RX1 not really that expensive

Started Sep 10, 2012 | Discussions
edwardaneal
Senior MemberPosts: 9,101Gear list
Like?
RX1 not really that expensive
Sep 10, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

JMO

-- hide signature --

NEX-7 & Sigma 30mm f/2.8
NEX-5 & 18-55 OSS
And a spare black 18-55

 edwardaneal's gear list:edwardaneal's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sigma 60mm F2.8 DN Carl Zeiss Touit 1.8/32
Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony RX1
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
GuyMcKie
Contributing MemberPosts: 534
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to edwardaneal, Sep 10, 2012

True.

But the camera is an electronic device that ever dies. Then you have an expensive and useless lens.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Old Pirate
Senior MemberPosts: 1,369Gear list
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to GuyMcKie, Sep 10, 2012

True...but it is not a NEX either. Why are these posts showing up in the NEX forums? They should be in the "Sony Talk" forum.

 Old Pirate's gear list:Old Pirate's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony Alpha 7R
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
NomadMark
Regular MemberPosts: 457Gear list
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to GuyMcKie, Sep 10, 2012

Yep!

And I for one, like the idea of having a Zeiss 35/f2 forever if I want it. I like the idea of having it to put on the next best thing, when it comes out.

People keep comparing to the price of modular units...leica, the nex series, etc. But there is real value in being able to take a lens off of a body, as indicated. Apples and oranges. These appeal to different people. Just figure out what camp you belong in, and stop trying to compare. If you like it, you like it. If you don't, you don't.

 NomadMark's gear list:NomadMark's gear list
Sony RX1R Sony Alpha 7R Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
beetle0042000
Regular MemberPosts: 248
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to GuyMcKie, Sep 10, 2012

good point

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
cheddargav
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,490Gear list
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to GuyMcKie, Sep 10, 2012

I was already to applaud a very good argument for the price, then you pee'd all over it, lol

Both makes good points. I guess you can always fix an electronic device tho. It's not as tho a Canon 5D dies and the owner just tosses it in the bin

GuyMcKie wrote:

True.

But the camera is an electronic device that ever dies. Then you have an expensive and useless lens.

 cheddargav's gear list:cheddargav's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 6D Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
aman74
Senior MemberPosts: 2,787
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to GuyMcKie, Sep 10, 2012

GuyMcKie wrote:

True.

But the camera is an electronic device that ever dies. Then you have an expensive and useless lens.

Exactly. You can't use the lens as a major part of the equation to justify value when it doesn't hold the same value and usability as a removable one would afford you. If you have the bucks, go for it, but not many folks can afford to pay for a lens and not get use on it over multiple generations of bodies.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
cxsparc
Senior MemberPosts: 1,413
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to NomadMark, Sep 10, 2012

I agree. Just think about all those Canon FD lenses. Still in good use after 30 years and
you even can sell them for two digit numbers.

While the bodies are simply discarded.

Of course with modern electronic AF lenses, failure may occur much sooner.

But a Nex 7 and Zeiss 24 for 2000 Euros will be worth used about 300 + 800 next year. If the Nex 7 fails, you will still have 800 Euros of equipment. With the RX1, you will have naught.
--
Nex-Blog: http://luxorphotoart.blogspot.de/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
NomadMark
Regular MemberPosts: 457Gear list
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to NomadMark, Sep 10, 2012

Also one think I like when buying REAL Zeiss glass...is I can mount it to a Sony...or a Leica, or a Fuji...

...I DARE you to try to mount that Sony/Zeiss mock-up on a Fuji

 NomadMark's gear list:NomadMark's gear list
Sony RX1R Sony Alpha 7R Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
quezra
Senior MemberPosts: 2,235Gear list
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to cxsparc, Sep 10, 2012

NEWSFLASH: PROTOTYPE DEVICE MORE EXPENSIVE THAN LOUSIER MASS MARKET ALTERNATIVES. NEWS AT 11

Seriously folks, anyone remember the first portable computers, cellphones, tablets, etc.? All above $10,000 (which would be even more in today's prices). Here we have a FF compact probably selling at a third of its only rival (the Leica).

It's out of your league, whiners. Get over it. (It's out of my league too. I couldn't care less)

 quezra's gear list:quezra's gear list
Sony Alpha 7 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony Alpha NEX-5N Voigtlander 35mm F1.4 Nokton +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Steven-T
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,083Gear list
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to edwardaneal, Sep 10, 2012

Agreed on the price, for someone who wants this camera with a fixed lens. It's relatively cheap, actually.

To put this further, if the body costs $2,499.95, and the lens $1,499.95, total $3,999.90, I will buy the camera body in a heart beat, and use all my Leica M's. I will take the bait if the camera only sells with the lens as a kit. Oops, I can't do that.

To me, its not the price per se. It's the dead money I throw in. I would rather use my 35 Cron or 24 Elmarit on my little C3, for now. Size similar, but only APS-C. I will wait, and hope . . .

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

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

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

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

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

JMO

-- hide signature --

NEX-7 & Sigma 30mm f/2.8
NEX-5 & 18-55 OSS
And a spare black 18-55

 Steven-T's gear list:Steven-T's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Leica M9 Nikon D800E Sony Alpha 7R Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Masterbrew
Regular MemberPosts: 496
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to GuyMcKie, Sep 10, 2012

GuyMcKie wrote:

True.

But the camera is an electronic device that ever dies. Then you have an expensive and useless lens.

I agree, and I don't agree.

The Leica Digilux 2 has an awesome lens, but all the digital stuff is so outdated that it's nearly worthless now.

However, I'm not sure the people who would consider a camera like the RX1 have the same budget considerations as someone like me. When they ponder the RX1 purchasing decision, they compare the $2799 to other full frame bodies that will give similar quality.

Such full frame bodies are expensive. D800 body only costs $2999, 5D mk3 body only costs $3400, Leica M9 body only costs $6300.

Those bodies are gonna depreciate at the same rate as the RX1.

Then add in the fact that you get a $1500 value 35mm f2 Zeiss.

So if you have that kind of money to spend, and all you care about is getting the best darn possible image quality for the next 2-4 years, the RX1 looks like a pretty good deal.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jogger
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,400Gear list
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to Masterbrew, Sep 10, 2012

Masterbrew wrote:

GuyMcKie wrote:

True.

But the camera is an electronic device that ever dies. Then you have an expensive and useless lens.

I agree, and I don't agree.

The Leica Digilux 2 has an awesome lens, but all the digital stuff is so outdated that it's nearly worthless now.

However, I'm not sure the people who would consider a camera like the RX1 have the same budget considerations as someone like me. When they ponder the RX1 purchasing decision, they compare the $2799 to other full frame bodies that will give similar quality.

Actually, i think the cross shoppers are going to look at similar sized cameras rather than other FF cameras. The selling point here is that its the best image quality ever in a compact size. Full frame SLR bodies are a completely different beast, the only thing in common is the size of teh sensor.

Such full frame bodies are expensive. D800 body only costs $2999, 5D mk3 body only costs $3400, Leica M9 body only costs $6300.

The FF D600 (which uses the same sensor), will be around $1500.

Those bodies are gonna depreciate at the same rate as the RX1.

Pro SLR bodies hold their value very well... mostly, because they are only replaced every 3-5 years, rather than the annual turn-over for fixed lens cameras. Even when a new model is out, the older one is still highly functional.

Then add in the fact that you get a $1500 value 35mm f2 Zeiss.

So if you have that kind of money to spend, and all you care about is getting the best darn possible image quality for the next 2-4 years, the RX1 looks like a pretty good deal.

 Jogger's gear list:Jogger's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Nikon D700 Nikon Df Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
LogCabin
Forum MemberPosts: 81
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to Old Pirate, Sep 10, 2012

Old Pirate wrote:

True...but it is not a NEX either. Why are these posts showing up in the NEX forums? They should be in the "Sony Talk" forum.

Because all the NEX fans are crying that it's not going to be an NEX

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jorginho
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,076Gear list
Like?
For a P&S its still rather expensive.
In reply to edwardaneal, Sep 10, 2012

P&S.....Yes, no (E)VF.

 Jorginho's gear list:Jorginho's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jonathan_Whiteman
Contributing MemberPosts: 808Gear list
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to LogCabin, Sep 10, 2012

Because it's interesting to people who like small form factor mirrorless cameras from Sony and especially to those who are terrified that by choosing NEX they have somehow wasted their money or chosen the wrong thing. Once it's out we'll stop talking about it

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
edwardaneal
Senior MemberPosts: 9,101Gear list
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to Old Pirate, Sep 10, 2012

Are we not allowed to compare non NEX offerings to the NEX system?

Old Pirate wrote:

Why are these posts showing up in the NEX forums? They should be in the "Sony Talk" forum.

-- hide signature --

NEX-7 & Sigma 30mm f/2.8
NEX-5 & 18-55 OSS
And a spare black 18-55

 edwardaneal's gear list:edwardaneal's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sigma 60mm F2.8 DN Carl Zeiss Touit 1.8/32
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
edwardaneal
Senior MemberPosts: 9,101Gear list
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to NomadMark, Sep 10, 2012

there is also real value in a fixed lens camera - the sensor and its micro lenses can be 100% optimized to work together for the absolute best image quality and sensor dust issues are nonexistent.

like you say bith have their advantages

NomadMark wrote:

there is real value in being able to take a lens off of a body, as indicated. Apples and oranges. These appeal to different people. Just figure out what camp you belong in, and stop trying to compare. If you like it, you like it. If you don't, you don't.

-- hide signature --

NEX-7 & Sigma 30mm f/2.8
NEX-5 & 18-55 OSS
And a spare black 18-55

 edwardaneal's gear list:edwardaneal's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sigma 60mm F2.8 DN Carl Zeiss Touit 1.8/32
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
D Cox
Senior MemberPosts: 7,352
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to edwardaneal, Sep 10, 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

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

Minox 35 and Rollei 35. These are of course film cameras, but the space taken up by battery and chips in a digital camera is about the same as that taken up by film.

They are smaller than the RX1 because the lenses have smaller apertures - f/2.8 or f/3.5.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 10,897Gear list
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to GuyMcKie, Sep 10, 2012

GuyMcKie wrote:

True.

But the camera is an electronic device that ever dies. Then you have an expensive and useless lens.

I would say, that when something that costs $2800 dies, the cost is $2800 regardless of it having a lens with it, or not.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads