Why the RX1 is too expensive

Started Sep 10, 2012 | Discussions thread
TiagoReil Senior Member • Posts: 1,585
Re: Why the RX1 is too expensive

The RX1 is for someone who wants a full frame sensor in a small package. Period. Full frame. Not many cameras provide that. The next follower is the Leica M8M9. They are bigger thatn the RX1. Next you have the FF cameras from Nikon and Canon. REally bigger.

You are comparing it to cameras that dont even compete. The difference in sensor is quite big, and if you consider how much a FF body costs, you are getting it with a lens:

Leica M9: 6500


Nikon 800: 3000


Canon 5D mark 3: 3500



AS you see, you are getting the cheapest full frame bought new (I wont consider usd market) and it comes with a lens.

IF you need a full frame camera, this will be the cheapest on the market (At least until the A99 gets out, and you are not considering the lenses in this comparison) and it comes with a lens. So you could consider it actually a cheap camera (For what it provides)

OF course if you dont need a Full Frame camera, then any full frame camera is expensive. Not only this one.

Here is a good comparison of sizes:


Anadrol wrote:

If you buy the Fuji X-E1 + the soon to come 23mm f1.4, it will cost you about 1700 USD and you have the possibility to change lenses.

The RX1 sensor surface is about 2.38X bigger than APS-C but the Fuji f1.4 lens gathers twice the light, so the IQ will be about the same.

The RX1 advantage is that it's smaller though, 24MP give a bit more details, and the Fuji 23mm won't be available before 2013.

 TiagoReil's gear list:TiagoReil's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony 85mm F2.8 SAM Sigma 70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro +3 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow