funkydog
Well-known
I'd love to have the camera with warts and all since it's currently untested but my threshold is $1500. I'll probably have to wait a few years to find one in used condition for that price though.
leicapixie
Well-known
Paying so much money for any digital camera to me, is ludicrous!
DSLR prices on the whole are dropping like stones, their features and improvements, racing to the skies. Who needs such a limited but very expensive unit? Who needs more and more Megapixels? Who is printing such large prints? Maybe a very few on regular basis, the rest it's for e-mails, internet sites like flickr, Tumblr and whatever.
My first digital camera is more than needed with 3.5MP. Purchased in 2005. A Pentax (point and shoot). The Pentax Optio still working, but slow compared to my Canon P/S models..All are compacts.. All used for Professional internet usage. One area is Art Promotion esp of paintings and similar material. Perfect images that could be "lifted" and reproduced, a big No-No!
For personal uses,I see no point in these high priced technical things.
Imagine how much one could buy in a used RFDR that uses film, still way ahead in dynamic range? A real viewfinder, a masterpiece of measuring rangefinder. Some of the world's best lenses. The last time I looked it was still the "Rangefinder Forum". Way to go, baby! I love my Leica.
DSLR prices on the whole are dropping like stones, their features and improvements, racing to the skies. Who needs such a limited but very expensive unit? Who needs more and more Megapixels? Who is printing such large prints? Maybe a very few on regular basis, the rest it's for e-mails, internet sites like flickr, Tumblr and whatever.
My first digital camera is more than needed with 3.5MP. Purchased in 2005. A Pentax (point and shoot). The Pentax Optio still working, but slow compared to my Canon P/S models..All are compacts.. All used for Professional internet usage. One area is Art Promotion esp of paintings and similar material. Perfect images that could be "lifted" and reproduced, a big No-No!
For personal uses,I see no point in these high priced technical things.
Imagine how much one could buy in a used RFDR that uses film, still way ahead in dynamic range? A real viewfinder, a masterpiece of measuring rangefinder. Some of the world's best lenses. The last time I looked it was still the "Rangefinder Forum". Way to go, baby! I love my Leica.
Perhaps you should speak for yourself and your experience instead of everyone?
ssmc
Well-known
+1
Here's another way I thought of looking at it.
A couple of years ago I succumbed to the Leica bug and bought a very nice (but not mint) black 0.85 M6-TTL which cost $1800. Then I bought a ZM 35/2.8 Biogon - $817. Add a step-up ring, new lens cap and a couple of filters for B&W and color and you're within $50 of the RX1 (actually it was way over that after I sent it off for a CLA). Now I never really planned for any other lenses for this particular camera so in a sense (for my purposes) it may as well have been fixed. Not to mention with a stop slower lens and a stop slower shutter than the RX1...
Because I don't have the experience or facilities to do my own developing I got all my film processed and scanned at NCPS at a their premium resolution of 5,035 x 3,339 (16.8MP / 16.033MiP). Those dimensions ideally need a little cropping (I use 4,992 x 3,328) before any resizing so let's call it 16.6MP - and those are 8-bit JPGs.
The RX1 outputs 6,000 x 4,000 14-bit RAW files. If you absolutely want to get rid of any "Bayerness" you can resample to 1/1.25 for 4,800 x 3,200 for ultra-clean 15.3MP files. Or leave it at 24MP and call it good.
I know, this is totally ignoring the tactile enjoyment of using a film camera, that you could shoot microfilm and process and scan it yourself at extremely high resolution, etc., etc. but in terms of the final result vs. cost I personally think the RX1 could well be a winner.
YMMV, or course. And I still can't afford one :bang:
Adanac
Well-known
At $17.70 per roll for development and premium scan, the RX1 ($2800) accounts for 158 rolls of film. If you factor in the cost of a decent camera, and at least 3 years but probably 5 years of service, a camera like the RX1 looks good purely on a cost to operate basis.
Some will go on about how a digital camera becomes obsolete while a film camera doesn't, but with 6000x4000 resolution output from the palm of your hand competing easily with hi-res 35mm film scans, who is kidding who - this camera isn't going to be obsolete, ever, not when compared to using film as an intermediary step to getting a digital image on disc.
Sure, newer cameras and sensors will eventually surpass this but regardless the same intrinsic value will be there.