M.B
Member
There are links to those right here on the forum, not too long ago I think.
bob_summers
Member
Hi - long time listener, 1st post.
Recently ordered the 2023 Pixii (32GB/Grey) so I was glad to find this thread, to give me some reading material during the interminable wait. I've only ever shot film really, aside from mobile phones, but lockdown was a bit of a photography dry spell, dev chem expired on the shelf unused, and now HP5 is practically 10€ a pop around here... well I started looking for a used M-D when the Pixii caught my eye.
Something of a paradox, spending 3 grand to save a few bob on film... But I've got various M lenses that are begging to be used and I hate rear panel buttons (recently used a X100, inadvertently turned the ND filter on and couldn't work out why it would only work wide open at 1/30...).
Pixii should be a good fit, I'm loving the images people are getting from it, and it seems to be the closest I can get to my beloved mechanical M body, short of the unobtainable M-D. Only slight reservations are how my fave lengths (15, 35, 50) work with the crop.
Hope to get some updates soon, shipping is slated for Mid March - no idea how firm that is. Maybe I'll feel dirty and go back to film
Recently ordered the 2023 Pixii (32GB/Grey) so I was glad to find this thread, to give me some reading material during the interminable wait. I've only ever shot film really, aside from mobile phones, but lockdown was a bit of a photography dry spell, dev chem expired on the shelf unused, and now HP5 is practically 10€ a pop around here... well I started looking for a used M-D when the Pixii caught my eye.
Something of a paradox, spending 3 grand to save a few bob on film... But I've got various M lenses that are begging to be used and I hate rear panel buttons (recently used a X100, inadvertently turned the ND filter on and couldn't work out why it would only work wide open at 1/30...).
Pixii should be a good fit, I'm loving the images people are getting from it, and it seems to be the closest I can get to my beloved mechanical M body, short of the unobtainable M-D. Only slight reservations are how my fave lengths (15, 35, 50) work with the crop.
Hope to get some updates soon, shipping is slated for Mid March - no idea how firm that is. Maybe I'll feel dirty and go back to film
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Think of it this way, bob: 50mm is a mild portrait tele, 35mm Is the normal, 15 is a 22mm ultra wide.
The correlate focal lengths to achieve the same field of view set as 15/35/50 on your film M are 10/24/35 on the Pixii.
G
The correlate focal lengths to achieve the same field of view set as 15/35/50 on your film M are 10/24/35 on the Pixii.
G
bob_summers
Member
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Yes, if you like the FoV of a 35mm lens on your M, you'll likely want a 21 to 24 mm lens for the Pixii. I tested the current Color-Skopar 21mm f/3.5 on it and found that lens a good match to the Pixii sensor, with just a little corner/edge falloff and barely detectable color shifting. (BTW: The correct lens hood for this lens is the Voigtländer LH-11 ... finding that information on the various websites is often difficult.)
I seem to recall trying the MS Optics Aporia 24mm f/2 on the Pixii as well, although I can't find any of those exposures in my catalog: that likely means it was so poor a match I didn't bother saving them.
I wonder how the Voigtlander Ultron 21mm f/1.8 might perform on the Pixii, if you wanted a fast ~35mm equivalent..? I've not had one to experiment with, but it's an inverted-telephoto design which often provides a more even illumination on digital sensors compared to symmetric designs in this focal length range. And it's not too outrageously expensive (about $800 from CameraQuest.com or B&H Photo).
G
bob_summers
Member
I'll see how I go, it might end up being a non issue. Crop factor is totally new to me - weird to think of my little 50mm elmar suddenly being a 75...
I owned the f/4 21mm Skopar. IIRC, I liked it but it was supposedly terrible for digital.
I owned the f/4 21mm Skopar. IIRC, I liked it but it was supposedly terrible for digital.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I don't think it'll be too much of an issue on the Pixii; the APS-C sized sensor will likely avoid the problematic regions of the image circle.
For example, I've not used mine on my X-Pro 2 much, but the few test shots I did don't show any weird colour fringing or anything along those lines.
LCT
ex-newbie
The Skopar 21/4 doesn't produce significant color shifts on the digital CL so i would not expect any problem on the Pixii which has an APS-C sensor too. Same on FF cameras having a BSI sensor BTW. I have no experience with the Pixii though.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Can't say anything about the older Color Skopar 21/4; I had one but wasn't all that delighted by it. The current Color Skopar 21/3.5 works well.
G
G
bob_summers
Member
Sorry, just to clarify this after re-reading. If I fit my 15mm Voigtlander to the Pixii, I can select the 10mm focal length and get an effective 22mm frameline?
LCT
ex-newbie
@Godfrey knows those things much better than i do but the Pixii has 4 built-in framelines AFAIK: 28mm (42mm equiv. FoV), 35mm (52mm equiv. FoV), 40mm (60mm equiv. FoV) and 50mm (75mm equiv. FoV). A 15mm lens would have a 22mm equiv. FoV on the Pixii so i would use a 21mm accessory viewfinder for this lens, the same way as with another APS-C rangefinder of mine, the Epson R-D1.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Not quite. If you want the same field of view as the VC 15mm fitted to your M on the Pixii, you need to
- use a 10mm lens,
- use an accessory viewfinder for a 15mm FF lens, or one of the special VC viewfinders marked with "1.5x" for 10mm.
The Pixii built-in viewfinder has frame lines for 28, 35, 40, and 50 mm lenses that present the APS-C FoV for each of those focal lengths (as in LCT's listed equivalent FF focal lengths).
If you fit that VC 15mm to the Pixii, use a 21mm accessory viewfinder for a close approximation of the resulting APS-C FoV.
G
bob_summers
Member
Got you. I read your post the wrong way around. Thought it was odd that there was a 10mm frameline!
I basically use my 15mm as a point-and-shoot on the M, since everything I can see is practically in frame and in focus. Don't bother with a finder. So a slight change of habit is needed when using it on the APS-C.
I basically use my 15mm as a point-and-shoot on the M, since everything I can see is practically in frame and in focus. Don't bother with a finder. So a slight change of habit is needed when using it on the APS-C.
dct
perpetual amateur
Just to double check my math:
I LOVE the CV28/3.5 on my Konica Hexar RF (135 film like "FF" sensor). Putting it on a Piixi (APS-C sensor) would decrease the FoV to a ~40mm lens on FF.
And vice versa, if I want again the same FoV of 28mm FF on APS-C camera, I would require a similar ~18mm native lens.
Is all of this correct or did I miss something?
Thanks for further confirmation. Sometimes I'm thick as a brick
I LOVE the CV28/3.5 on my Konica Hexar RF (135 film like "FF" sensor). Putting it on a Piixi (APS-C sensor) would decrease the FoV to a ~40mm lens on FF.
And vice versa, if I want again the same FoV of 28mm FF on APS-C camera, I would require a similar ~18mm native lens.
Is all of this correct or did I miss something?
On the VF topic: Does it mean the Pixii 28mm (native) framelines are suited to my (native) 28/3,5?. Hence they will show the correct Pixii FoV for framing?
Thanks for further confirmation. Sometimes I'm thick as a brick
Godfrey
somewhat colored
mjc
Newbie
I've seen reports that the Pixii has improved electronic components and that because of this the noise generated by 'less good' electronics in 'standard' consumer cameras means the Pixii performs better by having a higher signal to noise ratio. I think that Dear Susans was the source for this. In real world use, for those with the camera, is this your experience?
ranger9
Well-known
People, people, people... "crop factors" are NOT a real thing! They're just one of those aberrations spawned by the Internet.
Back in the day, nobody went around saying, "So, if I have a 47mm Super-Angulon on my Super Technika, then the crop factor on my Hasselblad 1000F would be..." Instead, they thought about lenses in terms of angles of view. Here's a spiffy chart...
The Pixii has viewfinder frames for semi-wide, normal, longish normal, and shortish portrait lenses. There's no need to worry about "conversions" or "crop factors" -- the frame lines you select will show you what will be in the final image from the Pixii. As you'll see on the spiffy chart, if you select the 35mm finder frame, you'll see a horizontal angle of roughly 40 degrees, which is a "normal" lens under the traditional angle-of-view categories. If you choose the 28mm frame, you'll be seeing about 48 degrees, which qualifies as a semi-wide view.
Fun fact: the full field of view of the Pixii's range/viewfinder is 53.6 degrees according to the specs page, which would be a slightly tight match for the 55-degree coverage of a 24mm lens. (It's probably about perfect for a 25mm lens, if you happen to have one that fits.) If you want to compare that the the angle of view on other flavors of camera, 55 degrees is covered by a 17mm lens on a Micro 4/3 camera, a 35mm lens on Great-Grandpa's Exakta or other Simplex-format (36x24mm) camera, or about a 40mm lens on a digital medium-format (44x33mm) camera. Of course using the outer finder frame you won't have parallax compensation, but neither did Robert Capa!
You can go wider (although you'll need an accessory viewfinder if you're worried about accurate framing) and it's not really a good idea to go longer, because you'll run into the accuracy limitations of a short-base rangefinder and the possibility of the lens cutting off the view of the rangefinder patch. The Pixii works best with the four focal lengths the viewfinder provides, and they'll cover the angles shown in the viewfinder and in the spiffy chart.
Back in the day, nobody went around saying, "So, if I have a 47mm Super-Angulon on my Super Technika, then the crop factor on my Hasselblad 1000F would be..." Instead, they thought about lenses in terms of angles of view. Here's a spiffy chart...
The Pixii has viewfinder frames for semi-wide, normal, longish normal, and shortish portrait lenses. There's no need to worry about "conversions" or "crop factors" -- the frame lines you select will show you what will be in the final image from the Pixii. As you'll see on the spiffy chart, if you select the 35mm finder frame, you'll see a horizontal angle of roughly 40 degrees, which is a "normal" lens under the traditional angle-of-view categories. If you choose the 28mm frame, you'll be seeing about 48 degrees, which qualifies as a semi-wide view.
Fun fact: the full field of view of the Pixii's range/viewfinder is 53.6 degrees according to the specs page, which would be a slightly tight match for the 55-degree coverage of a 24mm lens. (It's probably about perfect for a 25mm lens, if you happen to have one that fits.) If you want to compare that the the angle of view on other flavors of camera, 55 degrees is covered by a 17mm lens on a Micro 4/3 camera, a 35mm lens on Great-Grandpa's Exakta or other Simplex-format (36x24mm) camera, or about a 40mm lens on a digital medium-format (44x33mm) camera. Of course using the outer finder frame you won't have parallax compensation, but neither did Robert Capa!
You can go wider (although you'll need an accessory viewfinder if you're worried about accurate framing) and it's not really a good idea to go longer, because you'll run into the accuracy limitations of a short-base rangefinder and the possibility of the lens cutting off the view of the rangefinder patch. The Pixii works best with the four focal lengths the viewfinder provides, and they'll cover the angles shown in the viewfinder and in the spiffy chart.
ranger9
Well-known
I have a lot of experience with the 26-megapixel Fujifilm X-T4 camera (some people have said it and the Pixii use the same Sony sensor, although that's just hearsay) and in my opinion the 26-megapixel files from the Pixii are A LOT better in terms of luminance noise and color noise. They just look 'way better. I have no way of knowing how much of the difference is s/n ratio, how much is the difference in X-Trans vs. conventional processing in Lightroom, and how much is my own imagination ("endowment effect" is a real thing) but I am a lot happier with how the Pixii files look. Pixii quotes "as low as 0.83e- read noise" on their website, but I'm not familiar with that unit and I have no idea how it compares to other cameras, so all I have to go on is personal taste.
armadsen
Established
Of course crop factors are a real thing. They're a way to easily understand what the angle of view a lens with a given focal on one camera will be on another camera. Because a huge number of photographers are most used to 35mm film (and more recently "full frame" digital) cameras, using that sensor/film size as a common reference makes great sense.
I have no real idea what the angle of view in degrees is for the lenses I use is, but I definitely know intuitively how a 50mm lens looks on my 35mm cameras. Just because people in the past were more likely to think in those terms doesn't mean that people thinking in different terms is somehow wrong or not real.
I have no real idea what the angle of view in degrees is for the lenses I use is, but I definitely know intuitively how a 50mm lens looks on my 35mm cameras. Just because people in the past were more likely to think in those terms doesn't mean that people thinking in different terms is somehow wrong or not real.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I've never particularly liked the term "crop factor" either but indeed what armadsen has expressed is the popular viewpoint. It is a useful notion if you have a bunch of nice old film camera lenses (or new lenses of whatever descent) and you wonder what they'll cover on whatever FourThirds/APS-C/FF/MFD sensor du jour you get served.
For my own photography, I've always just calculated what the normal focal length for a given sensor might be based on field of view, and from that everything else is easy to understand in the context of my classic set of 35mm focal lengths (ultrawide, wide, normal, short portrait, portrait, tele). (normals: FourThirds = 25, APS-C = 35, FF = 50, Hasselblad X = 65 ... for the major systems that I've been using.) Here's a brief summary:
Equivalent focal lengths based on "classic six" from 35mm film
FF
focal length = 21 35 50 75 90 135
format = 24 x 36
FourThirds
focal length = 11 18 25 38 45 70
format = 13 x 17.3
APS-C
focal length = 14.5 24 35 50 63 100
format = 16 x 24
Hasselblad X
focal length = 27 46 65 98 117 175
format = 33 x 44
* focal lengths rounded to whole numbers
G
For my own photography, I've always just calculated what the normal focal length for a given sensor might be based on field of view, and from that everything else is easy to understand in the context of my classic set of 35mm focal lengths (ultrawide, wide, normal, short portrait, portrait, tele). (normals: FourThirds = 25, APS-C = 35, FF = 50, Hasselblad X = 65 ... for the major systems that I've been using.) Here's a brief summary:
Equivalent focal lengths based on "classic six" from 35mm film
FF
focal length = 21 35 50 75 90 135
format = 24 x 36
FourThirds
focal length = 11 18 25 38 45 70
format = 13 x 17.3
APS-C
focal length = 14.5 24 35 50 63 100
format = 16 x 24
Hasselblad X
focal length = 27 46 65 98 117 175
format = 33 x 44
* focal lengths rounded to whole numbers
G