Will we ever see luxury digital compacts?

A

Archiver

Mentor
Local time
8:09 AM
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
2,462
Back in the 90's, there was a reasonable market for luxury film compacts. The Contax T3, Nikon 35Ti and 28Ti, Minolta TC-1, and others promised high quality bodies with excellent lenses. Some, like the T3, were made of titanium and had high quality glass viewfinders. They were made for photographers who wanted SLR quality that slipped into their pockets, and were built (or at least marketed) to last for years.

But now that cameras are disposable commodities, with new models emerging on two-year product cycles, there is much less market for such robustness and quality.

The only compact cameras of this type to emerge in recent years were the much-lambasted Hasselblad-Sony rebadge cameras. If they weren't priced so stupidly, and were built with excellent tolerances and weatherproofing, the Hasselblad compacts could have been the successor to the Contax/Nikon/Minolta cameras.

Leica might give us a true luxury compact in the future, but it would be swathed in Leica's bling bling marketing. And I don't see many other companies with the potential to do this.

Will we ever see the return of very high quality compacts, but without the bling-bling status factor? Will there ever be a digital T3, with pocketable titanium body, full frame sensor and great lens?
 
There are plenty of digital compact cameras which are price-wise well above the average consumer DSLR kit. Sony RX series, Fuji X100, Nikon Coolpix A and so on. Indeed, there is a strong convergence towards that market segment as the lower end gets eaten up by smartphones. Arguably, they are currently lacking the bling factor of film era luxury compacts - in the emerging digital market, you can still differentiate by features. As soon as sensors reach a level where there is not more drive for bigger and higher resolutions, they will probably add the missing titanium and rhinoceros foreskin...
 
The entire market is moving this way. The throwaway is now the smartphone, and the only place left for traditional camera companies is upmarket. The RX, X100, and Q are examples, and don't forget the luxury of the Leica X in its "special edition" guises.
Why do they have to be full frame though, you're not mounting a bunch of legacy lenses on it.
 
I think the market for "luxury" compacts is pretty well represented by Fuji, Leica, Nikon, Sony, etc. That these cameras also happen to be competent daily tools for many photographers doesn't diminish the fact that they meet the definition of expensive, high quality cameras with superb optics.

Right now, all digital cameras might seem to come with an expiration date but that has more to do with consumers buying into the upgrade concept than with the cameras not being durable. Time will tell but today's digitals might be looked upon as classics in the future.
 
I could be wrong, but perhaps the OP, when asking about luxury compacts was talking about something with the build quality of a Hasselblad 500 CM. None of the products mentioned remotely approach that. I have had an RX1, and though the image quality was impossible for me to fault, in terms of build quality it was well short of anything that could be called luxury, and an X100 is even further off the mark. They may not scream "disposable", but even the best ones certainly whisper it.
I'm not arguing that anyone needs this level of build quality, but no one with a 500 CM is going to think that any of these compacts are luxurious (though I have not worked with a Leica Q, so not judging that one).
Until digital cameras start coming with replaceable sensor modules, disposable is exactly what they are going to be. Making finely crafted, i.e. expensive, bodies for these may not make a lot of business sense for a manufacturer, precisely because everyone knows these cameras are disposable, even though buyers are loathe to admit that to themselves or their wives.
 
The OP was also asking about pocketable compacts, the Q is far from that. The closest thing that exists these days is the Leica C. A luxury brand with excellent image quality, unfortunately it doesn't have the build quality the OP would like.
 
Titanium is the luxury?
Leica have small D-Lux, X and T. Sony have FF compact with Zeiss prime. Even Hasselblad have compact with its name. Those are luxury compacts.
Sorry to OP, but it seems some home work was required before posting. :)
 
MikeMGB said:
The OP was also asking about pocketable compacts, the Q is far from that. The closest thing that exists these days is the Leica C. A luxury brand with excellent image quality, unfortunately it doesn't have the build quality the OP would like.
Click to expand...

Sony RX100, Fuji X70, Nikon Coolpix A, Ricoh GR. I don't see a lack of luxury pocket cameras either.
 
Titanium is the luxury?

Titanium is the luxury?

Yes, and I've had a few Titanium ones and the thing about them, imo, is that the metal is thin and so not really practical but cosmetic. And when the electronics decide to go into a permanent sulk the thing is a more expensive but just as useless paperweight/doorstop...

So luxury as in more expensive but otherwise just the same functions.

Regards, David

PS And now I'm going to look at the Leica Q and count my pennies.

PPS (EDIT) the Q hasn't got a viewfinder, I dunno...
 
Not from the major manufacturers.

My guess is that they have cut back their product pipeline and manufacturing to the point where they don't have any bandwidth for anything that doesn't sell volumes. High end products are often used to fill time at the manufacturing end. Not always, of late companies are rebadging/reskin to leverage their name to see if there demand and bring in some low effort cash. I think that's a bad idea as these days Branding has become more valuable than it was 10-15 years ago.

B2 (;->
 
Larry Cloetta said:
I could be wrong, but perhaps the OP, when asking about luxury compacts was talking about something with the build quality of a Hasselblad 500 CM.
Click to expand...

Well, the 500 c/m is hardly compact. And none of the film era "luxury" compacts had its build quality (indeed, most of them had internals that were no better than any mid price compact, in a shell made from expensive materials).
 
Nothing in what I wrote even remotely implied that the 500CM was a compact. It was about build quality. And nothing mentioned here approaches that level of build quality. If an RX 100 is "luxury" the word no longer has its original meaning. Like a lot of words. Luxury means more than 'costs too much.'
 
I still consider the RX100, LX100, GR, X70, etc premium point and shoots because they are. They are all very small, offer amazing IQ and have many more features than other point and shoots comparable in size. As far as build quality goes they are all fine. I don't know what more you'd want, if you drop a Contax T3 and an RX100 on the concrete my guess is both of them will break so...
 
I'm not a digital shooter, but I suspect that today's phones do such a good job on this, and are so small and compact, there's just not much of a market for what you describe anymore. Like all things financial, photographic purchases are based on supply and demand (w/ the demand being first), so if there was a demand, for sure someone would be fulfilling it.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
Titanium is the luxury?
Leica have small D-Lux, X and T. Sony have FF compact with Zeiss prime. Even Hasselblad have compact with its name. Those are luxury compacts.
Sorry to OP, but it seems some home work was required before posting. :)
Click to expand...


I have to agree with Ko.Fe.

I had a film Contax T3, and my old Canon S95 digital compact camera was just as nice, if not nicer built.

And the current Sony RX100 IV blows that away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top