RX1 not really that expensive

Started Sep 10, 2012 | Discussions thread
viking79
Forum ProPosts: 13,553Gear list
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to edwardaneal, Sep 11, 2012

edwardaneal wrote:

show me any 24mp full frame camera with a Zeiss 35mm f/2 lens that doesn't cost much more than the RX1

The 24 MP is not that important, I would be fine if it were 6 MP, but I would take the 24 MP.

show me any other full frame camera with a 35 mm lens that you can fit in a coat pocket

Sure, a Leica or similar range finder.

an NEX-7 with the Zeiss 24mm lens will cost you $2,296.00 from B&H - - the RX1 is only $504 more and you get full frame, and all the benefits that come with it, in what looks to be a smaller package

True, but a Fuji X100 is only $1200 and fairly equivalent in terms of function. The 24 MP of the NEX 7 isn't that important, really. It is nice, but not really necessary.

to the person who wants a small camera and wants the absolute highest image quality $504 is not deal breaker

How about $1500?

if the RX1 came with a 50mm lens instead of the 35 I would seriously have to think about selling all my NEX gear and going for it

My problem with the RX1 is the lack of interchangeable lenses. The reason people want the full frame mirrorless camera is to use legacy lenses. However, I do question how well an interchangeable lens system would perform in the corners based on how the NEX 7 performs with some legacy lenses. I am sure this RX1 is designed to have good corner performance, the lens likely extends right up to the sensor, the benefit of a fixed lens design, the Fuji X100 is similar.

The benefit of full frame is 1 and 1/3 stop in flexibility. The nice thing is that is for all your full frame lenses on an interchangeable lens system, but on a fixed lens system it is only for the attached lens. The question is, which would be cheaper, a fixed 24 mm f/1.2 or 1.4 designed for APS-C or a 35 mm f/2 for full frame? Probably a wash. However, a 23 mm f/2 for APS-C might be adequate, and for $1500 less the X100 offers more features too, but is only equivalent to a 35 mm f/3, won't be a problem for most, but will be for some.

What would have made the RX1 more interesting to me is if it were shaped like a NEX 7 so you could actually hold onto it, and also had the NEX 7 viewfinder. Instead we get a point and shoot with an expensive lens and sensor attached. My guess is they had to remove the viewfinder and articulated screen just to make it $2700.

Also, the thing is very deep. A camera like the Fuji X100 is much thinner which will make it easier to slip into a pocket, etc. The RX1 looks a little unwieldy. The thing better have darn good manual focus feel, and it certainly has to offer an available viewfinder if they hope to sell any. My guess is they want to drive up profits by selling people expensive accessories like grips, viewfinders, etc.

Eric
--
I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)

See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)

 viking79's gear list:viking79's gear list
Sony Alpha 7R Samsung NX30 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 85mm F1.4 ED SSA Samsung NX 60mm F2.8 Macro ED OIS SSA +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow