What does $2000 more get me with the RX1 that I don't get with the EPL5?

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
misolo
Contributing MemberPosts: 603
Like?
Re: What does $2000 more get me with the RX1 that I don't get with the EPL5?
In reply to MAubrey, 5 months ago

MAubrey wrote:

Fixed lens cameras were more attractive in the days of film. The body didn't really become obsolete and a good lens continued to be a good lens. Today, you're dropping $2800 for a great lens and a great sensor, but in five years, you won't be able to move that great lens to a newer sensor. Fundamentally, as bodies become more and more disposable--and they are already--fixed lens cameras become less attractive.

So I guess my answer to your question is: Not much.

--
--Mike

I mostly agree with you. However, I don't think the case is so clear because there are also good arguments on the other side. In the days of film there was no such thing as having a camera designed for a lens: most importantly, the angle of incidence of light on film is irrelevant. With electronic sensors and their micro-lens arrays, having the lens and sensor designed jointly so that they work well together can be a very good idea and a substantial advantage for image quality.

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