I would rather get a used Leica M262, or wait a few months for the release of M11 and get the M10 that has phone transfer.
What did you decide eventually?
Out to Lunch
Menteur
Errr... No. I'll continue with the Epsons until the electronics fail. Cheers, OtL
I do not hate this camera at all. It's beautiful and I would love to try it. However, I guess I'd be one of the "I'd rather buy a used Leica" types. Pixii should be applauded for what they've accomplished.
ranger9
Well-known
Yeah, my R-D1 isn't going away either. What a great design. I've often wished I could get an R-D1 with the 24mp guts of a Fuji X-Pro 2 transplanted into it.
olakiril
Well-known
ranger9
Well-known
I think that will be the right call for a lot of people. The shutter isn't THAT slow — many are impressed by the Nikon Z9, which had a scan speed of 1/273 per Thom Hogan, and the Pixii isn't that much slower at 1/200 (based on info from David Barth that they are similar to the Fujifilm X-T4, which claims this scan speed) but the slow processing pipeline is a headache, although it might be possible to speed it up with better IP blocks in the FPGA accelerator.
I don't disagree with that either, although a quick search suggested it might be challenging right now to find a clean used M262 from a reliable dealer for $3000, and it probably wouldn't have the Pixii's 2-year warranty.
It was a tough call, but my decision deadline was yesterday and I decided to keep the Pixii. I don't desperately need that particular $3000 chunk back [and how I came by it was a somewhat sad story that I want to put out of my mind] and I'm enough of a hardware/software guy that I'm intrigued to see how the concept plays out. I'm hoping that if enough Pixii owners (there can't be that many!) gang up on him, we can heckle David Barth into eventually releasing an SDK that would let people install their own LUTs, tweak camera parameters (e.g. turn down the frameline brightness) etc., and that would be interesting…
Emile de Leon
Well-known
Oh....just saw you kept it..
ranger9
Well-known
UPDATES
I had emailed Pixii as a courtesy to let them know I had posted the video, and today I received an email reply from founder/CEO David Barth. He made the following interesting points, which I have added to the video in a comment:
I had emailed Pixii as a courtesy to let them know I had posted the video, and today I received an email reply from founder/CEO David Barth. He made the following interesting points, which I have added to the video in a comment:
- An option to set a custom white balance or shoot a white surface for reference is coming.
- They typically get WiFi transfer rates of up to 2.5MB/s, so the length of time it took me to transfer HD and DNG files seems unusually slow. He suspects my WiFi network. I'll need to investigate this.
- The recent 4.10.9 software update was supposed to solve the problem of blown highlights in high-contrast scenes. I'll need to investigate this too.
- Re the M-mount compatibility issue, he says they did not try to be compatible with huge-diameter, wide-aperture lenses because these lenses could not be focused accurately with the rangefinder anyway. [He also says most Leicas can't focus these lenses accurately either without a factory recalibration, which agrees with many comments I've heard from Leica users.] He notes that in some ways the Pixii lens mount is MORE compatible than those of digital Leicas: It was designed especially to handle collapsible lenses such as the Elmar and Summicron, and deep-set lenses such as the Hologon, which Leica does not recommend on their digital cameras because of the danger of scratching the shutter blades.
- The 15-day return policy (which I think is perfectly reasonable, by the way) is flexible; people can email them if they need to make a special request.
- Improved battery life will be coming next year, and existing cameras will be upgradable to the new solution.
I wonder how often Oskar Barnack or Ernie Leitz communicated directly with Leica buyers?
With so much about the early Leicas so well documented, I don't remember any Leica historian referencing Leica customer letters from Oskar or Ernie. A letter from Oskar promising a new built in rangefinder to an irate owner who hates the scale focus A would be really interesting.
For me the Pixii camera company feels like a small family run business. I like the personal involvement and personal communication with their customers.
hap
Well-known
Innovators innovate without the prodding or hectoring of potential customers. Customers can provide important information, but usually tweaks
cboy
Well-known
why have the guts of the xpro when the rd1 has a ccd sensor?... Just upgrade the rd1 sensor to 24 mp or high pixel pitch sensor. 10-24mp as long as it has high iso capabilites.
ranger9
Well-known
Maybe that's true (or maybe it's just a heroic myth) but developers definitely develop better if they know what problems the users are encountering. Remember the aphorism about “the known knowns, the known unknowns, and the unknown unknowns”? You don't usually find out about the unknown unknowns until somebody else tells you.
It's easy to admire Steve Jobs' cheeky response to the iPhone antenna issue (“You're holding it wrong!”) but it's also true that as soon as he investigated he got a solution into users' hands ASAP.
ranger9
Well-known
In the Leica Manual [I think] there's a bio of Oskar saying that Leitz' correspondence department would forward him letters containing Leica customer suggestions, and that he'd often scrawl responses to the impractical ones with insulting photography-themed retorts (“Completely underexposed!”) So maybe that's why they didn't let him reply to customers directly!
But you are basically describing a 24mp sensor like the one in the X-Pro2.
willie_901
Mentor
Because there is no inherent advantage for CCD phototdiode arrays in still-camera sensor assemblies. In fact, CMOS phototdiode arrays outperform CCD for converting visible-light energy into photoelectrons, use less power, require less space and cost less to manufacture.
The sIlicon is essentially identical in CCD and CMOS phototdiode arrays. The photoelectrons and the resulting electrical charge generated by both technologies are exactly identical.
Is it possible to generate profits to cover the R&D costs of producing a 24 MP CCD sensor? Is it even possible to match CMOS analog sensitivity levels and signal-to-noise ratios using CCD phtotodiode array technology?[1,2]
Preferences for images rendered from CCD camera data can be authentic. It is certainly possible cameras with CCD photo phototdiode arrays can produce rendered images that are superior to those from CMOS cameras. An excellent CCD sensor assembly matched with effective image-rendering algorithms can outperform a mediocre CMOS sensor assembly - image rendering combination.
Details
- Perceived image quality depends on a combination of many technical factors. Also, perceived image quality is also highly subjective. CCD - CMOS comparisons are tricky.
- The pixel densities of early CCD and CMOS cameras was low. Color artifacts dues to aliasing was an issue. Some early CMOS sensors implementations used excessively strong anti-aliasing filters which reduced perceived image quality. At the same time CCD sensor assemblies without an anti-aliasing layer in the sensor assembly cover glass exhibited color artifacts. Different camera designs had a different compromise between perceived sharpness and aliasing artifacts. Those with weaker AA filters of without any filter appealed to some photographers. First impressions can be lasting impressions.
- Color rendering is extremely complex. Perceived color-rendering quality depends on the sensor-assembly, color filter-array optical properties and the in-camera (or off-camera) color-correction matrix model used during raw-file demosaiking. These factors affect the perceived tonality of monochrome image rendering as well.[3] A well-engineered match of the CFA properties and the demosaicking model can overwhelm any disadvantages of CCD or CMOS technologies compared to an inferior match.
- Differences in sensor cover glass IR filter layers are similar to the CFA and color correction matrix case.
- The difference in photodiode array layer thickness between CCD and CMOS results in slight differences in their IR and UV light responses. This is irrelevant with well-designed color-correction matrices.
- Differences in lens optics between early cameras is also important, but rarely considered, when comparing early CCD and CMOS image rendering aesthetics.
2. CMOS technology has replaced CCD technology in large astronomy telecopies.
3. This is irrelevant for Leica M Monochrome products. These cameras don't have CFA assemblies so demosaicking algorthms are not used for image rendering. Comparisons between M Monochrome CCD vs CMOS image perception is less complex.
olakiril
Well-known
If it was 1/200 it would be amazing and it wouldn't lead to artifacts in any but a tiny fraction of circumstances. Unfortunately I believe the readout of X-T4 is about 1/30 (as mentioned also in a previous post) which is close to the majority of current generation cameras (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62206685).
Next generation cameras such as A9, A1, Z9, R3 allow for much faster readouts close to 1/200 or even higher.
I do hope some FPGA reprogramming can lead to some improvements for Pixii.
ranger9
Well-known
We may merely be having terminology differences here. Fujifilm says on this web page: "...there is actually a short time delay (of around 1/200 sec) between the top of the frame and the bottom." This seems to imply that they're claiming they can scan their sensor in 1/200 sec.
David Barth said in an email to me that Pixii's electronic shutter uses a similar approach to Fujifilm, which he said uses an SDRAM to achieve fast readout of sensor data. It wouldn't surprise me if Fujifilm is able to read the sensor and store the data in the SDRAM in 1/200 sec, but then it takes 1/30 sec. or so to pull the data out of the SDRAM and into the processing pipeline.
Nikon author Thom Hogan says of the Z9 on this page: "What's the exact readout speed? Nikon is generally saying "equivalent to a mechanical shutter." (dpreview says ~3.7ms in provisional testing, or equivalent to 1/270 second.)"
That's faster than Fujifilm's (and presumably Pixii's) claimed 1/200 sec., but it's not insanely faster. Of course Nikon benefits from its "stacked-sensor" design... while the other two cameras benefit from their smaller (and thus faster-reading) 25x17mm sensor.
Different people are going to have different tolerance levels for electronic-shutter artifacts. For example, someone who does a lot of panned action shots might be concerned about skewed vertical lines. I'd be interested in investigating this, but I haven't figured out a repeatable home-brew way to test it (although I do have a crazy idea involving a belt sander!)
What I'm personally concerned about is banding with LED event lighting (a situation I notice Nikon was careful to avoid in setting up its lavish Z9 test sessions for online influencers.) This is maddeningly hard to quantify, because different LED lights pulse at different clock rates, and newer "flicker-free" LEDs with phosphors don't produce banding at all. The one time I've encountered it so far, both the Pixii and my Fujifilm X-T 4 (using its mechanical shutter) produced banding. Lacking the ability to set up tests with a huge variety of lights, I don't know how I'm going to learn more about this except by experience!
On a related problem, the Fujifilm page cited above also says its electronic shutter can't be used with flash... but by messing around with a homemade two-channel delay timer, I was able to get it to sync at 1/125! This gives me high hopes that Pixii may eventually be able to add flash sync, although probably only with studio units having fairly long duration. Of course Nikon says its Z9 electronic shutter works fine with flash, and that may be one place its 1/270 readout speed gives it a significant advantage.
cboy
Well-known
As much as you are 100% right of the technical advantages, I and many others still favour the rendering from the ccd sensor as it evokes filmic ( lack of a better word) qualities. Sure one can tweak in post to mimic, since the gamut is much higher in cmos, though many aren't inclined to spend hours to do so. It is it why people love film presets lol.
Images do evoke certain feelings that the photographer wants to convey to their audience and if the tech can bring that out easier then all the better I'd say.
Horses for courses as to what that intent is though.