tbarker13
shooter of stuff
But that's only true for rangefinder purists. For those just looking for a smaller camera, it's very much a competitor. Especially if it turns out to be any good.
The RD-1 is a cool camera. But like all digital cameras, it's aging is going to be an accelerated thing. The fact that they've been holding in the $1,500 range for so long is a testament to the strength of the camera.
But we know rangefinder users represent a niche market. And it doesn't take a lot of depressed demand to have a big impact on a niche market.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
That may be. But you leave out the possibility that there are people who use M and LTM lenses because they like a small camera system (regardless of how it focuses). If the new Fuji lives up to its hype, I don't see any reason to think there won't be people who jump from one system to the other. But whether they will be many or few, remains to be seen.
rbelyell
Well-known
youre totally right tbarker, that really was my point in quoting what i did and tesponding to it. if you want the RF experience youve got leica and epson, period, so dont look to the fuji, and thus fuji will not effect rd1 prices.
if you dont care about the RF experience but just want a great place to shoot your M/M39 lenses, than fuji might be for you, but so is ricoh (also w/o AA filter) and nex7, so again, no effect on rd1 prices.
more globally, i was pleading with RF desirers to please not expect and therefore put down the x pro 1 because it doesnt replace your rd1--its not intended to do so.
at the end of the day, imo, people holding on to 6mp non serviceable technology, or who would consider buying such a tool, do not do so for size or any other reason besides wanting a real digi rangefinder. as such none of the nonRF mirrorless cams are rd1 'competitors'. if they were rd1 prices wouldve crashed after the very well reviewed ricoh m module.
if you dont care about the RF experience but just want a great place to shoot your M/M39 lenses, than fuji might be for you, but so is ricoh (also w/o AA filter) and nex7, so again, no effect on rd1 prices.
more globally, i was pleading with RF desirers to please not expect and therefore put down the x pro 1 because it doesnt replace your rd1--its not intended to do so.
at the end of the day, imo, people holding on to 6mp non serviceable technology, or who would consider buying such a tool, do not do so for size or any other reason besides wanting a real digi rangefinder. as such none of the nonRF mirrorless cams are rd1 'competitors'. if they were rd1 prices wouldve crashed after the very well reviewed ricoh m module.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
Obviously, we can only speak for ourselves. But I'm one user who was considering another RD-1, but have now pre-ordered one of the Fujis.
So that's at least one less person keeping prices up on the RD-1.
The other cameras you mentioned have no appeal to me. Partly because I believe they are just plain ugly. And I refuse to shoot without a viewfinder.
I shot with an X100 for a while. It was enough of the "rangefinder experience" for me - a person who has been using Leicas for 20 years. I think we sometimes get caught up in what we each seek out in a camera.
For you, a rangefinder may mean manual focusing and Leica lenses.
To me it means a high quality camera in a compact package.
Sometimes, when I want a coke, I grab a Dr. Pepper - and am quite happy.
My point, is that the word "rangefinder" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. Obviously there is an actual definition of what makes a rangefinder. But in practical everyday usage, that definition means little.
So that's at least one less person keeping prices up on the RD-1.
The other cameras you mentioned have no appeal to me. Partly because I believe they are just plain ugly. And I refuse to shoot without a viewfinder.
I shot with an X100 for a while. It was enough of the "rangefinder experience" for me - a person who has been using Leicas for 20 years. I think we sometimes get caught up in what we each seek out in a camera.
For you, a rangefinder may mean manual focusing and Leica lenses.
To me it means a high quality camera in a compact package.
Sometimes, when I want a coke, I grab a Dr. Pepper - and am quite happy.
My point, is that the word "rangefinder" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. Obviously there is an actual definition of what makes a rangefinder. But in practical everyday usage, that definition means little.
Paul T.
Veteran
Have you considered different people might have different opinions? It's a staggering fact but it could be true.
I owned an R-D1 but sold it because I had a tax bill. I liked the camera, as I do, say, my Hexar AF, and my Leica. It's the lenses, the compactness and the overall feel that are the deciding factors for me - overall ergonomics, and , just as crucially, the end result. How the focusing is achieved is just one factor. How good, in terms of reliabiity and speed, the focusing, another factor. AM I bothered if the XPro1 is AF? Not really. Am I bothered if it's fairly poor AF? Yes.
Overall, I reckon there are so few Epsons out there, compared to the number of buyers, that if the Fuji takes away 15 per cent of potential buyers, the price will only slip marginally. I say that as someone convinced, a couple of years ago, that the price would drop - I wuz wrong.
So I reckon the price will hold for year or three - but once it reaches a tipping point, perhaps when second hand XPro1s come on the market, it will drop bigtime.
(But I reserve my right to be wrong)
thegman
Veteran
I think it'll drop when they get to a certain age, and start to fail. All electronics have a lifespan, and once they start to be considered unreliable, temperamental, or unserviceable , then I think the value will drop considerably. It's on worth $1200 if it's not a paperweight, and they'll be paperweights eventually, unfortunately.
robbeiflex
Well-known
I agree that there are few enough of them out there that a small number of rangefinder "purists" is enough to keep the price up. I have never tried one, but struggle to name any other 7 year old 6 mp camera that people are willing to pay so much for, so there must be something special about it. I don't see how yet another substitute that is not a direct competitor will change that. If I'm wrong, then oh well, I'll just have to pick one up on the cheap.
rbelyell
Well-known
Obviously, we can only speak for ourselves. But I'm one user who was considering another RD-1, but have now pre-ordered one of the Fujis.
So that's at least one less person keeping prices up on the RD-1.
The other cameras you mentioned have no appeal to me. Partly because I believe they are just plain ugly. And I refuse to shoot without a viewfinder.
I shot with an X100 for a while. It was enough of the "rangefinder experience" for me - a person who has been using Leicas for 20 years. I think we sometimes get caught up in what we each seek out in a camera.
For you, a rangefinder may mean manual focusing and Leica lenses.
To me it means a high quality camera in a compact package.
Sometimes, when I want a coke, I grab a Dr. Pepper - and am quite happy.
My point, is that the word "rangefinder" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. Obviously there is an actual definition of what makes a rangefinder. But in practical everyday usage, that definition means little.
no, not me, i could care less about the RF experience, i just care about the end result. there was another thread recently about the 'fair cost' or 'going rate' of the rd1. my thought was $1400+ was ridiculous given the alternatives of ricoh, nex7, coming xpro1. this was roundly decried by rd1 users because these alternatives were not true ramgefinders. i concluded, given the imo ridiculous prices, they were correct in their analysis or the prices wouldve already plummeted post ricoh and nex7. the ricoh has no AA filter and optional evf, and is optimized for M lenses. the nex7 has great vf and tons of resolution. whats the xpro1 gonna have for M users that these dont?
rbelyell
Well-known
of course individual rd1 owners may have unique reasons for owning/buying them. i was speaking in generalities, amd generalities are not rendered generally untrue because there are a few exceptions. the question was will fuji cannabalize rd1 pricing, and generally my opinion is no, because the ricoh m module hasnt, the nex5n and 7 hasnt, and there is nothing unique to the xpro1 that should effect that when the others didnt. the only logical reason, imo, that ricoh or nex7 didnt effect rd1 price is because MOST, not all, rd1 owners or wannabes want the true RF experience.
uhoh7
Veteran
I think the floor is a grand. Aside from the odd steal I doubt you will EVER see them go for less.
The reasons already well covered here.
If you see one for 1100 in good shape, you just can't loose.
The reasons already well covered here.
If you see one for 1100 in good shape, you just can't loose.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
"Ever" is an awfully bold statement in the world of consumer electronics.
Even without the Fuji, I'd bet we'll see them for $600 to $700 within 2-3 years. Soon the M10 will push down the price of the M9, which will push down the price of the M8.2, which will push down the price of the M8, which will push down the price of the RD-1.
None of that will ever change the fact that RD-1 is a great camera. But even being a great camera won't save it from this fate.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
For one thing, the Fuji's physical appearance will be much more appealing to people who like rangefinders. And before anyone says that shouldn't matter, I have to point out the vast number of threads dedicated to photos of our equipment. Many of us care (perhaps too much) about the physical characteristics of our equipment.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
gdi
Veteran
Yes, and it never reached the point of being interesting. Same as the talk of M8 and RD-1s being dumped in the nearest ditch because of the EP-1, EP2, G1, G2, GRDI,II,III, GXR, NEX,or that other Fuji (the X-WTF?) that everyone clamored for upon their announcement.
If all an RD-1 owner was looking for was a small camera that could accept M mount lenses, why haven't they dumped it already?
uhoh7
Veteran
rbelyell
Well-known
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Is that preferable to being an old reprobate?
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
I don't know why people keep running this out as if it has some validity. I can only speak of the quality of the Fujinon lenses from recent experience - the Bessa III (Fuji GF670), the X100, the X10 and wide use in the cinematographic and video production industry and they're all superb. Why would anyone expect Fuji to crash and burn on the lenses for the new camera? Not logical.
Or are you referring to the still answered questions about manual focus methods to be employed and not the rendering quality of the glass? A different matter.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Amen, brother!