Sony Just Released a $5,100 Point-and-Shoot Camera (And People Are Actually Defending It)

I recently happened to see this camera on B&H and was also completely shocked by the price. I have no idea who came up with that price point. Don't get me wrong, it's a cool looking design. But the Sony RX1R III has similar specs to my Sony A7R4 which costs less (even when it was the R series flagship camera). If I'm ever in a situation where I'd need a smaller camera, I could easily take off my battery grip and put on my Sony FE 24mm f/2.8 G Lens. This has to be a niche thing.

No IBIS - plus it uses the FW50 battery!

Whenever camera gear, or about anything for that matter, is criticized as overpriced, my mind turns to art and the services we provide as photographers. If I could turn a $300 print order into a $3,000 print order, why wouldn't I? Especially if I was reasonably certain that greater profit margin would make up for fewer sales. But I'd undoubtedly hear the critics say, Ed, "nobody is gonna buy your pictures for $3,000. Anyone can get the same picture at Fine Art America for $200. You're crazy to raise your price that high."

But am I? Just because the price at first glance appears illogical, is logic and the cost of manufacturing the sole reason for determining a price? I live in the area of numerous resorts where real estate is incredibly expensive. So does the owner of a $20 million home want to be bragging to his dinner guests about the $200 Fine Art America photo he bought, or the $5,000 Peter Lik photo, or whatever his stuff costs? I would imagine the latter. I'm not trying to figure out how to sell my prints for less, I'm trying to figure out how to sell them for more... a lot more. And I know for a fact that the 1% do not think like we do.

I'm not a Sony user so I can't speak to their products, but if I wanted to establish myself as a luxury brand (in the fashion of a Leica or Hasselblad), I would surely have to raise the price well above value-oriented products, and create the desire to own them. Maybe Sony is trying or becoming like Apple, where prices don't necessarily make sense but the customer base is almost cult like in willingness to pay a lot extra. Maybe they're trying to emulate Fuji which offers a comparable camera at the same price. Pricing is complicated and it doesn't need to make sense to you... it only needs to make sense for enough other people, to have made the product successful for the manufacturer.

Can't blame sony for trying to get a little leica money. But when the first one came out there was no 7c series camera. You are really giving up a lot now to shave off about 10mm in each direction.

So is that the price before or after the tariff increase?

GFX100RF would get my money faster than this thing anyday

For that price it doesn't even come with a lens hood, that's an additional $200!

Absolutely nothing about this camera is worth $5100, Sony is high as hell. Pay them this much for a camera like this and the pricing for all their other cameras are going to go up as well. Don't do it! =P

This camera is aimed at two kinds of people. First are those who could afford to pay $2500 for a scalper priced Fuji X100 but can't even find one to buy at that price. So they're willing to pay $5000 for anything that resembles a fake rangefinder. Second are those who want a $10,000 Leica but can't afford one. To them, $5000 is a bargain. Neither buyer will actually use the camera beyond selfies and wearing it as jewelry.

The price of the niche product is definitely higher compared to mass market products because the R&D and manufacturing costs are higher per unit.

For a product, 35mm 61MP full frame compact camera, does not have competitor in the market, definitely the company can ask for a higher price.

Why people pay a high price to buy a Rolex when Apple Watch has more functions?Why people pay more to buy Hasselblad X2D instead of Fujifilm GFX100 II? Why a Leica manual 35mm f2 APO cost US$9000? Companies price their products based on their target customers. If the price is too high, it means you are not the targeted group. (From what I know, the mentioned products are selling well.)

Is the new camera price high? Maybe 10%-20% of the price is tariff (I am not sure). If deduct the tariff, the price will be around $4000 to. $4600. If the price of the camera is priced around $3500-$4000, I think it is acceptable as you cannot find other 35mm 61MP full frame compact camera. (I am a 35mm guy.)

From the customers viewpoint and at this price point, I wish they include the following:
- High res EVF (at least 5.76MP)
- Internal storage (at least 512GB)
- New lens (not sure the old lens quality)
- Tilt screen (at least maintain the old tilt screen)
- AF/MF switch (Sony removed it)
- 16-bit instead of 14-bit
- Macro capability like Leica Q 17cm 0.41x (Sony 20cm 0.22x)
- IBIS - good to have ( For 35mm, I am ok)

"I genuinely want to understand this, because right now it feels like we're living in some alternate reality where smaller and less capable somehow equals more expensive."

This is odd to me as well. It's one thing with typical mass consumer products where us "specialists" amd "heavy users" are the minority, equating to everything getting watered down amd options disappearing and such, but for an area thats become more niche over the years, I'm perplexed by this thing and it's proponents as well.

The thing honestly seems like the culmination of Sony's complacency, or just being completely out of touch. Unless they are purposefully going for a very odd subset of fans that only they would know of with this thing.

I think there is a convergence of several factors that convince Sony there is a market for this camera at this price point. Point and shoots have shot up in popularity with certain segments of the market, with people paying high prices for used classic film pas cameras. Older used digital fixed lens cameras have shot up in price, as well. Fuji can't make enough X100s, and prices on the previous models of that line have skyrocketed. All this certainly makes it look like there's a lot of demand for point and shoots, which maybe means some people will be willing to shell out a ridunkulous amount of money for a point and shoot that is compact and has a really high resolution sensor. If I had infinite $ (or € or ¥), would I buy this? Maybe, but I was raised by people who grew up during the Depression, so I'd be deeply ashamed if I did. It feels like the niche here is people who either (1) want the x100vi but hate that it's APSC, (2) want the Fuji 100RF but think the lens is too slow or that it's just a little too big, or (3) want the Leica Q3 but either want better AF or are a couple grand short at the moment. Add a few more circles to the Venn diagram to carve out the people that want Fujis for the "tactile shooting experience," the 100RF because of the not-just-high-res-but-large sensor, and the people who want the Leica because it's a "joy in the hand," a "masterpiece of industrial design," a status symbol, or because they are periodontists and that's if not the law at least part of the board certification process for periodontists, and the market for this particular camera at this price point feels pretty niche. Doesn't mean they won't sell enough to make it worth Sony's while, I guess.

This reminds me of the SNL skit where the New York nouveau riche are waiting in line at a five table hole in the wall that serves Chef Boyardee. Sony is counting on people with more money than sense.

My SO has the A7Rv, I have a regular A7iv. That sensor is no joke. I take much less photos now because I weep every time I compare our renders after events (she’s obviously a way better photographer than me and can make something great from a potato but like for like it’s obvious the 61MP sensor is better).

BAHAHAHA that's all I can say

FFS stop calling cameras like this “point and shoot”. It’s got full manual control with a FF sensor, etc. Just cause it has a fixed lens and is relatively compact does not make it a P&S camera. X100 and Q3 are not either.

The argument that Sony is making some sort of stupid decision, made by some idiot in a closed room smoking weed, seems a bit misplaced in my opinion. First things first... I have no intention of shelling out $5,000 for this camera, or any other camera for that matter. I've never owned a Sony camera and probably never will. I did take a 12" Sony TV off to college with me that lasted about 30 years. And I do think the company is generally well-managed from what I can see. They're pulling in revenue of $88 billion a year. They're spending $2 billon a year on research and development of gaming products alone. So you think this camera is a waste of money? That may be true for you, or me, or Joe Smith across the street, but I can't imagine Sony hasn't done its homework and found a market segment which justifies the product and price point.

This issue reminds me of the Adobe subscription debate. I remember when they transitioned to that model in 2013 or so. My older friends and myself vowed never to give Adobe a dime in a subscription based product. Never. And I kept my word. So while the subscription plan makes no sense to me, Adobe's revenues have soared from about $4 billion annually in 2013 to about $22 billion presently. So much for my prediction that Adobe would suffer the economic consequences of such a bad decision. The world changes constantly in the way we consume technology. All I have to do is look at a few of my customers now and see how their "teams" of workers use the Creative Cloud to remind me that the business systems that I had used for decades are gone... history. Certainly a company like Sony sitting on a pile of cash can afford to test the boundaries of who is buying which products and for what reasons. The future quite often seems to make no sense. But to my earlier point that we'd all like to make a little extra profit from whatever we sell, the Sony camera makes perfect sense to me.

That camera is likely just trolling from Sony, e.g.,making a small batch of cameras to get attention, but no real intention of selling it.

I won't pile-on with the crowd tossing brickbats at Sony right now, because I remember people griping *quite* loudly about Sony resting on their laurels/missing the boat by not somehow updating the RX1R, and that they'll be the VERY first in line shouting "shut up and take my money!" And I predicted that IF Sony should take the hint and actually release an updated model, two things would happen: (1) the price would be significantly higher than before, and (2) they'd get raked over the coals for it. I say "it is what it is", and now predict Sony will sell *just* enough of the things annually to keep it in production fir another five or more years, at least. It's way too rich for my blood (my recent buy was a nice, used Olympus PEN-F, which serves my needs quite well), but I see the potential appeal, even though I agree the asking price for stuff like a half-case and lens hood is little more than a naked cash-grab.

Sony Is acting like Omega: you need to raise prices to make your brand appealing. Omega watches are not even close to Rolex but they now cost the same because Omega cannot afford to still have the image of a follower. Fuji has started this insane compact+fixed-lens rush and this year with the overpriced medium format has gone even further, Sony could not sit doing nothing.

Considering that I find overpriced even the Ricoh GRIII(x)...

After watching a ton of Youtube videos about this camera, I realized something. I want this camera so bad but I feel like it's 1 off LURE camera made by Sony to push some of their other products, the A7CR for example. Every YouTuber has been saying the same thing, and effectively advertising for Sonys other cameras. It's a win win for Sony. People buy this camera, cool, they make $5100 a pop. People on the fence about any of their other cameras like the A7CR WHEN the ACCR is on sale, they'll instantly go buy it. I'd be surprised if those camera models didn't skyrocket with the launch of this RX1R III. If they really wanted to sell a ton of these things, they would have priced it at $3495 and it'd be backordered like the Fuji X100VI, OR $3995 tops. But $5100 was a strategic move to sell other cameras, not this one. Sony is smart.

Sony has a reputation for great value in their cameras. Some afforable cameras, some expensive cameras that justify their price tags with cutting edge features. This camera is neither of those. This camera reminds me more of Leicas where the high price tag seems to be the most desirable feature. Kind of like a rolex or designer handbag.