RX1 not really that expensive

Started Sep 10, 2012 | Discussions
Cyborgintime
New MemberPosts: 12
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Sep 10, 2012

Cameras are tools. The RX1 appears to be a very special tool, not appropriate for many photographers. For the serious street photographer who wants discretely to make photos that can be blown up to very large size, for example, this might be an essential tool.

If this camera is a success, it should allow photographers to make photographs in which the primary point of interest--often a person or two-- will be relatively close, and the remainder of the frame will be filled with stuff composed in relation to the primary point of interest. It is a challenging and interesting kind of photography. These photo opportunities tend to come and go very quickly. The eye that can see them and compose a complex frame quickly are rare.

Of course, there are many other possibilities, but a camera of this kind depends a lot more on being able to see that to fumble with a bunch of gear.

It will not replace the NEX7 or your favorite full-frame DSLR both of which are much more versatile tools.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
D Cox
Senior MemberPosts: 6,831
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Sep 10, 2012

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

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.

And at that point the question is how much it has cost you per photograph. If you shoot 50,000 photos before it dies, the cost is reasonable. If you only shoot 500, it is expensive.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 10,103Gear list
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to D Cox, Sep 10, 2012

D Cox wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

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.

And at that point the question is how much it has cost you per photograph. If you shoot 50,000 photos before it dies, the cost is reasonable. If you only shoot 500, it is expensive.

And what has that got to do with lens included in $2800, 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
CFynn
Senior MemberPosts: 5,211Gear list
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to Old Pirate, Sep 11, 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.

Well before NEX got a forum of its own, most of the NEX posts were in the "Sony SLR" forum not in the "Sony Talk" forum.

This camera is of far more interest to NEX shooters than Sony to P&S shooters. It is probably also a good indication of things that will eventually wind up in a full frame NEX.

 CFynn's gear list:CFynn's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Nikon D800E Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC Nikon AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D ED-IF +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CFynn
Senior MemberPosts: 5,211Gear list
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to cxsparc, Sep 11, 2012

cxsparc wrote:

I agree. Just think about all those Canon FD lenses. Still in good use after 30 years

Yes and think of all those TLR Rollei's with their fixed Zeiss lenses ,very many still in good use after 40+ years. Let's just hope Sony built the RX1 electronics and body to last and will keep parts available for a long time.

A 24mp camera with a Zeiss lens may become dated but, as long as it lasts, it will never really be obsolete.

 CFynn's gear list:CFynn's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Nikon D800E Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC Nikon AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D ED-IF +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lucas Jarvis
Regular MemberPosts: 465
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

Well, I can show you a Canon 5D MKII with Zeiss 35mm f/2 for about the same price. All new.

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Lucas

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CFynn
Senior MemberPosts: 5,211Gear list
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to NomadMark, Sep 11, 2012

NomadMark wrote:

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

Real Zeiss glass is Cosina/Zeiss??? or maybe Yashica/Zeiss?

Actually an awful lot lot of real (German) Zeiss glass is in fixed lens cameras that were made by Zeiss, Rollei and other companies.

 CFynn's gear list:CFynn's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Nikon D800E Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC Nikon AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D ED-IF +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ballwin12
Regular MemberPosts: 253Gear list
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Sep 11, 2012

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

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.

At least if a NEX dies, you still have the CZ lens/. If this one dies, you lost $2800 !

 ballwin12's gear list:ballwin12's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon D600 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
viking79
Forum ProPosts: 13,073Gear 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 Sony Alpha 7 Samsung NX30 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 85mm F1.4 ED SSA +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
cxsparc
Senior MemberPosts: 1,345
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to CFynn, Sep 11, 2012

CFynn wrote:

cxsparc wrote:

I agree. Just think about all those Canon FD lenses. Still in good use after 30 years

Yes and think of all those TLR Rollei's with their fixed Zeiss lenses ,very many still in good use after 40+ years. Let's just hope Sony built the RX1 electronics and body to last and will keep parts available for a long time.

A 24mp camera with a Zeiss lens may become dated but, as long as it lasts, it will never really be obsolete.

You are entitled to your beliefs. IMHO a TLR Rollei offers medium-format film shooting possibility. This always has been a niche market without a lot of alternatives.

What has the RX1 to offer to make it special in that regard? FF? Lots of FF cameras available, cheap too. Think of the value of a D1X in 2-3 years.

My P+S Sony P150 also has a Zeiss lens. That does not make it that special

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RezaTravilla
Regular MemberPosts: 241Gear list
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to cxsparc, Sep 11, 2012

cxsparc wrote:

My P+S Sony P150 also has a Zeiss lens. That does not make it that special

My Nokia also have CZ

well, i prefer Nikon D800 than this. Thanks i will stay with Sony NEX5n for playing with manual lenses

 RezaTravilla's gear list:RezaTravilla's gear list
Nikon D300S Sony Alpha NEX-5N Olympus OM-D E-M5 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Steven-T
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,069Gear list
Like?
Re: RX1 not really that expensive
In reply to viking79, Sep 12, 2012

viking79 wrote:

edwardaneal wrote:

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.

A M9 + 35 Cron is much heavier and larger, and hardly coat pocketable, if at all. The M9 weighs about 580g, and the black 35 Cron is about 250g.

My problem with the RX1 is the lack of interchangeable lenses.

Me too. I only need a FF DB for my Leica M's.

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)

 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
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads