Get off the RX1's back

Started Jan 29, 2013 | Discussions thread
Docno Veteran Member • Posts: 4,797
This is what you're paying for....

tbcass wrote:

Hughesnet wrote:

Nothing you listed gives you any basis or authority when it comes to having any idea when it comes to FF camera and lens prices. You listed your camera education which has no basis on the pricing. You mentioned how long you have been into photography...and then listed the a55 and a65 as your cameras. Which granted arent bad but hardly any indication that you have any idea what you are talking about in regards to the full frame market.

I listed my cameras and experience as a response to this comment by the OP.

"I think its just envy, mainly from RX100 owners who think their camera will perform almost as we'll for 25% of the price. Well let me tell you if you think that you know very little about photography."

I know plenty about photography having started in the days when everything was done manually without the crutches digital affords.

Buy any full frame body. Now buy any full frame prime 35mm prime by Zeiss of this quality. OK, now what was the cheapest retial price you managed to do that for without going used? Was it more or less then the RX1? I rest my case.

I don't know if you realize it but 35mm film is FF. I shot 35mm for 35 years before switching to digital 10 years ago. I am fully aware of the slight improvement in IQ FF affords over APS-C, especially at high IQ. All in all IMO the tiny advantage that FF gives is simply not worth the money in most cases but when you consider that it is possible to buy a Nikon D600 equipped with a lens comparable to the one on the RX1 for barely more money it is plain to see the camera is over priced. If you have a lot of money and can afford it fine for you but to pay $2800 for a fixed lens camera with no eye level viewfinder and CD auto focus makes this a niche camera for people of means and is not a good deal.

-- hide signature --

First, to benchmark, the a99 with the same sensor is only a few dollars cheaper than the RX1, and that's without a lens. Buy a single lens and you're already in deeper with the a99 (esp if its a Zeiss).

With the RX1 you're paying for:

  1. The FF sensor itself (FF sensors cost many times the amount to produce as APS-C sensors). Up to you, of course, to decide whether FF image quality is worth it.
  2. All metal construction. I don't have an a99, but my a900 'only' had a metal frame covered in high quality plastic. I suspect the detailing and finishing on the RX1's metal body adds significantly to cost of production.
  3. Miniaturization. Whatever you think about the value of the RX1, most people agree that it's a marvel of engineering. Tolerances would have to be kept very tight, and this would raise the cost of production and inspection.
  4. You have a top-shelf, high quality specialised Zeiss lens that (currently) can only be used on this camera ... so the lens (like the body) will only sell to a niche market and the design / production costs can only be spread across a small segment of consumers. Consider the fact that the 24mm e-mount Zeiss costs already about 40% of the price of the RX1.
  5. And yes, there's probably a bit of 'bling premium' thrown in, but I think that's more at play for the accessories. I actually don't the the RX1 is over-priced for what it is. But the accessories definitely are....
 Docno's gear list:Docno's gear list
Sony RX1 Sony RX100 IV Sony Alpha 7R II Sony 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G SSM Sony 135mm F1.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* +6 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
MOD Marti58
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow