Who is Sony Targeting (or Trying to Kid)?

[RFPhotography]

How can Sony justify charging nearly $3k for  P&S camera?  Yes, I know it has a full-frame sensor.  But it has a fixed lens and no viewfinder.  You have to pony up another $600 for the companion finder (others are available for less).  Does this make sense to anyone?

[palpman]

I don't really care, if I don't like it, I just don't buy it... why all the fuss?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

It makes a lot of sense, at least for Sony. It is not on my shopping list. Would it cost 300$US it would still not be on my shopping list.

Best regards
Erik

How can Sony justify charging nearly $3k for  P&S camera?  Yes, I know it has a full-frame sensor.  But it has a fixed lens and no viewfinder.  You have to pony up another $600 for the companion finder (others are available for less).  Does this make sense to anyone?

[RFPhotography]

I don't really care, if I don't like it, I just don't buy it... why all the fuss?

It's a photography forum.  When did it become forbidden to ask about a camera?  I'm perplexed by the product and I'm interested in other viewpoints.  What's wrong with that?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

It is OK. The reason it is not on my shopping list is the fixed lens and also the size. I have a Sony RX100, that camera is pocketable.

If you want a fixed lens camera with full frame sensor and a fast lens, it will not be pocketable, it will be expensive and it will not appear on my shopping list.

I actually think the camera could be a decent value, Leica quality at 1/3 of the price.

Best regards
Erik

It's a photography forum.  When did it become forbidden to ask about a camera?  I'm perplexed by the product and I'm interested in other viewpoints.  What's wrong with that?

[Paul2660]

It's definitely what I would call a niche market player.  Reports of the images from it are very good, and the optics appear to be excellent. 
The one I am waiting to see is the Nex-9, which is reported to be full frame also, (I assume it will have the same sensor as the Rx1). 

Paul Caldwell

[palpman]

Well, you're asking if it makes sense. I guess every camera that you can use makes sense in the end, it is a tool to create art, which is universal. We could also wonder if Lomography products make sense, so in the end I don't see the point in debating if a camera makes sense or not. Also, I've seen so many topics and people on the internet ranting about cameras they've never even touched, and I'm just tired to see this kind of topics emerging... the RX1 has made a lot of buzz when it came out already, it seems to be a great camera, I actually was considering buying it. It's all a matter of affordability and wants... I ended up with the DP2- and DP3 Merrill, which are considered as even more nonsense. In the end, markets define prices, not products.

[michael]

For the same reason that GM makes an expensive two seater sports car, the Corvette, and a hundred other examples of niche products that may not appeal to the mainstream.

It's a big world. There are 7 Billion people, and we all have different needs and tastes.

As for the RX1 specifically, if one can afford it, it's a fantastic choice. I'm using it to shoot my son's wedding this weekend, and there isn't another camera that I'd rather use, since it combines a fast high quality lens, a great sensor and is small enough so that no one will confuse me with the official photographer. :-)

Michael

[allegretto]

-compact, discrete. Perfect street camera
- great, clear images and color. Will take cropping to extreme sizes and not give up the image
- stunning low light capability
- great build and feel
- logical, useful controls
- spot-on AF, even in low light

There is something also liberating about a fixed lens. No debate about which lens to use and no dust on the mirror.

To the OP, have you used one yet? It's well past the time to be asking these questions in a vacuum. Everyone wants one with interchangeable lenses, adapters etc. And now the NEX may go full frame. Of course it will be much larger, heavier and in the end, it's an NEX which some love and some don't.

I happen to think the RX-1 is a great camera, with some limitations based upon design parameters. Yes, some features were deleted, and it isn't cheap. But for certain situations it's about the best camera on the market. Easily rivals an M with an asph 35mm for a third of the cost. In another league from the M-8 and M-9 insofar as image quality.

Import some ARW's to LR or C1 and you just gotta giggle that such complete images are coming from this little thing...

I am tempted to get a DP-3 for the low tele range. May not need a big rig for much...

Don't see where Sony is "trying to kid" anyone. It's a great camera, just maybe not for you and some others...

[LKaven]

How can Sony justify charging nearly $3k for  P&S camera?  Yes, I know it has a full-frame sensor.  But it has a fixed lens and no viewfinder.  You have to pony up another $600 for the companion finder (others are available for less).  Does this make sense to anyone?

It's a reasonable question, Bob.  Let me turn it back to you.  What do you think is the cost of a (i) body with full-frame sensor, and (ii) a Zeiss 35 f/2 lens?  The lens is no slacker, apparently testing among the best in its class.  I think it might be hard to make and sell this for less than $2k.  

The question is whether this is a reasonable price for the capability?  I think most of us are more interested in a FF NEX, or a FF X Pro, that allows us a choice of lenses on a FF camera in a small package.  I'd like to see this anyway.

[Rob C]

For the same reason that GM makes an expensive two seater sports car, the Corvette, and a hundred other examples of niche products that may not appeal to the mainstream.

It's a big world. There are 7 Billion people, and we all have different needs and tastes.

As for the RX1 specifically, if one can afford it, it's a fantastic choice. I'm using it to shoot my son's wedding this weekend, and there isn't another camera that I'd rather use, since it combines a fast high quality lens, a great sensor and is small enough so that no one will confuse me with the official photographer. :-)Michael

Boy, is that one gig I wouldn't want to be anywhere near as an official snapper!

Be gentle, Michael; give peace a chance.

;-)

Rob C

[Rob C]

There is something also liberating about a fixed lens. No debate about which lens to use and no dust on the mirror.

That's a flawed notion: every interchangeable lens camera offers you that choice: it's up to you to know which lens you want to put a lead on and take out to exercise in the park. Admittedly, you won't need a polly bag to clean up after either, but a brown paper one looks very BlowUpish.

Despite a plethora of dedicated camera bags, I have now adopted the cunning ploy of using two polly bags, one within the other for added security.

Rob C

[RFPhotography]

I'm not disputing it's a very good camera.  It tests nearly identical to the D800 according to DxOMark, which is very impressive.  I know it's been out for a little while, but not that long.  It's the price point for what's on offer that I'm a bit perplexed about. 

The lack of a viewfinder is, to me, very strange.  Shooting at arm's length off the LCD isn't compatible with the highest image quality due to greater potential for camera shake, although it does have stabilisation but that's not a silver bullet.

Luke, I think you may be right that the real driver of the price is the lens.

Michael, are you using it with or without a viewfinder in the shoe?

Erik is right, I don't think, although it is small, it can be considered pocketable, despite Sony's description.  The RX100, to me, makes a little more sense.  It is, truly, pocketable, it's got a good lens, apparently performs well and is much more reasonably priced.  But, again, no viewfinder and no shoe to put one in.

Part of the reason I asked as well is that I'm looking for a decent quality compact, so both the RX1 and RX100 came onto my radar when I started looking. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

That's a flawed notion: every interchangeable lens camera offers you that choice...

That's a flawed notion: every interchangeable lens camera forces you to make that choice


P.S. Oh, god, no... Now I am sounding like Isaac

[michael]

Michael, are you using it with or without a viewfinder in the shoe?

...

Part of the reason I asked as well is that I'm looking for a decent quality compact, so both the RX1 and RX100 came onto my radar when I started looking. 

I use it with and without the VF. Depends on the situation and my mood.

The RX1 and the RX100 are in different worlds. One's a great little pocket camera and the other is a world-class instrument for a wide range of types of photography.

Michael

[Telecaster]

Bob, your original post did have a bit of a ranter's edge to it. The whole "How dare anyone have tastes/opinions/preferences different to mine!" thing has gotten way old. But given that you seem to be inquisitive rather than inquisitional...the RX1 interests me for a couple reasons.

First, the 35mm lens. After many years of using mostly long-ish lenses, I've recently rediscovered my fondness for slightly wide fields-of-view. Second, while I can of course mount a 65 degree (or so) diag. FOV lens on any camera and treat it as non-interchangeable, as a lens geek I'm easily distracted by other possibilities.     The fixed lens helps eliminate those distractions. Fuji's X100s is appealing for the same reasons...maybe moreso due to the built-in EVF.

The RX1 certainly isn't inexpensive...and there's a fetishistic aspect to the desire for "full frame" cameras that I just don't relate to. But in the end, if a camera fulfills my wants & needs I'll buy & use it regardless of format. I haven't made up my mind as to which fixed-lens camera I'll get...or even if I'll get one at all. Still looking and pondering.

-Dave-

[eronald]

I had a 35mm film Minox - small, expensive, good, and a Contax T.
Just wish there were a digital version.
Or better a digital Plaubel Makina - that I would gladly pay a few k for

Edmund

[RFPhotography]

Michael, I wasn't suggesting the two cameras are comparable.

[TMARK]

It's a great little camera. IQ is great. It's not for me. I prefer the IQ from my M9 with v3 summicron 35 to the RX1. Not saying its better, just different. I also need a VF.

For the money in my opinion the x100s can't be beat.

[gbillett]

I was excited as soon as it was announced.  Its a game changer in my eyes;  full frame,  high quality lens and small enough for a photographer to remain mostly unnoticed.  I'd get one in an instant if I could afford it.  It would definitely suit my style.  Some going cheaper on ebay though with all the caveats.  Waiting for the Nex full frame to be announced.  I need a smaller camera and would temporarily be happy with a fixed lens ( the little Fuji's appeal too ) but know I would would  want interchangeable lenses on a full frame so current alternatives would ultimately be frustrating.  Just need to be patient.  Value and need though are unique and money in short supply.  I think its great there is a wider choice with cameras than for a long time.