millsart Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Thanks for the feedback regarding build quality. I think the NEX-7 feels pretty solid myself (which is a LOT of camera for the $) but $650 for a P&S does not quite represent the same value/ capability proposition imo, particularly if the build quality is not really up there. "only" $650 + P&S + good though not incredible build does not compute for me personally though I know it makes a lot of sense for others. I think if it was weather resistant, it would make a lot more sense and the price would be more justifiable given it's probable use and purpose FOR ME....Show more →
Even if it were only $399, if you aren't really going to use it then its a waste of money. Heck, I could offer you one for $100 and again, if its just going to sit on your shelf because you've got no use for a true pocket camera, then you wasted $100 (no reselling for profit allowed )
Really though, I've got to ask how does the build quality equate to usefulness of the camera ?
Lets just pretend that its hand assembled, machined from a solid hunk of brass, and basically out Leica's a Leica, because lets face it, when you hold a M9 in your hand, it feels good, but it doesn't live quite up to the hyped up expectations either.
Lets just pretend that rather than going into pocket, that it should go onto pedestal in an art museum as a beautiful piece of modern metal sculpture, every line so perfectly flowing that people stare at it for hours on end.
How's that going to make it any more or less useful for what it was made to do, take pictures ?
I'm not trying to argue the usefulness of a pocket camera, for some they are useful, for others who only shoot with planned out intention, not so much. However, I'm not seeing how materials used really equates into that usefulness.
I obviously rather like the camera and I'm getting a lot of use out of it, far more than I shoot my NEX7, EM-5 and X100. I'm taking it places I would leave those behind and its just what I needed for a casual compact camera.
Between the larger sensor, fast AF, useful focal range thats quite fast on the wide end, very nice video ability and excellent LCD its everything I want/need in a camera and it slips into my pocket.
If it was made of plastic, aluminum or solid gold, none of that would change.
If you want a weather proof compact, then you need a weather proof compact. I've got a Panny TS and its great at what it does. Lots of fun on the beach, in the pool etc, zero worry and some unique shots. Not the best cameras for shooting on dry land though which I do 99.9% of the time as I live in the Midwest sadly.
Certainly no one wants anything thats poorly made and going to break right away, but I'm just not getting where some of you guys are coming from thinking a mass produced point and shoot that cost a mere $150 more than other models that have tiny little sensors should be made out of unobtainium.
If it was $3000 then yeah, I'd probably expect each and every part machines from exotic metals and hand fitted or precision fit, but its only $650.
Canon's G1x for example cost $800 and I don't see anyone making such a big deal of the construction.
Nikon's 1 series cameras also cost more, don't have the performance, and while what I considered well made, haven't seemed to attract this level of scrutiny.
Heck, take the "Leica" Dlux series; a Dlux-5, which is nothing more than a LX5 cost over $800 new and what did you get ? A red dot on the camera and a copy of a $99 software title.
Just don't seeing what all the fuss is about the RX100's build
|