the price of things...

back alley

back alley

IMAGES
Local time
8:26 AM
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
41,288
Location
true north strong & free
View My Gallery
i have been vacillating between what i might buy if the money were ever to make itself available...i love the idea of the rx1 but wonder if the xpro1 is a better value...and really, my main aim is more to have autofocus more prominent in my shooting. i love the rd1 but i am slowing in my ability to achieve focus quickly...you should see me fumble with the m4-p...

so in my quest i have been noticing the price of things much more lately...spending so much money on a ff p&s seems kinda silly, even to me...have you seen the prices of some lenses lately?
$1800...$3200...$7000...!!!
camera bodies too...the leica monochrom produces images that are fantastic but i don't have that kind of money...

so is 3000k cdn really all that expensive for a camera body plus zeiss lens plus a full frame sensor?

and yes...i am trying to talk myself into it...
 
IMHO it's a reasonable price. A 35/2 ZF lens is $1117 at B&H; it's a full frame lens, but of course not AF so it's not exactly apples-apples, but there are no better apples to reference...

This puts the body/sensor at under $1800. Considering its small size (which is not cheap to produce) and considering it is unique with no parts that can be used from similar models (like Nikon D600 and others in the Nikon family) it seems like a decent price. It certainly can't be compared to the rarified air of Leica gear, where a manual focus 35/2 lens alone is more than the RX1 lens and body!
 
To me a rx1 is not a good idea if u intend it to be "the main" camera.. Given your current comments about rd1 and m4.. Joe, can u live with 35-70 focal length? 2x crop gets u 70.. But the main issue is u can never go wider than 35 unless Sony did what Fuji did for the x100 (the .75 lens adapter)..

For me the rx1 can never be a main camera. I use lenses from 20/21 to 90 normally when I shoot 35mm.

Cheers
Gary
 
I just bought brand new Polaroid X530 for eur20.
I'll need to buy also SD card (do not have any) for X3F files.

I don't feel robbed and will keep myself interested in these autumn days.
 
calculate in the only currency that counts. pictures. how long will you use it? that is what makes these electronics so expensive. in two years time it is obsolete.
I would rather miss some shots by too long fumbling with the focus.
but I do not depend on my output, I am just a family father with a decent job and shoot for fun
 
back alley said:
i can live with a 35 for much of what i shoot...i would still have all my other gear as well (maybe sell one rd1)...
Click to expand...

Your emphasis on af lately in this and other threads makes me wonder how much the rd1 and m4 will really be used in the future...

Gary
 
I don't know Joe.
You seem to get a lot of pleasure in trying lenses and new gear. Get something that will allow you to enjoy trying new lenses and options over the years.
The RX1 will not be much different than the x100 that you traded to me. Full capable but, one dimensional.
I think if you want to try a new platform it should be a flexible one.
The Fuji x-series has some fantastic lenses now and more to come.
Combine that with the new Zeiss AF lenses coming for x mount… there is a lot of really exciting opportunities from that x-ecosystem now and in the future.
I love the xpro and it's s lenses so maybe I'm biased. The thought of zeiss AF lenses for this camera is so sweet!
 
digitalintrigue said:
By that measure, every digital will be obsolete in time. Obsolete does not mean unusable...just look at the RD1!
Click to expand...

right, obsolete is not unusable. but cheap. If we talk about the price of things, this is relevant...

But still, the RD1 is not cheap, so I may be wrong.

I am waiting for the MM to get obsolete. May take long, in terms of price.
 
What if rx10?

What if rx10?

Last couple of days I have been thinking what if Sony has an rx10 in the wings as well to cover the 1500 dollar range. They have a great apsc 24mp sensor that is used in nikon d3200 and nex7..

They can re-use a lot of parts to create either a 35 or 50 fov to create a rx10🙄 Just some thought and probably nothing more than wishful thinking 😀

Gary
 
Last edited:
back alley said:
i will admit that the rx100 gets a load of the work lately...
Click to expand...

Ok let's look at this in a different perspective to cover all bases. I cannot remember any of your pictures in rff using thin dof look and u don't normally print big.. So is this more ff gas more than anything else?

Another way to look at it rx100 at 35 fov is f2.8 rx1 gains only one stop of speed, but much better bokeh due to difference in sensor size. Again back to thinner dof...

Rx100 if u keep as close to base iso as possible can resolve so much detail it is not funny.. Rx1 can resolve only slightly better detail, but due to better base ISo performance, I would suspect much better dynamic range.. Tonal quality I would hope would also be better.

But a camera w/ weak filter or no Bayer array maybe able to accomplish similar resolving capability in a 16mp sensor. So how weak is the rx1 sensor? Who knows until people start doing real analysis.

Your other topic about cost. Getting the last 2 to 5 percent out of anything cost a good chunk of money with Leica lenses that is essentially what u pay for. With Zeiss that last 5 percent is a *am sight cheaper than Leica. On a production line that means during qa inspection, if it does not pass the test, it is either scrape heap time or sold off as secondary to other vendors... I suspect Leica is scape heap time.

As I have said in other threads w/o a built in evf, price point is doa for me.. Plus x100 is good enough for me. I would much rather wait for x200 w/ 16mp xtran sensor then buy a rx1...

A xe1 w/ 23f1.4 may come close enough to thin dof of rx1 plus Fuji lens iq plus sensor iq is just plain great and overall not much bigger than rx1. Rx1 will have faster af..

Gary
 
The most expensive 'thing' in our lives is time - one resource that truly is not renewable. The time you are investing in photography is worth (and costs) more than any camera you could or could not afford.

This works both ways: on the one hand, it makes sense to spend your precious time with nice efficient tools. On the other hand, making that extra money for those tools might eat away at your limited time and energy. I guess this is the tipping point - when the effort needed to 'save up' starts to interfere with the activity that your desired purchase was meant for.
 
jschrader said:
calculate in the only currency that counts. pictures. how long will you use it? that is what makes these electronics so expensive. in two years time it is obsolete.
Click to expand...
Good point. Emotional it will be obsolete when Sony will come with a version with a viewfinder (~1 year?).
 
mfogiel said:
High quality USD 20 camera with a FF image sensor:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sovietcamera/6084762687/
Joe,
Just get over it. Try to focus on the images. You can get great quality with your Leica, just use it at its best.
Click to expand...

exactly. whenever digital FF gas hits me I look at my 2 EUR worth cameras and gas is gone... when one is a professional it's a different story, but for hobby... nope, I better spend it on film ($3k will buy lots of good film)
 
If you want it, get it. Consider if you can afford to lose 15 - 20% off the buying cost if you find it doesn't suit you. If you can, just do it. Life is too short. However, this does appear to be an autumn/winter habit. That doesn't make it bad, just sayin (as Frank would) 😉
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
One of a kind Leica sells for over 3 million.
Replies
4
Views
824
ellisson
ellisson
K
My search...
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
Darthfeeble
Darthfeeble
Roastchestnuts
M246 or M10M or....
Replies
3
Views
547
Roastchestnuts
Roastchestnuts
russelljtdyer
Leica M Digitals without LCD
2
Replies
23
Views
3K
Archiver
A
B
appeal of film over digital?
22 23 24
Replies
462
Views
31K
PetPhoto
P
Back
Top Bottom