AJB Posted May 31, 2013 Share #61 Posted May 31, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) RX1 is available in the UK for £1859 from stock. Equates to 2175 Euros. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 Hi AJB, Take a look here Yet another M240 v RX1 review. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted May 31, 2013 Share #62 Posted May 31, 2013 I can assure you it is the price over here, checked by a few large dealers as well. The M 240 is 6300, the Summicron 35 2450 Euro. But... The depreciation on the M in three years time will be in the order of 2000 Euro, the lens probably zero. And the RX1 2000 as well - which makes the Sony a bl***y expensive camera for what it is... And those UK prices are great, but not very realistic...(btw, 2x optical zoom:confused:, surprising...) Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205020-yet-another-m240-v-rx1-review/?do=findComment&comment=2335748'>More sharing options...
douglasf13 Posted June 1, 2013 Share #63 Posted June 1, 2013 I can assure you it is the price over here, checked by a few large dealers as well.The M 240 is 6300, the Summicron 35 2450 Euro. But... The depreciation on the M in three years time will be in the order of 2000 Euro, the lens probably zero. And the RX1 2000 as well - which makes the Sony a bl***y expensive camera for what it is... In the US, used M9s go for $4k'ish, and used 35/2 ASPHs go for $2K'ish, which is a $4k total loss from new, so I'd imagine the M240+35/2 would have a similar $4K loss in three years, and the RX1 will be worth at least $1K in three years, so that's around a $2K difference in loss. Not too mention, the M240 + 35/2 initial buy in price is 3.5x more than the RX1, which is a huge difference. No matter how you slice it, whether it be initial price or depreciation, the RX1 is certainly a better deal than the M240+35/2. If this rumored fixed-zoom, aps-c, $3K camera from Leica is true, the RX1 will look like a fantastic deal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macjonny1 Posted June 1, 2013 Share #64 Posted June 1, 2013 In the US' date=' used M9s go for $4k'ish, and used 35/2 ASPHs go for $2K'ish, which is a $4k total loss from new, so I'd imagine the M240+35/2 would have a similar $4K loss in three years, and the RX1 will be worth at least $1K in three years, so that's around a $2K difference in loss. Not too mention, the M240 + 35/2 initial buy in price is 3.5x more than the RX1, which is a huge difference. No matter how you slice it, whether it be initial price or depreciation, the RX1 is certainly a better deal than the M240+35/2. If this rumored fixed-zoom, aps-c, $3K camera from Leica is true, the RX1 will look like a fantastic deal.[/quote'] Something more expensive will always depreciate more by definition. The RX1 is avail used now for 700-$800 cheaper than new already though, which is huge depreciation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglasf13 Posted June 1, 2013 Share #65 Posted June 1, 2013 Something more expensive will always depreciate more by definition. The RX1 is avail used now for 700-$800 cheaper than new already though, which is huge depreciation. Of course, but jaapv's original point was that the RX1 was a poor buy, because, in a few years, you'll be left with a camera stuck to a lens that has no value in it. My point is that, even if the RX1's value drops to zero in 3 years (which it won't,) I would still likely loose more by purchasing an M240 plus 35/2 and selling them in 3 years, so, by that logic, the M240 would also be a poor buy. If the RX1 was something like $5k (which is still half the price of the Leica combo,) that would make sense, but not at $2800. My "peanuts" comment was in regard to the RX1 being 3.5x less expensive than the Leica combo. FWIW, I just sold my M9 for $4k and my 35/2 ASPH for $1950, which are both about the going rate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 1, 2013 Share #66 Posted June 1, 2013 In the US, used M9s go for $4k'ish, and used 35/2 ASPHs go for $2K'ish, which is a $4k total loss from new, so I'd imagine the M240+35/2 would have a similar $4K loss in three years, and the RX1 will be worth at least $1K in three years, so that's around a $2K difference in loss. Not too mention, the M240 + 35/2 initial buy in price is 3.5x more than the RX1, which is a huge difference. No matter how you slice it, whether it be initial price or depreciation, the RX1 is certainly a better deal than the M240+35/2. If this rumored fixed-zoom, aps-c, $3K camera from Leica is true, the RX1 will look like a fantastic deal. Well, the bottom line is that to me, at our prices, I find the M worth its money and the RX1 not. Without even considering that the lens on the M should not even be considered because many buyers will either own the lenses they need already, and if not, will buy them to use on a series of cameras for decades and not, like the RX1 lens, as an integral part of a disposable camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglasf13 Posted June 1, 2013 Share #67 Posted June 1, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well, the bottom line is that to me, at our prices, I find the M worth its money and the RX1 not. Without even considering that the lens on the M should not even be considered because many buyers will either own the lenses they need already, and if not, will buy them to use on a series of cameras for decades and not, like the RX1 lens, as an integral part of a disposable camera. Even if you bought the M240 body only, you're likely to loose $2K-$3K in three years, which is right in line with the loss on an RX1 if it is worth $0 in three years, which won't be the case. FWIW, the Sony A900 was released at $3000, quickly came down close to $2K, and is still selling at around $1400 4.5 years later. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 1, 2013 Share #68 Posted June 1, 2013 It is moot anyway, as I never sell a Leica... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglasf13 Posted June 1, 2013 Share #69 Posted June 1, 2013 It is moot anyway, as I never sell a Leica... Yeah, I wish I didn't have to. I've been paying for a new database for my company, and the costs are inflating at a fast rate, so I've been reevaluating the fun things that I have money in, like guitars, watches, camera gear, cars, etc. I sold my M9+35/2 and saved nearly $4K by buying the RX1, which I like more than I expected to. Still, without a rangefinder attached, nothing compares to a Leica M. I'm just surprised that I like shooting the RX1 so much, even without the rangefinder, and the output is fantastic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macjonny1 Posted June 1, 2013 Share #70 Posted June 1, 2013 Yeah' date=' I wish I didn't have to. I've been paying for a new database for my company, and the costs are inflating at a fast rate, so I've been reevaluating the fun things that I have money in, like guitars, watches, camera gear, cars, etc. I sold my M9+35/2 and saved nearly $4K by buying the RX1, which I like more than I expected to. Still, without a rangefinder attached, nothing compares to a Leica M. I'm just surprised that I like shooting the RX1 so much, even without the rangefinder.[/quote'] Yeah the RX1 is quite fun! Leicas depreciate a out a grand a year on average, bodies that is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 1, 2013 Share #71 Posted June 1, 2013 Yeah, I wish I didn't have to. I've been paying for a new database for my company, and the costs are inflating at a fast rate, so I've been reevaluating the fun things that I have money in, like guitars, watches, camera gear, cars, etc. I sold my M9+35/2 and saved nearly $4K by buying the RX1, which I like more than I expected to. Still, without a rangefinder attached, nothing compares to a Leica M. I'm just surprised that I like shooting the RX1 so much, even without the rangefinder, and the output is fantastic. I know where you come from. I was lucky to be able to save about 47.000 Euro in car costs over the coming 4 years because of some loophole in our tax system, but it meant giving up the Jaguar for a Mishubishi Outlander PHEV, which is a bit of a comedown, even if it is in the same price range. I won't repeat the experience with cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted June 1, 2013 Share #72 Posted June 1, 2013 Perhaps of some interest to RX1 users, the cover of the current (June) issue of Rangefinder magazine was shot with an RX1 camera -- Rangefinder magazine. It is the photo of the woman holding an old Life magazine and looking out a window. P.S. Notwithstanding its name, Rangefinder magazine is oriented toward wedding & portrait photographers, not necessarily rangefinder users. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglasf13 Posted June 1, 2013 Share #73 Posted June 1, 2013 I know where you come from. I was lucky to be able to save about 47.000 Euro in car costs over the coming 4 years because of some loophole in our tax system, but it meant giving up the Jaguar for a Mishubishi Outlander PHEV, which is a bit of a comedown, even if it is in the same price range. I won't repeat the experience with cameras. Yeah, I've been surprised that I've been enjoying the RX1 so much, so it hasn't felt like much of a comedown. Shooting with the OVF is pretty fun. If I need more of that classic camera feeling, and I can always run some 6x6 film in my Hasselblads, but I haven't felt the need, at this point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michali Posted June 1, 2013 Share #74 Posted June 1, 2013 As I mentioned very early on in this thread, I bought the RX1 as a back up for my M9 for low light landscape shooting, and it really hasn't disappointed. My initial experience is that the files need very little in the way of post processing. I much prefer using the M9 for street and people photography. The RX1 is really a lot of fun to use as a very versatile, serious high end "point and shoot", with the ability to use full manual focus and exposure settings. Its "macro" capabilty isn't that bad either.... I'm not sure that one can compare a range finder and the RX1. It's the same pointless exercise as trying to compare a DSLR with either one of these cameras. However with the M9 and RX1 in my bag I really don't covet the M240. Some images shot with the RX1 on its first outing: Zenfolio | Mike Kirkinis | SONY RX1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglasf13 Posted June 1, 2013 Share #75 Posted June 1, 2013 As I mentioned very early on in this thread, I bought the RX1 as a back up for my M9 for low light landscape shooting, and it really hasn't disappointed. My initial experience is that the files need very little in the way of post processing. I much prefer using the M9 for street and people photography. The RX1 is really a lot of fun to use as a very versatile, serious high end "point and shoot", with the ability to use full manual focus and exposure settings. Its "macro" capabilty isn't that bad either.... I'm not sure that one can compare a range finder and the RX1. It's the same pointless exercise as trying to compare a DSLR with either one of these cameras. However with the M9 and RX1 in my bag I really don't covet the M240. Some images shot with the RX1 on its first outing: Zenfolio | Mike Kirkinis | SONY RX1 Hi, Mike. Have you had a chance to try an optical viewfinder on the RX1? It keeps surprising me how accurate I can get the AF with my OVF, despite there being no electronic focus indicator. Of course, zone focus also works well with the OVF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michali Posted June 2, 2013 Share #76 Posted June 2, 2013 Hi Douglas, I haven't used the OVF, I bought an electronic viewfinder with the camera. It works really well and comes in handy esp. in very bright sunlight situations, when the rear display is absolutely useless. Interesting to hear about the OVF. Also bought a couple of extra batteries as I had read that the battery life wasn't particularly long, I haven't really encountered that issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglasf13 Posted June 2, 2013 Share #77 Posted June 2, 2013 Hi Douglas, I haven't used the OVF, I bought an electronic viewfinder with the camera. It works really well and comes in handy esp. in very bright sunlight situations, when the rear display is absolutely useless. Interesting to hear about the OVF. Also bought a couple of extra batteries as I had read that the battery life wasn't particularly long, I haven't really encountered that issue. Hi, Mike. I bought the more compact, less expensive Voigtlander OVF, and I like it so much that I'm planning on returning the EVF, which surprises me. The OVF is good for most AF situations (center point AF-only, obviously,) and zone focusing, and then I occasionally use the LCD if it's a particularly tricky AF or metering situation, which isn't that often. Granted, I can comfortably focus my eyes to a distance of around 7", so I can tuck my arms at my sides and hold the camera pretty close to my face to use the LCD. If I had to use the LCD at arm's length, I'd keep the EVF, but I actually don't mind using the LCD sometimes. I don't think that battery life is all that great, but 3rd party batteries are pretty inexpensive, and the batteries are so tiny that they are easily packed, so it doesn't bother me much. Battery life certainly isn't DSLR-level, but those used to other mirrorless cameras and Leica M9s shouldn't be too disappointed, I'd imagine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted June 2, 2013 Share #78 Posted June 2, 2013 Yes, battery life is limited. Seems much less than the M9. But, two small batteries in your pocket are smaller than one M9 battery. I am thankful for the massively large M battery. I have used the EVF and it is very good. I returned it mainly because it was so expensive. I manage to use the camera just fine "at arms length." I am probably the only one on the forum that doesn't mind this method of shooting a PAS. I don't even mind looking like a tourist. In bright sunlight the LCD becomes a bit harder. Maybe, I'll reconsider the EVF at some point when I can rationalize the cost. If, I did not have the M for my primary shooter I'd definitely use the EVF a lot. For now it is tourist mode for me. I would probably like the nice Zeiss OVF, but it displays no information in the finder, obviously. I feel it necessary to be able to see the autofocus brackets to make sure the camera chose the right targets. Or, in center focus mode it is nice to see exactly where the focus point is. This can't be done with the OVF. Doug, do you find that you miss the information in the OVF? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglasf13 Posted June 2, 2013 Share #79 Posted June 2, 2013 Doug, do you find that you miss the information in the OVF? You know, I assumed that I would, but I really don't. At least not in my short experience with the camera. The camera's metering is so good that it rarely makes a mistake, and there is an option to turn off the LCD, except for a small strip at the bottom that shows shutter, aperture and ISO, so I just use A mode or M mode with autoISO, and I haven't had any real problems, yet. If I have a tough metering situation, like a strong backlight, I may check the LCD to be sure, but it's done a great job, thus far. With AF (I only use center AF,) I'm surprised how few mistakes that I've made with the OVF (I use a 35mm Voigtlander,) even compared to the Fuji hybrid viewfinder that I've had some experience with. Since the OVF is directly above the lens, you only have to worry about a little vertical parallax, so I spent a day testing how the "virtual" center AF point in the OVF would move down as the subject gets closer, and I can visualize it pretty quickly already. There is no visual indication that focus is locked, but you can feel the AF stop with your hands on the camera, and since it eventually locks on nearly every time, it works surprisingly well. It really isn't as convoluted as it probably sounds. I ordered both the EVF and OVF, assuming that I'd only use the OVF for zone focusing, but I've been really surprised with how well the OVF works in most of my shooting situations, and I'm using it most of the time, with some supplemental LCD usage on occasion. The camera also feels more solid with the Voigtlander OVF, compared to the EVF...and it looks pretty cool, too. I haven't had the camera all that long, but I'll likely return the EVF, although I may give it another week to be safe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1JB Posted June 3, 2013 Share #80 Posted June 3, 2013 Douglas - Where did you sell your M9 and lenses privately or to a dealer? I'm trying to line up a dealer for mine. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.