New RX100 to have 24-70mm f1.8-2.8 lens!

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
Samaistuin
Regular MemberPosts: 371
Like?
Re: Too expensive?
In reply to Dennis, 6 months ago

Dennis wrote:

If you look at it as nothing more than an RX100M2 with a built in EVF, it's $800-850 versus $700 and I'd pay $150 for a built in EVF. You can argue that the M2 is expensive and the M1 before it, but apparently, there's a good market for them.

Surely it is, since they currently have a monopoly on 1" pocketable cameras.

AFAIK what Nikon (and Olympus?) will release isn't pocketable, thus not a direct competitor, thus... less incentive for Sony to revise its pricing policy.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dandrewk
Contributing MemberPosts: 708Gear list
Like?
Re: Too expensive?
In reply to Dennis, 6 months ago

Dennis wrote:

Dandrewk wrote:

SAR estimates a price of $800-$850 USA.

In any case, that's REAL high for a compact camera, even at the highest end.

If you look at it as nothing more than an RX100M2 with a built in EVF, it's $800-850 versus $700 and I'd pay $150 for a built in EVF. You can argue that the M2 is expensive and the M1 before it, but apparently, there's a good market for them.

- Dennis

-- hide signature --

I totally agree there's value there, and I applaud Sony for pushing the envelope on small, compact cameras.

But no matter what, it's still a small, compact camera.  There is only so far you can push the price/point of that genre.  Already, it's priced out of the range of the casual user.  When you can buy decent dSLR's and mirror less cameras with changeable lenses for the same price, even the more serious (and affluent) photographers will question it.

It's similar to real estate.  If you have a $1 million mansion in a poor neighborhood, you won't be selling it for $1 million.

Mind you, I'm not complaining.  I wish Sony luck, because good sales continues to motivate pushing the envelope further out.  And that improves all of their cameras.

 Dandrewk's gear list:Dandrewk's gear list
Sony Alpha 7 Sony a6000 Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 70-200 F4 +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dale Cotton
Senior MemberPosts: 1,912
Like?
Re: Too expensive?
In reply to Dandrewk, 5 months ago

Dandrewk wrote:

... But no matter what, it's still a small, compact camera. There is only so far you can push the price/point of that genre. Already, it's priced out of the range of the casual user.

Reducing, instead of increasing, the max focal length and removing the flash also tend to move the M3 out of the casual user's gunsight. This is not a family snaps and vacation camera. I've been asking myself: who is the target user for this model?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dandrewk
Contributing MemberPosts: 708Gear list
Like?
Re: Too expensive?
In reply to Dale Cotton, 5 months ago

Dale Cotton wrote:

Dandrewk wrote:

... But no matter what, it's still a small, compact camera. There is only so far you can push the price/point of that genre. Already, it's priced out of the range of the casual user.

Reducing, instead of increasing, the max focal length and removing the flash also tend to move the M3 out of the casual user's gunsight. This is not a family snaps and vacation camera. I've been asking myself: who is the target user for this model?

Good point, I didn't realize they were removing the flash.

I suspect Sony is divorcing the RX, entirely, from the point and shoot crowd.  They've done quite well with shrinking down pro-level full frame cameras.  Now they want those same serious photographers to consider the m3 as a perfect addendum to their main setup.  Something to -always- have with you and not give up too much the types of images they are used to.

At any rate, it's going to gather a lot of attention.

 Dandrewk's gear list:Dandrewk's gear list
Sony Alpha 7 Sony a6000 Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 70-200 F4 +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
2eyesee
Senior MemberPosts: 1,592
Like?
Re: Too expensive?
In reply to Dale Cotton, 5 months ago

Dale Cotton wrote:

Dandrewk wrote:

... But no matter what, it's still a small, compact camera. There is only so far you can push the price/point of that genre. Already, it's priced out of the range of the casual user.

Reducing, instead of increasing, the max focal length and removing the flash also tend to move the M3 out of the casual user's gunsight. This is not a family snaps and vacation camera. I've been asking myself: who is the target user for this model?

I hadn't heard anything about the flash being removed - do you have any links for this information?

It would make sense, though. I can't see how they can add a viewfinder and not give up something if they are going to keep the size the same.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Samaistuin
Regular MemberPosts: 371
Like?
Re: Too expensive?
In reply to Dandrewk, 5 months ago

Dandrewk wrote:

Good point, I didn't realize they were removing the flash.

That, we're not sure yet. This is only a speculation. Err... a speculation over SAR's speculation, that is 

It has been suggested that the once tiltable flash could be directly integrated around the logo instead (so no tilt anymore but that's a compromise), or that it could somehow sit atop the EVF.

I suspect Sony is divorcing the RX, entirely, from the point and shoot crowd. They've done quite well with shrinking down pro-level full frame cameras. Now they want those same serious photographers to consider the m3 as a perfect addendum to their main setup. Something to -always- have with you and not give up too much the types of images they are used to.

At any rate, it's going to gather a lot of attention.

I think it's always been clear: from the start, with the original RX100, Sony was targeting people like us; "enlightened amateurs" if I may (hopefully that doesn't come across as being too pompous). Big sensor, big price, one colour (and black at that, more like a Thinkpad than an Apple): who else than us would buy that?

There is quite a consensus on this forum and in the "press" around Sony's target customers with the RX line, ever since the RX1 was out (though it seems to have been some hesitations regarding the RX10 - and I include myself amongst the doubters). This upcoming RX100M3, then, is no different.

As pointed in posts above, the traditional P&S customers don't care about the sensor size of their camera - they don't even know there are different sizes out there. They like versatility and numbers that speak, like the long zooms'.

Turns out these fellows aren't bothering to buy their small P&S at nearby electronics stores anymore, they're salivating over smartphones instead. Fine. This is where Sony's main camera department stops catering for them and hands the job over to the phones department. Xperia for the masses, forget the Cybershot; though there's some room for experimentation with the QX modules.

But it's also known that Sony has the tendency to "shoot many things on the wall and see what stiks" (this wording read recently in SAR comment); so it could also be that within its clear goal to attract advanced amateurs/semi-pros in the form of the RX line, it would allow itself to experiment a bit. I.e. a relatively classic RX100M2 and a bit more exotic M3. Sales will tell them if the ingredients of the M3 are appreciated.
... or maybe will serve as a reminder that price sensitivity is a notion that hasn't completely disappearedamongst its prospects.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dale Cotton
Senior MemberPosts: 1,912
Like?
Re: Too expensive?
In reply to Dandrewk, 5 months ago

Sorry not to be clear -- removal of flash is a deduction, not a known spec.

The "full specs" leak says built-in EVF and very little increase in body size. When I look at my M2, I'm seeing no place to put the EVF but the upper right corner. And because the LCD consumes the entire left side of the back face right up to the top deck, I'm assuming the initial rumour that the EVF is pop-up has to be true as well. (Well -- OK -- it could  pop out from the left. <g>)

BTW: there's some chance we'll know the answers to these questions tomorrow. If Sony has indeed made a last minute change to the announcements schedule, there is going to be at least one retailer or other site that has their prepared RX100M3 product page set to appear via an automatic timer that hasn't been reset to the new date.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
doctorxring
Senior MemberPosts: 1,138Gear list
Like?
Re: Too expensive?
In reply to Dandrewk, 5 months ago

I totally agree there's value there, and I applaud Sony for pushing the envelope on small, compact cameras.

But no matter what, it's still a small, compact camera. There is only so far you can push the price/point of that genre. Already, it's priced out of the range of the casual user. When you can buy decent dSLR's and mirror less cameras with changeable lenses for the same price, even the more serious (and affluent) photographers will question it.

It's similar to real estate. If you have a $1 million mansion in a poor neighborhood, you won't be selling it for $1 million.

Mind you, I'm not complaining. I wish Sony luck, because good sales continues to motivate pushing the envelope further out. And that improves all of their cameras.

.

Yes, you are right.  Kind of.   It is indeed about "real estate" as in Location, Location, Location.

And the RX100 series will fit in my Pocket, Pocket, Pocket.

The A6000 won't.

The RX100 is a "compact camera".  But it has a 1 inch sensor with a really good lens and can pull off a really good 20MP shot.  So in that respect it is more comparable to an A6000 and it's price level.

.

 doctorxring's gear list:doctorxring's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Sony RX100 II Sony SLT-A65 Sony a77 II +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dale Cotton
Senior MemberPosts: 1,912
Like?
Re: Too expensive?
In reply to Samaistuin, 5 months ago

Samaistuin wrote:


I think it's always been clear: from the start, with the original RX100, Sony was targeting people like us; "enlightened amateurs" if I may (hopefully that doesn't come across as being too pompous). Big sensor, big price, one colour (and black at that, more like a Thinkpad than an Apple): who else than us would buy that?

Samaistuin: that works for me re the first two RX100 models. But just listen to the early feedback on this forum and the rumours site. The most frequent comment is not "Wow! Built-in EVF!" but "Whoa! I need that 100mm focal or longer, so I pass". Granted, enthusiasts have been jawing from the beginning about the slow f/4.9 tele; and this change gives them the magic f/2.8 number to silence that. But replacing max-100 with max-70 simply cancels out that improvement.

There is quite a consensus on this forum and in the "press" around Sony's target customers with the RX line, ever since the RX1 was out (though it seems to have been some hesitations regarding the RX10 - and I include myself amongst the doubters). This upcoming RX100M3, then, is no different.

As pointed in posts above, the traditional P&S customers don't care about the sensor size of their camera - they don't even know there are different sizes out there. They like versatility and numbers that speak, like the long zooms'.

Agreed. So if we eliminate the majority of enthusiasts and casuals, who's left? The answer I get is pros. Pros are forever on the look-out for a pocket camera that doesn't have IQ that can't take comparison to their high-spec dSLRs. Pros snapped up the original RX100 and became walking salespeople for it. Pros don't take workshops, they give workshops. I think Sony listened to the feedback coming from pros, pretty much ignored everyone else ... and priced the M3 accordingly. For Sony, the M3 is like the RX1, not so much a big-sales product, but a pure bragging-rights product. Presumably, also an attempt to add to the perception that the Sony logo can grace just as serious a tool as any Canon or Nikon.

Not saying the auto and scene modes won't be on the mode dial -- even the RX1 has those. Sony will take all the sales they can get, including, as ever, Mr/Ms Deep Pockets.

This is just where my initial read stands at the moment. Welcome any other takes on the M3's positioning.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dandrewk
Contributing MemberPosts: 708Gear list
Like?
Re: Too expensive?
In reply to doctorxring, 5 months ago

doctorxring wrote:

I totally agree there's value there, and I applaud Sony for pushing the envelope on small, compact cameras.

But no matter what, it's still a small, compact camera. There is only so far you can push the price/point of that genre. Already, it's priced out of the range of the casual user. When you can buy decent dSLR's and mirror less cameras with changeable lenses for the same price, even the more serious (and affluent) photographers will question it.

It's similar to real estate. If you have a $1 million mansion in a poor neighborhood, you won't be selling it for $1 million.

Mind you, I'm not complaining. I wish Sony luck, because good sales continues to motivate pushing the envelope further out. And that improves all of their cameras.

.

Yes, you are right. Kind of. It is indeed about "real estate" as in Location, Location, Location.

And the RX100 series will fit in my Pocket, Pocket, Pocket.

The A6000 won't.

The RX100 is a "compact camera". But it has a 1 inch sensor with a really good lens and can pull off a really good 20MP shot. So in that respect it is more comparable to an A6000 and it's price level.

.

I think we are mostly in agreement here.  But a compact camera without changeable lens options is still a compact camera without changeable lens options.  A big, beautiful home will ALWAY be priced in line with its neighborhood.

And I get the "fits in my pocket" concept.  I would say that feature is probably a bit more important to the "less than serious" photographer class... the same ones that are bound to be a bit more cost conscious about an unimportant hobby.  How will the m3 compare to a $200 compact camera with a 50+ zoom lens to such a buyer?

 Dandrewk's gear list:Dandrewk's gear list
Sony Alpha 7 Sony a6000 Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 70-200 F4 +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
technic
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,376Gear list
Like?
Re: Too expensive?
In reply to Dandrewk, 5 months ago

Dandrewk wrote:

Dennis wrote:

Dandrewk wrote:

SAR estimates a price of $800-$850 USA.

In any case, that's REAL high for a compact camera, even at the highest end.

If you look at it as nothing more than an RX100M2 with a built in EVF, it's $800-850 versus $700 and I'd pay $150 for a built in EVF. You can argue that the M2 is expensive and the M1 before it, but apparently, there's a good market for them.

- Dennis

-- hide signature --

I totally agree there's value there, and I applaud Sony for pushing the envelope on small, compact cameras.

But no matter what, it's still a small, compact camera. There is only so far you can push the price/point of that genre. Already, it's priced out of the range of the casual user. When you can buy decent dSLR's and mirror less cameras with changeable lenses for the same price, even the more serious (and affluent) photographers will question it.

I don't think any of the RX cameras is for the 'casual' users (although many may buy them anyway because they have money burning on their credit card). Some people are willing to pay good money for a high quality camera that is as small as possible. Look at m43, same story. An entry model DSLR is no serious competition, they may have slightly better IQ (if you are lucky with the kit zoom) and some other advantages, but they attract a very different audience.

People have always been willing to pay extra for high quality, extra compact consumer electronics. Sony has several decades experience with this ...

It's similar to real estate. If you have a $1 million mansion in a poor neighborhood, you won't be selling it for $1 million.

If you won't be selling it for $ 1 million, you are deluding yourself that it is a $ 1 million mansion.

Mind you, I'm not complaining. I wish Sony luck, because good sales continues to motivate pushing the envelope further out. And that improves all of their cameras.

The RX100 was probably a bit of a gamble and it paid off. A more expensive model with even better features is less of a gamble, it is clear that people are willing to spend money on this type of camera.

There is no real competition for RX100 in a lower price range, the G1X II and P8000 have similar price. To some extent the cheaper Samsung NX1 mini and Panasonic GM1 are competitors but those are already quite different cameras. For some others the best 1/1.7" sensor compacts are an alternative, but the sensor size gap is big. I guess that the 1/1.7" quality compacts (with good ergonomics, bright lenses etc.) are going to disappear and only very compact ones like S100 series will remain.

 technic's gear list:technic's gear list
Canon EOS 450D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
technic
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,376Gear list
Like?
Re: Too expensive?
In reply to Dale Cotton, 5 months ago

Dale Cotton wrote:

Samaistuin wrote:

I think it's always been clear: from the start, with the original RX100, Sony was targeting people like us; "enlightened amateurs" if I may (hopefully that doesn't come across as being too pompous). Big sensor, big price, one colour (and black at that, more like a Thinkpad than an Apple): who else than us would buy that?

Samaistuin: that works for me re the first two RX100 models. But just listen to the early feedback on this forum and the rumours site. The most frequent comment is not "Wow! Built-in EVF!" but "Whoa! I need that 100mm focal or longer, so I pass". Granted, enthusiasts have been jawing from the beginning about the slow f/4.9 tele; and this change gives them the magic f/2.8 number to silence that. But replacing max-100 with max-70 simply cancels out that improvement.

I think the RX100-1/2 and RX100-3 are targeting different types of photography, especially when the lens on the '3' stops at 70mm. The first two were really people shooters, the '3' looks more like a camera for landscape/cityscape, travel etc. Not just because of the lens, the EVF is also more useful for landscape etc. style; and as a landscape photographer I couldn't care less about a flash, never used one in the last 5 years or so.

I'm really happy with the direction they are going but I understand this isn't what the original RX100 owners want (they would have preferred just two stops extra at tele and maybe a bit more reach on the tele side). For me the shorter tele means an opportunity to improve the quality of the lens (especially corner/border quality at WA), which doesn't seem important for most of the current RX100 owners but it is a requirement for me.

Agreed. So if we eliminate the majority of enthusiasts and casuals, who's left? The answer I get is pros. Pros are forever on the look-out for a pocket camera that doesn't have IQ that can't take comparison to their high-spec dSLRs. Pros snapped up the original RX100 and became walking salespeople for it.

I don't know who is a pro in your book, but I don't think many real pros use RX100; that's just a small percentage of all RX100 owners. It is more likely a second camera for many DSLR enthusiasts.

 technic's gear list:technic's gear list
Canon EOS 450D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
technic
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,376Gear list
Like?
Re: Too expensive?
In reply to Dandrewk, 5 months ago

Dandrewk wrote:

I think we are mostly in agreement here. But a compact camera without changeable lens options is still a compact camera without changeable lens options. A big, beautiful home will ALWAY be priced in line with its neighborhood.

That depends ... a big, beautiful home in a less attractive neighborhood might still attract a certain group of buyers who will pay good money for it (e.g. because you don't like to live among the typical owners of big, beautiful homes; or because you want lots of space but don't want to pay top price for it). I know from experience

I don't buy a camera because I want to show that I have money, like the people long ago who walked around with a Hasselblad but were unable to use it. I buy the best tool for the job and I don't care if others think it is a cheap compact. In fact, all the better if they think that because that means less risk it gets stolen. Btw, that's another comparison with real estate.

And I get the "fits in my pocket" concept. I would say that feature is probably a bit more important to the "less than serious" photographer class... the same ones that are bound to be a bit more cost conscious about an unimportant hobby. How will the m3 compare to a $200 compact camera with a 50+ zoom lens to such a buyer?

Wrong. I buy such a camera as a second camera, a small alternative to a DSLR kit; and I'm guessing that a good percentage of RX100 are 'second' cameras. If I were less than serious about photography I would use a dumbphone. And again, I couldn't care less if someone is proud of the 50x zoom on his $200 point-and-shoot camera and laughs at my camera ...

 technic's gear list:technic's gear list
Canon EOS 450D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Samaistuin
Regular MemberPosts: 371
Like?
Re: Too expensive?
In reply to Dale Cotton, 5 months ago

Dale Cotton wrote:

Samaistuin: that works for me re the first two RX100 models. But just listen to the early feedback on this forum and the rumours site. The most frequent comment is not "Wow! Built-in EVF!" but "Whoa! I need that 100mm focal or longer, so I pass". Granted, enthusiasts have been jawing from the beginning about the slow f/4.9 tele; and this change gives them the magic f/2.8 number to silence that. But replacing max-100 with max-70 simply cancels out that improvement.

My interpretation of the current buzz is that people are more happy about the EVF than they are disappointed about the shortened zoom. Yes, I'have read participants stating that a max-70 simply won't do, which I understand, but it seems that most of us have accepted that we can't have our cake and eat it too - i.e. same max range, better aperture, better min range, same form factor, same quality.

Agreed. So if we eliminate the majority of enthusiasts and casuals, who's left? The answer I get is pros. Pros are forever on the look-out for a pocket camera that doesn't have IQ that can't take comparison to their high-spec dSLRs. Pros snapped up the original RX100 and became walking salespeople for it. Pros don't take workshops, they give workshops. I think Sony listened to the feedback coming from pros, pretty much ignored everyone else ... and priced the M3 accordingly. For Sony, the M3 is like the RX1, not so much a big-sales product, but a pure bragging-rights product. Presumably, also an attempt to add to the perception that the Sony logo can grace just as serious a tool as any Canon or Nikon.

Not saying the auto and scene modes won't be on the mode dial -- even the RX1 has those. Sony will take all the sales they can get, including, as ever, Mr/Ms Deep Pockets.

This is just where my initial read stands at the moment. Welcome any other takes on the M3's positioning.

I generally agree with the above, though with some nuances, especially regarding the sentence in bold.

With the RX100 series, Sony is trying to accomplish several goals at the same time:

  • Reposition itself in a rapidly shrinking market (compact cams), and aim for leadership
  • Consequently targeting enthusiasts whose needs hadn't been previously served
  • Milking enthusiasts as much as they can (them being less price sensitive and having lesser choice than in other markets)
  • Using enthusiasts as prescriptors towards the lesser interested crowd ("No mum, don't buy that P&S, better get a second hand RX100 instead"). Hence the presence of scene modes and endless filters, as you rightly point out.
  • Achieve technological feats not only for those enthusiasts, but also for the bragging rights
  • Brag to improve the perception of their overall brand, and hopefully improve the sales down the line

I don't think, thus, that they have completely tailored their offering and pricing for pros. They sure have listened to them (amongst others), but knew they wouldn't be the primary customers; as pointed by Technic below. When it comes to compacts, it seems to me that there is no difference between pros and enthusiasts.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dennis
Forum ProPosts: 13,797
Like?
Re: Too expensive?
In reply to Dandrewk, 5 months ago

Dandrewk wrote:

But no matter what, it's still a small, compact camera. There is only so far you can push the price/point of that genre. Already, it's priced out of the range of the casual user. When you can buy decent dSLR's and mirror less cameras with changeable lenses for the same price, even the more serious (and affluent) photographers will question it.

I agree.  So Sony is straddling that supplly & demand line, trying to price to balance profit & sales volume.  Sony has always done well when they can produce something unique and price it high due to the lack of direct competition.  Plenty of people will choose a cheaper alternative, but if something in that unique product calls to you, there's nothing else quite like it.

I can see a couple potential problems with the pricing, though.  First, there are already a lot of RX100s & MIIs in the hands of the target market for this camera.  Second, if the EVF pushes it past the point of being pocketable, there's more competition, both in small mirrorless and in competing prosumers (which, granted, lack the 1" sensor).  And then you have the competing prosumers that were in the $500 range now selling in the $250-300 range.

Mind you, I'm not complaining. I wish Sony luck, because good sales continues to motivate pushing the envelope further out. And that improves all of their cameras.

So long as a company can product a product affordably enough to sell it profitably at low sales volumes (Leica, for instance) all kinds of products are viable, from $80 point & shoots to the $1300 RX10.  I think Sony has struck a gold mine here, building multiple products with at least some core components.  But it sure would be nice if it were (a whole lot) cheaper   Or if they did an upgrade program !

- Dennis

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
technic
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,376Gear list
Like?
Re: Too expensive?
In reply to Dennis, 5 months ago

Dennis wrote:

I can see a couple potential problems with the pricing, though. First, there are already a lot of RX100s & MIIs in the hands of the target market for this camera.

And that is why the RX100-3 is targeting a DIFFERENT group of buyers, not the people/event shooters but more the landscape/travel etc. shooters who have very different requirements and were in general not enthusiastic about the RX100-1/2. This is a clever decision from Sony, targeting again the exact same group of RX100 buyers with a slightly improved model (there is only so much you can do with this concept ...) is getting more and more difficult.

Second, if the EVF pushes it past the point of being pocketable, there's more competition, both in small mirrorless and in competing prosumers (which, granted, lack the 1" sensor). And then you have the competing prosumers that were in the $500 range now selling in the $250-300 range.

According to rumor version 3 isn't really bigger than version 2, which is borderline pocketable IMHO. But I don't know any mirrorless camera with EVF and bright 24-70 or so zoom that is pocketable, not even 'borderline'. So what competition are we talking about?

Cameras with 1/1.7" sensor (plus EVF) are not real competition IMHO either, except maybe for very price sensitive buyers. But here again, what quality compact has an EVF these days? All the ones with bright and good quality lenses that come to mind lack an EVF.

I think here too you are disregarding the fact that people have different requirements, and things like a lens with high image quality (into the corners), 24mm focal length and an EVF can be very important for some (and totally irrelevant for others ...).

 technic's gear list:technic's gear list
Canon EOS 450D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John Gellings
Contributing MemberPosts: 527
Like?
Re: Too expensive?
In reply to technic, 5 months ago

It's a little bit expensive, but then again ... it's the only camera of its type.  The Ricoh GR and Nikon Coolpix A have larger sensors but are fixed wide angle cameras.  The Nikon 1 series lenses don't retract enough to be truly pocketable in pants.

$850 can buy a better camera, but maybe not at this size.  If this rumor pans out, it appears that Sony added everything most people who used the MK1 and MKII versions wanted.

I'm interested after swearing off the II version... I felt the Ricoh GR was better at 28mm and that it was too slow at the 50-100mm mark.

24mm will come in handy and the fast aperture will be nice at telephoto.  Makes more sense than the tiny m4/3 cameras with larger lenses (GM1).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dandrewk
Contributing MemberPosts: 708Gear list
Like?
Re: Too expensive?
In reply to technic, 5 months ago

technic wrote:

Dandrewk wrote:

And I get the "fits in my pocket" concept. I would say that feature is probably a bit more important to the "less than serious" photographer class... the same ones that are bound to be a bit more cost conscious about an unimportant hobby. How will the m3 compare to a $200 compact camera with a 50+ zoom lens to such a buyer?

Wrong. I buy such a camera as a second camera, a small alternative to a DSLR kit; and I'm guessing that a good percentage of RX100 are 'second' cameras. If I were less than serious about photography I would use a dumbphone. And again, I couldn't care less if someone is proud of the 50x zoom on his $200 point-and-shoot camera and laughs at my camera ...

... which is entirely besides the point.

It's a simple concept.  Small, compact cameras have always appealed to the broad masses.  They are generally aimed at the typical buyer, and a walk down the camera aisle at Best Buy reveals an enormous selection.  Now imagine your typical camera buyer walking that aisle, coming to the end and seeing the $800 RX100m3.  Do you think he sees or cares about the improved lens/EVF?

NO!  ALL HE SEES is $800 and walks away scratching his head, wondering why on earth any reasonable buyer would pay that much money for a small, compact camera with a fixed lens.

I am not talking about a pro or serious amateur.  I'm talking about the overwhelming vast majority of camera buyers, the ones that Sony will have priced themselves out of.  The ~$600 top end of this segment is already too high for many for this sort of camera.  Adding another $200 knocks it out of the park, especially when compared to similar priced cameras with inter changeable lenses.

This obviously does not include you, or me.  I will pay the extra $$ because the quality is worth it.  Sony WILL sell RX100m3's.  But by further increasing the msrp, they are shoving this camera into a much smaller niche class.

 Dandrewk's gear list:Dandrewk's gear list
Sony Alpha 7 Sony a6000 Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 70-200 F4 +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Elaka Farmor
Regular MemberPosts: 446
Like?
Re: Too expensive?
In reply to technic, 5 months ago

technic wrote:

Samaistuin wrote:

Dandrewk wrote:

SAR estimates a price of $800-$850 USA. The same estimates in Euros as well, which is a tad confusing as €800 equates to roughly $1100.

It's always like that. Tax difference between USA and countries in other continents.

about 20% VAT difference, plus usually a 20% penalty for EU customers to subsidize the US market ...

Sony is usually one of the few exceptions though, their EU prices are often closer to the US price (for Nikon and Canon a EU customer often pays 20-30% extra, taking exchange rate and taxes into account).

It´s very funny when people in the US complain that $800 is high. A $800 camera i the US costs almost $1200 in Sweden…….

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
esmu urdis
New MemberPosts: 7
Like?
Re: Too expensive?
In reply to Elaka Farmor, 5 months ago

It's compact, high quality, pricey but looks very useful

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads