p.32 #1 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
You have the patience of Job. I'd lose my mind trying a disassembly that complex.
sebboh wrote:
given the design i'd be tempted to suspect dust is built into the camera, but they could probably minimize dust ingress by putting seals around where the rear element is mounted to the sensor frame. the rear element does not move and sits directly on top of the sensor attached to the sensor frame.
even without gaskets around that mount point it seems pretty hard for dust to get in there. maybe the dust problems could be from dust settling on the front surface of the rear element though?...Show more →
p.32 #3 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
I admit. I am totally ignorant when it comes to the economics of camera production. Those with more knowledge feel free to educate me if I’m way off!
I’m *guessing* that this camera costs around $1,200 - $1,500 for Sony to produce. If that is so, Sony could wholesale the camera for $2,000 and the retailers could sell for $2,500 and each would make a tidy $500 profit from each unit sold. It seems to me (remember I’m ignorant) that Sony would sell 100x more cameras at this price than at the $5,100 price. I know I’d buy one for $2,500. But no way in hell am I spending $5,100 + $400 tax = $5,500 for this camera.
Am I wrong? And…what if this camera only costs Sony $900 to produce? Their profits would be even bigger. Help me understand if you think I’m wrong
p.32 #5 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
35mmshooter wrote:
No one was able to say for sure. I've kept a filter on my RX1R II since day 1 of owning it, then taped up the mic ports at the top of the camera and the speaker grill at the bottom of the camera and have been OK.
I like the idea of the tape. Never thought of that.
p.32 #6 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
mudlake wrote:
Am I wrong? And…what if this camera only costs Sony $900 to produce? Their profits would be even bigger. Help me understand if you think I’m wrong
I think you’re probably right, for example; Compare the Sigma 300-600 f4 with the Sony 600 f4. The Sigma is half the price, I am willing to bet that Sigma is not selling these at a loss, so they are making a profit on a $6000 lens, what is the profit margin on Sony’s 600 at more than double the price.
The zoom lens has more elements and therefore more complexity than the prime. The only conclusion is that Sony has a MASSIVE markup on its products
p.32 #7 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
LiveShots wrote:
I think you’re probably right, for example; Compare the Sigma 300-600 f4 with the Sony 600 f4. The Sigma is half the price, I am willing to bet that Sigma is not selling these at a loss, so they are making a profit on a $6000 lens, what is the profit margin on Sony’s 600 at more than double the price.
The zoom lens has more elements and therefore more complexity than the prime. The only conclusion is that Sony has a MASSIVE markup on its products
Sony, Nikon and Canon 600 f4 lenses cost basically the same amount. They are very niche items and sell in very small quantities…that is why their prices are so high.
Ain’t nice to have 3rd party lenses to give everyone a choice.
p.32 #8 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
Further; The Sigma BF milled from a solid billet of aluminium is $2200, paired with the Sigma 35mm f2 at $720 totals $2720.
The Sony RX1R is $5100 with the lens, add in the lens hood for $200 and another for a 256Gb SD card (the BF has internal memory at 230Gb) for another $150 and we’re up to $5450…
Double the price again, admittedly the Sony has the 61mp sensor, but the BF seems a bargain in comparison.
p.32 #9 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
chez wrote:
Sony, Nikon and Canon 600 f4 lenses cost basically the same amount. They are very niche items and sell in very small quantities…that is why their prices are so high.
Which means that all three are over-pricing these lenses. As to them being niche items, the same logic applies to the Sigma 300-600, it is also a niche item, one that is half the price.
p.32 #10 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
mudlake wrote:
I admit. I am totally ignorant when it comes to the economics of camera production. Those with more knowledge feel free to educate me if I’m way off!
I’m *guessing* that this camera costs around $1,200 - $1,500 for Sony to produce. If that is so, Sony could wholesale the camera for $2,000 and the retailers could sell for $2,500 and each would make a tidy $500 profit from each unit sold. It seems to me (remember I’m ignorant) that Sony would sell 100x more cameras at this price than at the $5,100 price. I know I’d buy one for $2,500. But no way in hell am I spending $5,100 + $400 tax = $5,500 for this camera.
Am I wrong? And…what if this camera only costs Sony $900 to produce? Their profits would be even bigger. Help me understand if you think I’m wrong ...Show more →
the more they can sell, the cheaper the cost of making it is because a lot of the cost is fixed e.g., the cost of designing and tooling the assembly line doesn't really change no matter how many they make. if they sell 10x more of the camera that drops the price of design and tooling per camera by 90%. *but* other costs are basically fixed and this camera (a full frame fixed lens camera) has an extremely small market – even if you charged $2000 for the camera, it would still sell much less than an a7iv (probably an order of magnitude less). so it becomes an optimization problem to maximize total profit from expected demand across different price points. i doubt they would make more money by selling it much cheaper because there isn't much demand no matter how low the price goes and because sony wants to make money.
it's clear they had to redesign and retool to make the camera body and internals. the real question is about manufacturing is the lens. my understanding is that it is an expensive lens to make with a fair bit of assembly/calibration by hand. i doubt they have been continuously making this lens in small batches for the last 13 years (but maybe?). did they just have a bunch of left over lens parts and they priced this to clear those out without retooling to make new lenses? maybe they don't think they could sell a high enough volume of rx1 lenses to justify restarting lens production for real and have priced this to clear out inventory?
p.32 #11 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
LiveShots wrote:
Which means that all three are over-pricing these lenses. As to them being niche items, the same logic applies to the Sigma 300-600, it is also a niche item, one that is half the price.
that depends on what you mean by "over-pricing". they are pricing to maximize profit given the demand curves.
p.32 #12 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
LiveShots wrote:
Which means that all three are over-pricing these lenses. As to them being niche items, the same logic applies to the Sigma 300-600, it is also a niche item, one that is half the price.
I just did a quick look at Sony financials and the division camera and lenses are in has an operating profit margin of less than 9%. That’s about par for the industry…so they are not gouging us, but rather running a business efficiently.
p.32 #13 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
sebboh wrote:
pretty sure it is through the moving parts of the lens that the dust gets in, i didn't see any other obvious weak points disassembling it.
p.32 #14 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
35mmshooter wrote:
No one was able to say for sure. I've kept a filter on my RX1R II since day 1 of owning it, then taped up the mic ports at the top of the camera and the speaker grill at the bottom of the camera and have been OK.
How do you tape it up? In the past, I would use electrical tape to wrap around the lens mount for lenses without a rubber gasket.
p.32 #15 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
Cloudbow wrote:
Still watching it, but this one looks like a real review.
?si=2ax8MzzVRiQqEmyB
The small size is what's causing me to give this camera a thought despite the price. I know I can get a CR and a faster lens for less. It's great that the AF is good, but do you guys think the sensor's maximum native ISO of 32,000 and a f/2 lens is enough to shoot in most low-light situations such as a party or restaurant in the evening?
Still, the rational side of me is saying the Fujifilm X100 VI is the better decision.
p.32 #17 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
mudlake wrote:
I admit. I am totally ignorant when it comes to the economics of camera production. Those with more knowledge feel free to educate me if I’m way off!
I’m *guessing* that this camera costs around $1,200 - $1,500 for Sony to produce. If that is so, Sony could wholesale the camera for $2,000 and the retailers could sell for $2,500 and each would make a tidy $500 profit from each unit sold. It seems to me (remember I’m ignorant) that Sony would sell 100x more cameras at this price than at the $5,100 price. I know I’d buy one for $2,500. But no way in hell am I spending $5,100 + $400 tax = $5,500 for this camera.
Am I wrong? And…what if this camera only costs Sony $900 to produce? Their profits would be even bigger. Help me understand if you think I’m wrong ...Show more →
---------------------------------------------
LiveShots wrote:
I think you’re probably right, for example; Compare the Sigma 300-600 f4 with the Sony 600 f4. The Sigma is half the price, I am willing to bet that Sigma is not selling these at a loss, so they are making a profit on a $6000 lens, what is the profit margin on Sony’s 600 at more than double the price.
The zoom lens has more elements and therefore more complexity than the prime. The only conclusion is that Sony has a MASSIVE markup on its products
---------------------------------------------
chez wrote:
Sony, Nikon and Canon 600 f4 lenses cost basically the same amount. They are very niche items and sell in very small quantities…that is why their prices are so high.
Ain’t nice to have 3rd party lenses to give everyone a choice.
IDK, if they were priced more reasonably they’d sell a heck of a lot more ‘niche or not; probably wouldn’t classify as niche if they were more affordable….and they’d probably generate more revenue/profits as well
p.32 #18 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
IDK, if they were priced more reasonably they’d sell a heck of a lot more ‘niche or not; probably wouldn’t classify as niche if they were more affordable….and they’d probably generate more revenue/profits as well
This problem will need to be analyzed quantitatively to have a more definitive answer. At the meantime, I am very thankful Nikon has a reasonable priced 400mm f4.5 for amateur to play with.
p.32 #19 · Official: Sony RX1R III Digital Camera announced!
Great to see those pictures.
With the rear element so close to the sensor, I'd imagine any dust on the rear element would appear very similar to if it was on the sensor cover glass.
