Does anybody think this is a good idea?

[TCav]

A $2,899 P&S!

[fewpics]

I'd love to get ahold of one. That price would really have to be "justified" by some sort of super performance...

[VTphotog]

A little White-out on the 2, and they would have something that would sell. As stated, the price is way out of line with the market. Sony engineering is generally excellent, but their marketing department is way too proud of the products.

brian

[SIMON40]

Are we talking about the RX1...?
I guess everything's relative.... if you're rather wealthy...why not...!

My guess is,however, that it might had been more prudent to have made it an interchangeable lens model.... I suspect many more might have been interested.
As it is- regardless of quality- it is rather limited in it's potential applications...

It does look rather good though....!!

[Ozzie_Traveller]

G'day fellas

Couple of years back I met a bloke with a digital Leica M9 (?) around his neck
Chatted a while and he casually mentioned that he only looks at images on the computer and rarely prints 5 x 7's

Asked him why he had such an expensive P&S ... "coz I can afford it" was the reply

Ah well
Regards, Phil

[PeterP]

Wow at that price put one in everyone's christmas stocking!

[VTphotog]

I can sort of understand the 'snob appeal' of a Leica, but Sony..? That is more a case of 'mob appeal'.

brian

[peripatetic]

Let's see, you could say it's around $1200 for the lens, which is what Zeiss charges for a 35mm f2 lens for both their DSLR lenses and their M lenses. And it has a built-in leaf shutter which usually adds a fair bit to the price of a lens. Say $1400 then.

Which leaves you with by far the world's smallest ever body housing an FX sensor for around $1500.

For people who only ever use a 35mm (or equivalent) lens you get a silent (not merely quiet) leaf shutter, a fantastic lens, and probably the best FX sensor ever made in a very small body.

Do I want one? Oh yes!

Can I afford it. Erm, no probably not.

Maybe if I sold all my Canon gear and my Zeiss Ikon, and my X100.

For £650 you can get a Fuji X100, compared to £2800 +£400 (optical viewfinder) = £3200. I reckon you get 80% of the image quality for 20% of the price by buying the Fuji. That extra little bit of quality sure is expensive.

But compared to say a Leica X2, it's essentially the same price and much better.

Compared to a Leica M9 + 35mm summicron £4800+£2200=£7000, well you're saving a fortune! And there are many Leica owners who only use a 35mm lens.

There are a surprising number of people out there who can afford this sort of camera. Actually I have more money invested in my (modest) Canon system, and the RX1 would cover 95% of what I need for my photography.

If I were starting from scratch I would rather have an RX1 and a Fuji XS1 than all my Canon gear I think.

My needs to not include things like sports shooting however!

[TCav]

Yeah, but how much of a panic would you be in if you forgot whch pocket you put it in?

[PeterP]

it might be interesting if the focal length did not fall into the range I rarely have any use for!
I've stopped carting my 24-70 just to save weight in my bag, as for me personally I found that middle of the road range to be the most humdrum.

Now if they popped it out with a 16mm or 24mm f/2 it would, well it would still be way our of my price range for a point&shoot.
After all 2 RX1's = about 1 real pro dslr body.