This topic is in the 2018 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2018Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
p.39 #1Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
rattymouse wrote:
Sauseschritt wrote
rattymouse wrote
Today, in 2020, there are almost 3 BILLION more people on the planet than in 1990, when the film era was really strong.1. The vast majority of the population growth happends in developing countries, in which people are happy if they can feed themselves properly, and are happily ignoring the riddiculous notion they could afford something as outrageously expensive as a digital camera..
2. While the number of people in developed countries is usually actually SHRINKING.
Sauseschritt wrote
3. The core issue why the market is collapsing is simply that people dont have money. Even in developed countries, people are often happy if they can even keep their income at the same level, nevermind actually raising it. This is especially true for the more powerful economies, like the USA or Germany. In both the USA and Germany, only the upper 10% of workers participate in the growth of their income at the level of the growth of the economy, with the top 1% and even worse of course 0.1% and 0.01% etc are benefiting disproportionally.I'd go further and argue that all those iPhones sold are cameras. It's not that less cameras are sold, it's that they're not sold by Canon or Nikon. They are almost all Sony sensors so, yeah, Sony is doing fine. But Apple, Samsung...these are now the big players in the camera industry.
When was the last big phone launch that didn't feature or highlight the camera and its capabilities? It's been a while... Camera capability is a top 3 feature for consideration for almost all phone buyers, I'd bet. So the traditional camera market has to adjust... It's gone higher end, more expensive, where the margins are better.
But the phone makers' dominance of image making isn't gonna change, as most people just don't want a separate camera. Heck, they don't need it. Their phones vastly exceed their quality requirements for the most part. So the ZX1 is an interesting design exercise, but it's not the kind of 'innovation' that will drive camera sales in any meaningful way, not really at any price.
Oct 12, 2020 at 06:11 PM
p.39 #2Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
Let's not forget that the Chinese middle income is not the same as the US middle income. In China, a family earning between $3,640 and $36,400 in US $ is considered middle income. The high end of the Chinese middle income does not make it into the lower bound of over $40,000 for the US middle income.
Its pretty hard to afford a $3,500 camera along with a couple of $1,000 lenses and a $2,500 computer when your income is under $36,400 let alone $3,640.
Its pretty hard to afford a $3,500 camera along with a couple of $1,000 lenses and a $2,500 computer when your income is under $36,400 let alone $3,640.
Oct 12, 2020 at 06:32 PM
p.39 #3Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
Well, most of the cash in the US income probably goes to pay for medical insurance. May be there is a “lot of money” as indicated by the enormous numbers of obesity but most of it may be tied elsewhere.
Oct 12, 2020 at 06:42 PM
p.39 #4Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
realVivek wrote:
Well, most of the cash in the US income probably goes to pay for medical insurance. May be there is a “lot of money” as indicated by the enormous numbers of obesity but most of it may be tied elsewhere.
Obesity is not tied to wealth. In fact it's the low cost processed foods and the quick drive throughs that drive the obesity problems and it's the low income people that get trapped into this game.
Well, most of the cash in the US income probably goes to pay for medical insurance. May be there is a “lot of money” as indicated by the enormous numbers of obesity but most of it may be tied elsewhere.
Obesity is not tied to wealth. In fact it's the low cost processed foods and the quick drive throughs that drive the obesity problems and it's the low income people that get trapped into this game.
Oct 12, 2020 at 07:02 PM
p.39 #5Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
I know but there was a conjecture made (or gave the impression) that obesity is connected to wealth.
Oct 12, 2020 at 07:07 PM
p.39 #6Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
chez wrote:
Let's not forget that the Chinese middle income is not the same as the US middle income. In China, a family earning between $3,640 and $36,400 in US $ is considered middle income. The high end of the Chinese middle income does not make it into the lower bound of over $40,000 for the US middle income.
Its pretty hard to afford a $3,500 camera along with a couple of $1,000 lenses and a $2,500 computer when your income is under $36,400 let alone $3,640.
Laughable. Simply laughable. The *average* selling price of a home in central Shanghai China is 2 MILLION dollars. Central Shanghai is larger than Chicago and has 10 million people. The home I lived in Shanghai for 6 years cost 1.7 million dollars to buy. It was a modestly sized 4 bedroom condo in a 12 story building. Nothing remotely fancy, it looked like any of the other 500 units in my apartment complex.
The average selling price of a home in all of Shanghai proper is 1.2 MILLION dollars. This is area is larger than all 5 boroughs of NYC and has 25 million people.
Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/993524/china-average-price-of-new-residential-property-in-shanghai-by-location/
The same stats exist for Beijing, Shenzhen, Guanzhou, Chonqing, Chengdu, etc.
Your knowledge of China is woefully lacking and lacks even basic context.
Let's not forget that the Chinese middle income is not the same as the US middle income. In China, a family earning between $3,640 and $36,400 in US $ is considered middle income. The high end of the Chinese middle income does not make it into the lower bound of over $40,000 for the US middle income.
Its pretty hard to afford a $3,500 camera along with a couple of $1,000 lenses and a $2,500 computer when your income is under $36,400 let alone $3,640.
Laughable. Simply laughable. The *average* selling price of a home in central Shanghai China is 2 MILLION dollars. Central Shanghai is larger than Chicago and has 10 million people. The home I lived in Shanghai for 6 years cost 1.7 million dollars to buy. It was a modestly sized 4 bedroom condo in a 12 story building. Nothing remotely fancy, it looked like any of the other 500 units in my apartment complex.
The average selling price of a home in all of Shanghai proper is 1.2 MILLION dollars. This is area is larger than all 5 boroughs of NYC and has 25 million people.
Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/993524/china-average-price-of-new-residential-property-in-shanghai-by-location/
The same stats exist for Beijing, Shenzhen, Guanzhou, Chonqing, Chengdu, etc.
Your knowledge of China is woefully lacking and lacks even basic context.
Oct 13, 2020 at 06:51 PM
p.39 #7Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
chez wrote:
Obesity is not tied to wealth. In fact it's the low cost processed foods and the quick drive throughs that drive the obesity problems and it's the low income people that get trapped into this game.
Again, abject nonsense.
When I first went to China in the early '90s...obese people were almost unknown. You could look for day, weeks, and months and not see anyone overweight. China back then was a distinctly and radically poorer place than it is today, where one can spot relatively obese people quite easily, especially the children. All that money that is pouring into China buys a LOT of food. And machines that do the work human muscle used to do. Electric scooters far outnumber pedal bikes.
realVivek wrote
Well, most of the cash in the US income probably goes to pay for medical insurance. May be there is a “lot of money” as indicated by the enormous numbers of obesity but most of it may be tied elsewhere.Again, abject nonsense.
When I first went to China in the early '90s...obese people were almost unknown. You could look for day, weeks, and months and not see anyone overweight. China back then was a distinctly and radically poorer place than it is today, where one can spot relatively obese people quite easily, especially the children. All that money that is pouring into China buys a LOT of food. And machines that do the work human muscle used to do. Electric scooters far outnumber pedal bikes.
Oct 13, 2020 at 06:56 PM
p.39 #8Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
chez wrote:
Obesity is not tied to wealth. In fact it's the low cost processed foods and the quick drive throughs that drive the obesity problems and it's the low income people that get trapped into this game.
Your second sentence is correct, but the first one is contradicting it.
Indeed obese people are typically poor people, because they eat low quality food thats high on quick calories but low on satiation, thus causing you to eat more calories than you actually need, thus leading to overweight and in more extreme cases obesity.
rattymouse wrote:
Again, abject nonsense.
When I first went to China in the early '90s...obese people were almost unknown. You could look for day, weeks, and months and not see anyone overweight. China back then was a distinctly and radically poorer place than it is today, where one can spot relatively obese people quite easily, especially the children. All that money that is pouring into China buys a LOT of food. And machines that do the work human muscle used to do. Electric scooters far outnumber pedal bikes.
Err ... you're the one who states nonsense.
You're not asking if the person in question is actually poor or not, but apply it to whole countries.
But the reason why people get obese is from fast food, and fast-food like food, including sweets, that have poor satiation, i.e. is high on carbon hydrates (which leads on its own to a sugar rush but have low satiation), but low on fiber, fats, and proteines (all of which give good satiation; in the case of fats and proteines because they are simply absorbed slowly and in case of fiber because fiber slows down the absorption of the nutrients and increase the "fill" of the stomach).
Especially noteworthy is also liquid carbon hydrates, such as coca cola, but also juices, milk etc. These also get absorbed very quickly.
But a poor country simply wont have such food, and thus everyone stays thin.
An industrialized country will get more and more fast food, and thus more and more obese people, and these people will be the rather poor people, because they cannot afford good food and eat the cheap fast food garbage.
Thats why I often say people get fed trash in our modern society. The core reason why everything has sugar in it is simply because then it lasts longer. Its not healthy though.
Obesity is not tied to wealth. In fact it's the low cost processed foods and the quick drive throughs that drive the obesity problems and it's the low income people that get trapped into this game.
Your second sentence is correct, but the first one is contradicting it.
Indeed obese people are typically poor people, because they eat low quality food thats high on quick calories but low on satiation, thus causing you to eat more calories than you actually need, thus leading to overweight and in more extreme cases obesity.
rattymouse wrote:
Again, abject nonsense.
When I first went to China in the early '90s...obese people were almost unknown. You could look for day, weeks, and months and not see anyone overweight. China back then was a distinctly and radically poorer place than it is today, where one can spot relatively obese people quite easily, especially the children. All that money that is pouring into China buys a LOT of food. And machines that do the work human muscle used to do. Electric scooters far outnumber pedal bikes.
Err ... you're the one who states nonsense.
You're not asking if the person in question is actually poor or not, but apply it to whole countries.
But the reason why people get obese is from fast food, and fast-food like food, including sweets, that have poor satiation, i.e. is high on carbon hydrates (which leads on its own to a sugar rush but have low satiation), but low on fiber, fats, and proteines (all of which give good satiation; in the case of fats and proteines because they are simply absorbed slowly and in case of fiber because fiber slows down the absorption of the nutrients and increase the "fill" of the stomach).
Especially noteworthy is also liquid carbon hydrates, such as coca cola, but also juices, milk etc. These also get absorbed very quickly.
But a poor country simply wont have such food, and thus everyone stays thin.
An industrialized country will get more and more fast food, and thus more and more obese people, and these people will be the rather poor people, because they cannot afford good food and eat the cheap fast food garbage.
Thats why I often say people get fed trash in our modern society. The core reason why everything has sugar in it is simply because then it lasts longer. Its not healthy though.
Oct 15, 2020 at 04:21 AM
p.39 #9Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
I am not at all interested due to the price but just was curious about if the ZX1 was in anyone's hands yet. So I did a quick google search and apparently it's not available for preorder anymore. I wonder if Zeiss officially pulled it due to the rather unenthusiastic response upon release?
Oct 21, 2020 at 07:24 PM
p.39 #10Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
Jmonat7 wrote:
I am not at all interested due to the price but just was curious about if the ZX1 was in anyone's hands yet. So I did a quick google search and apparently it's not available for preorder anymore. I wonder if Zeiss officially pulled it due to the rather unenthusiastic response upon release?
It's a joke of a camera. An embarrassment to Zeiss that will forever tarnish their history.
I am not at all interested due to the price but just was curious about if the ZX1 was in anyone's hands yet. So I did a quick google search and apparently it's not available for preorder anymore. I wonder if Zeiss officially pulled it due to the rather unenthusiastic response upon release?
It's a joke of a camera. An embarrassment to Zeiss that will forever tarnish their history.
Oct 24, 2020 at 02:15 PM
p.39 #11Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
rattymouse wrote:
It's a joke of a camera. An embarrassment to Zeiss that will forever tarnish their history.
Hopefully the true story behind this sorry fiasco will eventually be revealed.
It's a joke of a camera. An embarrassment to Zeiss that will forever tarnish their history.
Hopefully the true story behind this sorry fiasco will eventually be revealed.
Oct 25, 2020 at 05:09 PM
p.39 #12Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
It seems to be coming...:
https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/finally-zeiss-zx1-worldwide-launch-on-october-29/
https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/finally-zeiss-zx1-worldwide-launch-on-october-29/
Oct 26, 2020 at 07:27 AM
p.39 #13Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
i’m curious how the editing in camera with built in adobe mobile experience will be (assuming no subscription required). not a fan of the built in memory, camera size and all, but i would still like to see what people who have used it say. if it had built in 4k 60p though, i might actually consider it, but alas, doesn’t seem so. it just makes me feel like it’s a smartphone-like interface with a ff sensor, zeiss lens attached and some extra grip.
Oct 26, 2020 at 07:39 AM
p.39 #14Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
SlowDriver wrote:
It seems to be coming...:
https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/finally-zeiss-zx1-worldwide-launch-on-october-29/
The Oct 29th rumor is now fully up and running! We shall soon see 😎
It seems to be coming...:
https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/finally-zeiss-zx1-worldwide-launch-on-october-29/
The Oct 29th rumor is now fully up and running! We shall soon see 😎
Oct 26, 2020 at 07:43 AM
p.39 #15Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
That is more than €7000, including the taxes! 
Oct 26, 2020 at 08:18 AM
p.39 #16Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
This camera is very handsome actually.
I dont want pay all the features such as hard disk, in camera editing, LR or android based platform. Remove all those unnecessary features assuming minus all wasted R/D cost, sell it at $4000 with a world class 35mm (Nobody know the performance yet). Zeiss has a winner. I will be interested.
Too bad, Zeiss went this far.
I dont want pay all the features such as hard disk, in camera editing, LR or android based platform. Remove all those unnecessary features assuming minus all wasted R/D cost, sell it at $4000 with a world class 35mm (Nobody know the performance yet). Zeiss has a winner. I will be interested.
Too bad, Zeiss went this far.
Oct 26, 2020 at 11:03 AM
p.39 #17Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
Update: The Zeiss ZX1 is now available for pre-order
B&H Photo | Adorama
Explora Review
B&H Photo | Adorama
Explora Review
Oct 29, 2020 at 08:26 AM
p.39 #19Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
Wish they put their efforts into a digital rangefinder-like camera with a top notch EVF and a line of compact, fast and high performance lenses (fully manual ok - perhaps just stick to LM mount). That would be way more interesting, even at ZX1-like prices than this weird concept. I don't need my camera to have built in editing - apple/microsoft have me covered for those devices and I don't think of zeiss when I think of computing power/editing prowess anyway - I think of them for optical excellence. Just sad to see such wasted effort (IMHO) from a company that I otherwise very much like.
Oct 29, 2020 at 09:14 AM
p.39 #20Are you getting the Zeiss ZX1?
Wondering if those 30 people who voted Yes in the poll are still willing to plop down $6,000 for this thing.
Oct 29, 2020 at 11:07 AM