Rangefinder cameras are a long way from necessary, and yet, they are still popular, particularly because of Leica. What is it about rangefinders that makes them appealing and is this new Pixii camera a good example?
Some years back, I couldn't for the life of me understand who was buying rangefinder cameras or why. In the 1950s, they were the most popular bodies, but 60 years later I couldn't quite work out why people were still buying them, particularly new, digital bodies. There are advantages, though. For example, they're typically smaller and lighter bodies, allegedly better image quality, and some benefits to shooting where digital falls short, like low light. But, with these benefits, come a number of prohibitive downsides.
Firstly, you do not what you're shooting for sure until you see the final image. Secondly, in most rangefinder cameras, and this is true of the Pixii Rangefinder, there is no back screen to check that final image. Then, there are a whole host of difficulties with the shooting side and quality of life that DSLRS and mirrorless cameras do not encounter. Nevertheless, it's another example of you don't know you won't like it until you try it, and for me, I definitely like it.
I'm hoping to get my hands on the new Pixii rangefinder camera to give it a whirl. Are you interested in it?
sounds like a very expensive toy without any real demand other than camera writers who need new material
Agreed, if the lack of features somehow made it affordable that could be cool, but this is just another toy for hipsters.
I found the Pixii intriguing enough, and the reviews—especially on DearSusan and 35mmc—more than positive enough to order one. I discovered this year that I thoroughly enjoy rangefinder photography (and so does my in-college daughter), and so acquired a Leica. The Pixii gives me a second, significantly less expensive body, albeit APS-C, to work with. Add in its premise/promise of upgradeability, and I find this a lot more interesting than a “reviewer’s toy.”