In my experience camera size has two peculiarities.
Actual measured size doesn’t always match experienced size. Design, weight distribution etc makes a big difference.
Cameras are kind of modular in their size when it comes to use. A certain span of camera size is sort of equal.
A take everywhere camera has to be tiny, the only one that fully does that is the GR for me. Slightly larger and I don’t bring it when going out for drinks, grocery shopping etc. Then there’s the sort of travel size that is a bit larger and you bring it when you’re willing to make an effort but it’s not a dedicated outing. Finally there’s cameras that you only happily bring to dedicated photo outings.
With interchangable lens systems the lens plays a huge part. For me I really dislike protruding lenses and have noticed really strict limits to what I actually bring. I have a lens that I love and it’s not that huge but it’s 90mm including the short hood and I leave it at home in too many circumstances opting for one that is 70mm including hood or even shorter options.
I’ve been tempted by the Pixii before. Actually, I’ve followed the project and its reception with great interest from the beginning. I’d love to play with a rangefinder camera, and moreso an artisinal French one.
But besides the price, which is only ludicrous if you don’t compare it to Leica, these cameras do seem to have their quirks: very slow startup (several seconds) and very disappointing battery life (dozens of shots) have been reported by some. If true, those would be complete deal-breakers to me. A lot of copium and post-hoc rationalizations in what few reviews one can find, too.
Still, there’s a lot to love: a real rangefinder, and a user-serviceable one at that. An actually good smartphone integration, and minimal user interface. And, a factory-update option for kitting out old bodies with new sensors and processors. That’s just wildly cool.
The price, though, just clearly spells not-for-me at this point in my life, for such a frivolous camera.
It wonder if it’s even relatively “cheap” given it’s made in France, must have tiny volumes and has to try to recoup capital and development costs on small sales. Leica’s gross profit margin seems to be around 60% (according to quick web search) thanks to a brand value, managed by owner Hermes, that will also allow for lucrative tie-ups.
Edit: Erk. Hermes sold its stake ages ago to investment firms…
Me too. I’ve written them a few times asking about open sourcing their firmware. They of course didn’t reply. A camera like this with open firmware would be an automatic purchase for me. One can dream!
Was my first real camera, a Canon AE-1, a rangefinder? I focused it by bring together an image that was split if the object was not in focus. I could focus on any object in the viewfinder, whether it was near the center of the frame or not. To me, it was less guesswork than a modern autofocus system, where you have to twiddle buttons or something to get it to focus on any object in the frame. Also, you could focus on an object, then recompose your frame.
It’s an SLR because you’re using the viewfinder and looking thru the lens via a mirror. A rangefinder has a separate “window” where you look thru to compose.
Sounds like the focus mechanism is the same or similar to what a rangefinder uses:
The viewfinder used by the AE-1 is Canon’s standard split image rangefinder with microprism collar focusing aids.
That was a split-prism viewfinder on an SLR camera. Focusing works similar to a rangefinder.
However, what you see in the viewfinder is very different: a rangefinder is just a window with frame lines. There is no depth of field visible, you don’t see a difference between different lenses, you get a parallax error, but you get to see outside the frame.
As a fun aside, Fuji cameras have a digital simulation of a split-prism focusing patch. It actually works surprisingly well and is good fun to use.
Haha! That gave me a chuckle. I’m actually starting to get presbyopia. The most annoying part, though, is that it’s merely adding to the hyperopia, amblyopia and astigmatism that I already have!
Give me a few glasses of wine or beer, and I get amazing swirly bokeh
@Tamas_Papp: Are you in the United States? I know you said you weren’t planning to buy anything for the time being, but… would you like to borrow something for a few months? You have a gx9, right? I have a 3d printed grip for my gx85 which (I think) also fits a gx9, and an Olympus 25mm/1.2 that I bought used a while back. It’s really a full-frame sized (and weight) lens for m43. It’s been sitting on a shelf for a bit, and I wouldn’t mind someone getting some use out of it while I decide what I’m going to do with it.
Well I thought my recommendation would go against your idea (smallest body with largest sensor) but since others have mentioned good old fashioned DSLRs… I’ll add my two suggestions:
Nikon D700 with any 50mm… you can get an old MF Nikkor or the plasticy 50mm AF, pricewise that would be the best option but quite bulky (the body, not the lens)
my current setup, Canon EOS-R (the first one) with its 50mm f/1.8; the lens is super-small, the body not so much even though it’s a mirrorless but I guess similar size to a Sony A7 body mentioned above. Quality wise a step up compared to the D700 but we’re talking minor issues. I think this is one of the cheaper full-frame bodies you can find around (wait, maybe the EOS-RP is cheaper, but I had one and wasn’t lucky, while the R is rock-solid even if a bit quirky with its buttons and… sliders… )
Thanks for the suggestion. I have to admit that the Nikon pushes my nostalgia buttons, as I have owned a D70s. But indeed it is very bulky.
As for the Canon EOS R, I disliked every Canon I had ever since the Powershot G15. I always had entry/enthusiast model DSLRs, and could never escape the feeling that they were intentionally crippled (hence Magic Lantern and CHDK, but neither supports this camera).
I might go for a Sony A7 (mark i): reasonably cheap now (4–600 EUR), body is not too large, has IBIS and zebra, and while it does not have the amazing focus tracking of recent Sony bodies, its hybrid AF is nevertheless still decent for what I shoot.
There is some bokeh on this micro four-thirds shot using a 100 mm Olympus zukio om film lens
Does anybody know of any online tests on this lens or advice on how to do it myself?
I think a good photographer will take excellent photos with Sony Alpha or Canon
I am advised that Sony and Fuji take longer to learn so for me a good book would be handy I might also spend that bit extra on a mark three with Sony though I’m happy with the Canon options
the lady in my camera shop told me sony have all the clever tricks but Canon better color, of course if you’re a darktable whizz and therefore good at colour grading that might not worry
I do like the way since the Canon ql7, the body the Fuji 100x is based on allegedly , Canon provides affordable cameras which if you use professionally will give professional results
Whether one brand or another has better colors is only a concern if you shoot JPEG. If you shoot raw, it’s all about the raw processor you use and your skills with it.
Wouldn’t that also depend on how good the Bayer matrix is at filtering the right wavelengths to the right sensels? Because in the extreme case of a removed Bayer matrix, I doubt the raw processor can reconstruct a color image?
