RX1 not really that expensive

Started Sep 10, 2012 | Discussions thread
Jogger Veteran Member • Posts: 8,441
Re: RX1 not really that expensive

Masterbrew wrote:

GuyMcKie wrote:


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The Leica Digilux 2 has an awesome lens, but all the digital stuff is so outdated that it's nearly worthless now.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
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow