p.32 #2 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
I look at this camera as a $1,500 Zeiss lens permanently attached to a $1,300 body, needing a 400 - $600 OVF or EVF, for many users, to complete it. A $1,300 FF compact body doesn't sound nearly so expensive.
$180 vented hood though... that's just silly, unless the hood really does poke up into the OVF sight line.
For me the main question outstanding is the nature of the lens. Zeiss is capable of making some remarkable lenses. Is this one of them or not?
p.32 #4 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
FlyPenFly wrote:
lol $1300 body? I doubt it.
A FF body this small and high performance is in the $2000+ range.
It is a $1500 Zeiss lens....so that accounts for the $1300 body.
True i dont find that too expensive but still cannot afford it to use it as a 2nd body.
Let it drop to $2000 ish and i'll get one.
p.32 #6 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
michaelwatkins wrote:
I look at this camera as a $1,500 Zeiss lens permanently attached to a $1,300 body, needing a 400 - $600 OVF or EVF, for many users, to complete it. A $1,300 FF compact body doesn't sound nearly so expensive.
$180 vented hood though... that's just silly, unless the orally does poke up into the OVF sight line.
For me the main question outstanding is the nature of the lens. Zeiss is capable of making some remarkable lenses. Is this one of them or not?
Its a rationalization that anyone who is thinking of buying one will make. On examination though, it might not be logical given the restrictions of having a fixed lens which may or may not measure up to a mf $1500 Cosina Zeiss made lens. Like you say, the actual value will likely be determined to a large extent on just how good the lens is (and how well it is matched up to the sensor. Hopefully, there are no still image IQ compromises made for that silly Video button on the RX1!
p.32 #7 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
It is not a 1500$ lens attached to a body. It's a point and shoot camera with an oversized sensor. If I have a 1500$ Zeiss lens, I want to use it on several bodies and keep it for many years.
p.32 #9 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
edwardkaraa wrote:
It is not a 1500$ lens attached to a body. It's a point and shoot camera with an oversized sensor. If I have a 1500$ Zeiss lens, I want to use it on several bodies and keep it for many years.
I think you really have to think of this camera as a semi-disposable camera after 5+ years, so it's a debate about whether cutting edge tech/small size are worth $600 a year.
p.32 #10 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
It looks very interesting. I think I might even buy one if the price comes down to around ~$1500. I use 5dmkII and the ZE35 for 90% of my shooting anyways.
p.32 #11 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
douglasf13 wrote:
I think you really have to think of this camera as a semi-disposable camera after 5+ years, so it's a debate about whether cutting edge tech/small size are worth $600 a year.
Exactly my thoughts. I was making some calculations about how much film I would shoot with such cam in 5 years which is my subjective criteria on camera pricing. If I had only the RX1 it would be worth as it would pay for itself in about 18 to 24 months. But since I want to use my ZM lenses which I really enjoy doing, I don't think this cam will see that much action. For someone who needs a one camera/one lens combination I would recommend it without reservation.
p.32 #12 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Ok, maybe I've priced the lens component a little high; a ZM35/2, which I hope this Sony Zeiss lens can stand up to or better, is ~ $1,100, as is a Zeiss ZE or ZF mount 35mm f/2.
So maybe the Zeiss component of a fixed lens camera is more like 700-800 leaving 1900-2000 for the FF body alone.
That $2,000 does sound reasonable, and may even be even a little high if Nikon's D600 ends up coming in around $2,500 USD or less. In previous musings about a FF compact camera, I'd have felt a $2,000 number for the body as being quite low but that's the fixed lens camera discount at work... a safer bet for Sony for a first, not last, RX FF camera?
Assuming the lens is a very good example of Zeiss design and Sony implementation, it should sell and not become a one-off cult camera. If so it would be reasonable to expect this camera will sell well enough to see further RX full frame cameras such as a RX 50mm/1.4, a 35mm/1.4 Unobtainium Edition down the road, or maybe first a Zeiss optical zoom permanently mated.
Lets see what this lens and sensor can do, although I don't care much about the sensor other than the size (yay) as it seems safe to assume it'll do the job well.
p.32 #14 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Absolutely agree with Douglas, it is, like any digital camera, a disposable unit. I've always preferred to buy good glass regardless of film or digital with the expectation that I can move it forward to new bodies. But sometimes, often times actually, I wonder if there is much of a road left for the M mount, aside from purchasing disposable digital M bodies from Leica at prices higher than new disposable bodies from anyone else.
edwardkaraa wrote:
But since I want to use my ZM lenses which I really enjoy doing, I don't think this cam will see that much action.
Maybe this camera was spec'd to appeal to those of us who shoot rangefinder glass on APS-C sensors that want a full frame sensor. Not that I can recover full price for my ZM35/2, but I'd consider selling it to partly fund a RX1. I want a second compact camera in my bag anyway.
For someone about to purchase a ZM35/2 new for use on an APS-C body, maybe the RX1 causes one to pause just a little. Mind you the real incremental cost is much more than 2800-1100=1,700... once you add hood, finder(s), and so on.
p.32 #15 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
Consider that this camera is presumably aimed at serious photographers. This means it's not expected to be a person's only camera. Most serious photographers already have an interchangeable-lens system and a decent 35mm lens to put on it.
So, if your existing system is full-frame, you're paying $2800 (and lose flexibility) for size. And if your existing system is small (NEX or m43), you're paying $2800 for the FF sensor, but still lose all flexibility.
I have to wonder, how large is the market of people who want to shoot 35mm and only 35mm on full frame..?
p.32 #16 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
michaelwatkins wrote:
Ricoh seems awfully quiet these days.
That is the most frustrating part. No leaks, no rumors, nothing before photokina. They did announce a few Pentax cams though
But to go back to the disposable issue, if you buy a disposable Leica M at 7500$ (or more probably for the M10), use it for 5 years, which equals in my book about 6000$ worth of film, and then sell it for around 5000$ if it's still in good condition, you would have actually made 3500$ of profit
p.32 #17 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
slungu wrote:
The problem with Leica is that in two years time they will not be able to service it on the electronics part and you would buy it at let's say $1200 and be stuck with it instead of getting the equivalent of the NEX7 new. Now, what would you do ?
Sony Service centers are iffy and can be very expensive. They "repaired" my original nex-5 and sent it back to me untested and unusable. In the end I got a new one, but not after quite a hassle.
p.32 #18 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
KaaX wrote:
Consider that this camera is presumably aimed at serious photographers. This means it's not expected to be a person's only camera. Most serious photographers already have an interchangeable-lens system and a decent 35mm lens to put on it.
So, if your existing system is full-frame, you're paying $2800 (and lose flexibility) for size. And if your existing system is small (NEX or m43), you're paying $2800 for the FF sensor, but still lose all flexibility.
I have to wonder, how large is the market of people who want to shoot 35mm and only 35mm on full frame..?
Kaa
+1 and I might add...
How many of those serious photographers would be miffed to pay $2800 and then have to pay another $400-$600 for a viewfinder.... ridiculous, IMO.
p.32 #19 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (Original 2012 thread)
X100 priced at $1000 with classic style build, clever designed feature like hybrid finder and build in ND filter set its cute status and deserve It is very usable as camera as is. But still, if it is priced at $2000, I doubt it will be sell well as it was.
A second thought about RX1, if this is 35mm 1.4 Zeiss, my position will change as well, there is no alternative for 35mm 1.4 at this price and sensor size. I will pay $2500 for ZM 35 at 1.4. add $300 for FF sensor, but lose changing lens and VF sounds a fair trade for me.
On examination though, it might not be logical given the restrictions of having a fixed lens which may or may not measure up to a mf $1500 Cosina Zeiss made lens. Like you say, the actual value will likely be determined to a large extent on just how good the lens is (and how well it is matched up to the sensor. Hopefully, there are no still image IQ compromises made for that silly Video button on the RX1!
It is very usable as camera as is. But still, if it is priced at $2000, I doubt it will be sell well as it was.