Pixii digital Rangefinder.

woof woof

woof woof

I like a nice Chianti
Suspended / Banned
Messages
43,206
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I read about this some time back and then forgot about it until I spotted it here...

theonlinephotographer.typepad.com

The Online Photographer

A photography news and information website in the form of a weblog with multiple authors who write on a variety of photography and art-photography related issues.
theonlinephotographer.typepad.com

This piece includes links to...

The camera...

pixii.fr

Pixii Camera - Digital rangefinder camera

Pixii is a modern digital rangefinder camera made in France. Pixii features a high-precision rangefinder, interactive optical viewfinder, native smartphone connectivity and Leica-M compatible lens mount. Its sensor delivers a remarkable image quality, outperforming all comparable rangefinders on...
pixii.fr pixii.fr

A review...

www.35mmc.com

Pixii (A1571) Review - New Upgrades and Some Personal Experiences

Somehow Pixii manages to bring a completely unique user experience to the table. And that’s where the appeal is for me.
www.35mmc.com www.35mmc.com

It's a shame this isn't FF but maybe making it APS-C has kept the cost down.

I think it does look interesting and is IMO a nicely styled camera but manual dials would have been nicer, IMO. If I was interested in this I don't think the lack of a display would stop me.

So, who's convinced and off to buy one :D
 
Wow, i mean.. yeah if I was a millionaire, maybe I would waste about 3000 smth to buy the camera.
For me a camera is just a tool...
And that particular one is just like a fancy one lacking the essential tools.
 
I don't think £3k is a all that much for what it is and when you consider the price of other stuff. You can deffo pay more :D A Sony A1 costs £6k, a Canon R3 isn't far behind and ditto a Nikon Z9. OK, those are top end cameras built to do a job but a more mainstream A7IV is £2.5k and I assume the Canon and Nikon equivalents are there abouts whilst the Leica M11 is £7.5K. These are all FF cameras though.

For what it is I do think that £3k isn't all that bad... really... and when you look at it next to what other stuff costs.

But no, I wont be buying one either :D as I've had my time with RF's and my current kit suits me better but I can see the appeal and I wouldn't blame anyone for buying one and loving it :D RF's do have their followers.
 
Last edited:
That's how I see it.

I can see people buying it, how many and if it'll be enough to keep it going in the long term I don't know.
 
Being APS-C could be an issue for some as you lose the wider angle choices, a 28mm looking like 42mm. That could suit some but equally will put some off but I've no idea how much a FF version would have cost.
 
Marino said:
Wow, i mean.. yeah if I was a millionaire, maybe I would waste about 3000 smth to buy the camera.
Click to expand...
I really can't imagine who in their right mind would pay £3,000 or so for something that does no more, and probably less, than a Fuji or Panasonic camera costing little more than a tenth of that sum.

Luckily for the promoters, there are enough fools just waiting to prove the old adage about being easily parted from their money. :naughty: :coat:
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
I really can't imagine who in their right mind would pay £3,000 or so for something that does no more, and probably less, than a Fuji or Panasonic camera costing little more than a tenth of that sum.

Luckily for the promoters, there are enough fools just waiting to prove the old adage about being easily parted from their money. :naughty: :coat:
Click to expand...

Obviously the camera just isn't for you and doubly so if you can't see any attraction of this over a £300 Fuji or Panasonic and that's fair enough but is there really any need for that last sentence?

I'm sure there are people out there who'll be interested in a new digital RF, even an APS-C one. It's up to those interested people to decide if it's worth paying 10 x the price of a used Fuji or Panasonic but will there be enough to keep the project going? I've no idea but I seem to remember the Epson R-D1 becoming a bit of a niche sort after item so you never know and I certainly wish the company and those who want one all the best :D
 
woof woof said:
but is there really any need for that last sentence?
Click to expand...
A little thought would lead you to the conclusion that I think there is.

Cameras, like cars, are often seen as Veblen goods, with values that are far more to do with vanity than usefulness. I think that's a bad thing.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
A little thought would lead you to the conclusion that I think there is.

Cameras, like cars, are often seen as Veblen goods, with values that are far more to do with vanity than usefulness. I think that's a bad thing.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between holding an opinion and insulting those who have the temerity to hold a different one. I think the latter is a bad thing and something you could put a little thought to in an idle moment.
 
PS.
Just read that it does mono DNG's, even more niche and even more attractive to some.

Years ago I had a Panasonic G1 with a fully articulating screen. I often used manual film era lenses on it with the rear screen turned to the camera and not reviewing shots, not knowing what I'd got until I got home and loaded the pictures onto my pc.

I suppose an APS-C RF with no rear screen priced at £3k is a it niche but even though I'm not going to buy one I can't help but like the thought :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
PS.
Just read that it does mono DNG's, even more niche and even more attractive to some.

Years ago I had a Panasonic G1 with a fully articulating screen. I often used manual film era lenses on it with the rear screen turned to the camera and not reviewing shots, not knowing what I'd got until I got home and loaded the pictures onto my pc.

I suppose an APS-C RF with no rear screen priced at £3k is a it niche but even though I'm not going to buy one I can't help but like the thought :D
Click to expand...
To be fair if I had the money for a Leica I think it would be the M10 (or hopefully M11) with no rear screen so this wouldn't phase me, although even 3k for one of these isn't in my budget at the moment sadly.
 
woof woof said:
I think the latter is a bad thing and something you could put a little thought to in an idle moment.
Click to expand...
...and I think that response is a marvellous example of a passive aggressive pot calling a kettle black. :ROFLMAO:
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
...and I think that response is a marvellous example of a passive aggressive pot calling a kettle black. :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

As you so often are Andrew, wrong again. Trust me if I chose to be any sort of agressive there'd be no mistake ;)

I seem to spend my life explaining things to you... Don't you have two GM5's? Isn't that a little "Velben"? After all, the used prices of these are up and you could sell them both, buy a £300 Fuji or Panasonic and donate the excess to a good cause :D
 
billgatese30 said:
To be fair if I had the money for a Leica I think it would be the M10 (or hopefully M11) with no rear screen so this wouldn't phase me, although even 3k for one of these isn't in my budget at the moment sadly.
Click to expand...

I had a Canonete and a Voigtlander Bessa. Both were lovely things to use and I think the Pixiii will be too even though it lacks some of the knobs and dials.
 
woof woof said:
After all, the used prices of these are up and you could sell them both, buy a £300 Fuji or Panasonic and donate the excess to a good cause :D
Click to expand...
I could indeed and because I paid under the odds for them the profit might be substantial. :ROFLMAO:
 
Think I’d rather go with a used M10 for about £500ish more.
 
woof woof said:
Being APS-C could be an issue for some as you lose the wider angle choices, a 28mm looking like 42mm. That could suit some but equally will put some off but I've no idea how much a FF version would have cost.
Click to expand...

That might not necessarily be a bad thing. It's a good APSC sensor that's an industry-established chip - and for those using L mount lenses they'll only use the sharper center of the image circle, and some applications call for a little more reach. A street photographer might well enjoy this camera, and if I shot street style and wanted a little incognito camera this would be quite high on my shopping list.

As I don't....

Price is high, but that's not held back Leica etc. It's a niche camera for a niche base and tbh it's refreshing to see a new maker emerge, rather than an old one die off.

That said, until recently you could get a medium format GFX50r for just over £2k new from Wex if you wanted a range factor form camera, but that ship has alas sailed, and lens range, and size are quite different but...digital MF...£2.1k....
 
Last edited:
Interestingly the storage is inbuilt. Not sure I am a fan of this...but there was quite a thread on the digital medium format Pentax forum I am on where a lot said they'd prefer onboard storage rather than removable card-based.

Again it's an ILC first.
 
I suppose both inbuilt or removeable cards have their advantages and disadvantages, I don't know enough to comment.

On APS-C v FF my only concern would be the availability of wider lenses. I do know from buying film era lenses like Rokkor and Nikon etc that once you get to 24mm and wider the lenses tend to get rarer and the prices tend to go up. I don't know if 24mm would be an attractive focal length for this sort of camera but 28mm could be. When I had RF's my lenses were 35 and 40mm or there abouts and that would be doable with APS-C as 40mm or there abouts (equiv) is doable with a 28mm lens and 50 or there abouts is doable with a 35mm lens but how to go wider than a 40mm equiv and if you can how much is it going to cost? I don't know what's available so maybe this wont be a problem and maybe there's the possibility of adapting something more available and cheaper? I don't know, I just think it could be a problem unless people are happy with a 40/50mm equivalent lens.
 
Well, it's an interesting little thing, but perhaps somewhat gimmicky. However, gimmicks have a habit of turning into necessities. If someone wants to buy it they can and will - no skin off my nose. Not for me, though.
 
One of the appeals of something like this for me is the bulk and weight which are difficult to match these days with a digital camera with a VF. I suppose something like a Panasonic GX80 / GX9 and the Fuji equivalent come the closest and there are compact cameras but they probably wont match the image quality of this APS-C camera. My out of production and difficult to find used Panasonic GM5 and 20mm f1.7 is a nice little thing but it lacks the user experience of a RF with a manual lens.

I can see a market for this and I'm sure it'll find some buyers.

PS.
For MFT I have the tiny 20mm f1.7 and 14mm f2.5 which can be found for around £100. Looking at evil bay a Voigtlander or other 28mm could be an option.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
but they probably wont match the image quality of this APS-C camera.
Click to expand...
Image quality is irrelevant, if the picture achieves its purpose, as Robert Capa proved conclusively in 1944.

In my experience, the sole real world difference between a £300 and a £3,000 camera is generally that there is no real world difference.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Image quality is irrelevant, if the picture achieves its purpose, as Robert Capa proved conclusively in 1944.

In my experience, the sole real world difference between a £300 and a £3,000 camera is generally that there is no real world difference.
Click to expand...
An uncomfortable lot of truth in that
 
Stephen L said:
An uncomfortable lot of truth in that
Click to expand...
We can say the same for most things. Cars, houses, clothes, TVs, mobile phones, food. Life would be incredibly boring if we were all the same though. I don't fancy living in a real life 1984 or Handmaids tale.
 
billgatese30 said:
I don't fancy living in a real life 1984 or Handmaids tale.
Click to expand...
No sane person would, in my opinion.

There's a long distance between that and being aware that more money doesn't necessarily buy you more quality.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Image quality is irrelevant, if the picture achieves its purpose, as Robert Capa proved conclusively in 1944.

In my experience, the sole real world difference between a £300 and a £3,000 camera is generally that there is no real world difference.
Click to expand...


If any better negs had survived, I doubt that the published shots that Capa did manage to save would have seen the light of day.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Image quality is irrelevant, if the picture achieves its purpose, as Robert Capa proved conclusively in 1944.

In my experience, the sole real world difference between a £300 and a £3,000 camera is generally that there is no real world difference.
Click to expand...

That's a nice sound bite but it ignores technical realities which might not matter in a capture of a battle scene in 1944 but will matter to those doing everyday things like photographing weddings, landscapes, birds in flight, sports action, the Mrs or anything else lesser mortals take pictures of when we're not embedded with the troops. In fact I think there aren't many instances ordinary people interested in either photography or cameras will encounter in which image quality doesn't matter at all to them. People even upgrade their smartphone to get a better camera.

As technology moves on so does what can be achieved with it and peoples expectations. Maybe not your expectations but some other peoples expectation. A £300 Panasonic or Fuji is adequate for many things but will be incapable of capturing some images in the way that a £3k offering from Sony, Nikon or Canon can and will not match the image quality either.

RF's are a niche thing so I don't know how much weight potential buyers will give to IQ but I don't think the makers will have ignored it completely.
 
Nod said:
If any better negs had survived, I doubt that the published shots that Capa did manage to save would have seen the light of day.
Click to expand...
That is exactly my point.

The "better" negatives didn't survive, so those which did survive, were what the editors were offered. The editors didn't turn their noses up at them - they used them big and often. They still do, because they're an essential part of history and they are valued for what they survived to show.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top