New RD-1x

Semushkin said:
... $2000 (conservative estimate) for RD-1s or x is highway robbery!...
Click to expand...
Why so? I paid my new R-D1 3,000 EUR in 2004 and my new R-D1s 2,000 EUR in 2006. I am a Nikon and Canon user as well and i've been shooting Leicas, Canons and Nikons for 30 years more or less so i think i begin to know the value of cameras a little bit. The R-D1 is not a D-something or a something-D because it is a rangefinder. Its only competitors are the Leicas M.8 and M8.2. But none of the latters have a 1:1 viewfinder and IR-cut filters are not mandatory with the Epsons.
 
Why? simply because you can't make enough money selling an R-D1 at $600.00 for it to be profitable to Epson. There are probably 100,000 plus D40s sold each year, maybe each month. Its a benefit of mass production that makes each camera sold, chip away at the overall cost of development.

http://www.ebdisplaymanufacturers.com/benefitsmass.htm

Semushkin said:
You have heard this before, I know, but please explain:
Why is the RD-1 so expensive? It is essentially an antiquated sensor (roughly or D70) in a Bessa R3A rangefinder body. So it should cost at most $600. (Nothing wrong with 6 Megapixels, it's enough)

One can get a Nikon D40 PLUS a Bessa R3A for less than $1000.

Now $2000 (conservative estimate) for RD-1s or x is highway robbery!

And please, no Leicaca M8.002 excuses. I dont care how much that thing costs.

Do not misunderstand me, Comrades, I would love one for $600. I want to use my Jupiter 12 and my Russar on it.

But never at these prices...

So why is it so DAMN expensive? I have yet to read a satisfactory answer, except, that there are people who will pay this price.
Click to expand...
 
gdi said:
Now calling me a schoolboy? Because I have been able to take time to listen to others who have helped me in learning to get the best out of the M8? And finish with a call to keep it civil? LOL! If you think my comments about JPGs were patronizing then you, obviously misunderstood - I simply realized that my comments were not pertinent to M8 JPGs and making that clear. Hey, enjoy your RD-1, I would - but please don't try to bully others into not providing information or tips to others in getting the most from their camera. If you have used a simple test to prove the RD-1 superiority, then great - I and others have chosen not to take the simplistic approach and expend slightly more effort to get much better results. So I would suggest you take your own advice and try to be civil and don't attack those who have different experinces than you.
Click to expand...

Golly you gotta whole lot of attacks into those few sentences - I really don't know where you got that 'bullying' thing from - obviously a very sensitive flower, and I apologize for bruising your feelings.
And naturally as anyone can plainly read I didn't call you a schoolboy - the fact that you accuse me of saying it shows how unscrupulous you are in twisting my words. (Read my post again, and try to understand the words in my sentences).

Anyway, I'm really glad that your greater expertise has made the M8 superior at high ISOs to the RD1, even though it's been commonly acknowledged that the opposite is true - even on LUF (where Leica fans are so keen on the Epson of course). 😉

I WILL carry on enjoying my RD1s AND my M8 (when it gets back from repair) - I enjoy each of them for their strengths, and have no insecure need to convince myself that the more expensive camera is necessarily the one that's best in every context. 😉
 
LCT said:
Why so? I paid my new R-D1 3,000 EUR in 2004 and my new R-D1s 2,000 EUR in 2006. I am a Nikon and Canon user as well and i've been shooting Leicas, Canons and Nikons for 30 years more or less so i think i begin to know the value of cameras a little bit. The R-D1 is not a D-something or a something-D because it is a rangefinder. Its only competitors are the Leicas M.8 and M8.2. But none of the latters have a 1:1 viewfinder and IR-cut filters are not mandatory with the Epsons.
Click to expand...


I am not trying to make it look bad, I want one!

The fact thet the M8 is defective and needs a filter does not justify the price of the R-D1.

Neither does the 1:1 finder. Not expensive to make. The body is made by Cosina. The Bessa R3A also has a 1:1 finder so the development is there. I never said the camera is a D-something, I said the sensor is essentally the same as one of the lower level Nikon D-series sensors and should not cost much more than the sensor of the D40.

I also have been shooting rangefinders and DSLRs for many years, I own both.

Rangefinder focusing is cheaper than autofocus in an SLR (no electronics or motors). You get it for $30 in a FED-5.

So the development cost of the camera and the construction cost does not justify its price. What people payed for it also does not justify the price in my eyes. The fact that it is the only competition of a ridiculously priced L**ca gives Epson the excuse to charge far too much compared to cost for it. Some people will pay it. Some people bought new defective M8 for another much more ridiculous price. So what?




Regarding mass production, how about the Bessa R3A R2A R4A? Very few sold and with very high initial development costs, but they still cost $600 at most.


If the R-D1 cost $600 a lot more people would get one nowdays.


I do have a FED-5. Now that is reasonable pricing!

I also have a Nikon D90. Also reasonable at $900. It does not sell 100,000 each month.

And a Contax G2. Talk about HUGE innovations and development costs. Brand new BODY ONLY it cost less than the $3000 of the R-D1.


So I am stil not convinced.

Highway robbery! So is the M8 (even worse)
 
Life is unfair. Often things we want are more expensive than we can afford to pay. This doesn't mean, however, that we have a right to demand that the manufacturers should sell us those things at a lower price.
 
Semushkin said:
You have heard this before, I know, but please explain:
Why is the RD-1 so expensive? It is essentially an antiquated sensor (roughly or D70) in a Bessa R3A rangefinder body. So it should cost at most $600. (Nothing wrong with 6 Megapixels, it's enough)

One can get a Nikon D40 PLUS a Bessa R3A for less than $1000.

Now $2000 (conservative estimate) for RD-1s or x is highway robbery!

And please, no Leicaca M8.002 excuses. I dont care how much that thing costs.

Do not misunderstand me, Comrades, I would love one for $600. I want to use my Jupiter 12 and my Russar on it.

But never at these prices...

So why is it so DAMN expensive? I have yet to read a satisfactory answer, except, that there are people who will pay this price.
Click to expand...

Well, I expect it has to do with expected sales and amortization. Nikon anticipated that it would sell (literally) boatloads of D40s and the associated cameras which factor into spreading the development costs. Epson evidently came up with a different figure in order to spread it's costs - a problem as long as it is a niche product.

If Epson thought it could sell as many d-rangefinders as Nikon does D40s, the prices would probably be closer.
 
Paul T. said:
True. But hardly a convincing, or even coherent, economic argument.
Click to expand...

I am not too sure.... One of the problems of capitalism is that Epson can charge 3000 for a $500 camera...

Throw in some politics and the argument seems better somehow...
 
Last edited:
mani said:
Life is unfair. Often things we want are more expensive than we can afford to pay. This doesn't mean, however, that we have a right to demand that the manufacturers should sell us those things at a lower price.
Click to expand...

Life is sometimes fair enough. For much less that $2000 I got a mint Contax G2 and 5 lenses.
I can tell Epson what to do with its body only...
 
Semushkin said:
Life is fair enough. For much less that $2000 I got a mint Contax G2 and 5 lenses.
I can tell Epson what to do with its body only...
Click to expand...

Great! You're happy without the RD1x then! And I guess the people who want to pay what the camera costs will also be happy! And Epson will be happy too!
What a wonderful system!

Next!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom