The new Sony RX1R III has created quite a bit of drama since it was announced last week.
Unless you've been living under a rock, or simply avoiding all of social media, chances are you have seen and heard criticism and support for the new rangefinder camera. In either case, photographers have been extremely passionate in their love or hate for the RX1R III (shocking, I know). Although I'm never one to shy away from controversy in the photography world (or be dragged into it), diehard Sony fans have been polarized primarily by the price tag on the new camera, which is just north of $5,000. Many have complained that the specs of the RX1R III don't justify the high price tag, especially since it lacks a few basic features like IBIS and an articulating rear screen.
I have no horse in this race, however, and therefore I am neither happy nor angry with Sony. All of the drama did present an opportunity for me to offer some levity to the entire situation in the form of my latest YouTube video, which I hope you will enjoy. And, above all, please remember that it's just a camera and that this is all in good fun.
12 Comments
At the same time, this camera costs about as much as a bottle of fine 30-year-old wine, six to ten times less than an affordable Swiss watch with a tourbillon, and nearly a hundred times cheaper than your new Rolls-Royce.
An incredible deal!
The key, of course, is what you compare it to.
But it only makes sense to compare it to things that cost the same or less. Why? Because if someone has $5,100 for the camera, they could alternatively buy equally expensive things or less expensive things with that money. They could not buy anything more expensive with that money.
The point the author is making is,
"what else could you buy with $5,100",
not
"what all could you buy if you were filthy rich".
Sony has enough great cameras for the poor — why not make one for the rich? :-)
PS. This is the humor section — my comments aren’t meant to be taken seriously. But the fact is, the pre-orders for the camera sold out on the very first day.
My friend used to say, "there's an ass for every seat!" I'm sure plenty of people will be happy with the camera.
I like that you are putting the cost of this camera in proper perspective by comparing it to other things that we can buy with the money.
At $5,098 this camera is more expensive than any of the cars I have bought over the past 25 years:
2003 I purchased a 1995 Nissan Pathfinder for $5,000
2006 I purchased a 1999 Toyota Corolla for $2,600
2011 I purchased a 2003 Toyota Corolla for $5,000
2015 I purchased a 2004 Toyota Corolla for $4,400
2017 I purchased a 2008 Toyota Corolla for $5,000
2024 I purchased a Pontiac G6 for $3,200
In the past 20 years I have also taken 16 far-from-home wildlife photography trips that were over a month long. 9 of these expeditions cost under $1,000, total, for everything. The most I spent for any of these trips was $2,717 ... that was last November's Deer Rut trip, with 3 weeks spent in Colorado for Whitetail and Mule Deer and 1 week spent in Wisconsin for super-rare albino Whitetail Deer.
I must say, your photos are a lot better than your taste in cars ( although you can’t debate about taste)
.
My taste in cars? Taste has nothing to do with my car selections. It is strictly about affordability.
I am truly poor, according to just about any definition. But I drive over 30,000 miles per year, every year. Some years closer to 40,000. So I must buy cars that I can afford to buy (no loans or payments, ever) that also do not break down and need repairs, and that also get a lot of miles per gallon.
If you needed a car ...
- that you could buy outright for $5,000 or less
- that gets at LEAST 30 miles per gallon
- and that would last beyond the 300,000 mile mark with very few and only minor repairs
then what would you choose?
.
I understand your choices and was just kidding.
I’m a serious petrol head but not rich (financially )so no very fancy cars for me. But I do choose with my heart, bought a very sensible car with my head once. There was nothing seriously wrong with the car as transport but hated every second I drove the thing. Sold it again after 6 months, that was a costly mistake. I drive a Citroën C3 with only 82 hp, but it makes me happy (and it does 20 kilometers on a litre of fuel, don’t know how many mpg that is (about 50 I guess))
Same goes with cameras for me, Sony makes great cameras, but I would never buy one, in my opinion they are ugly and don’t feel nice in my hands.
Can not afford a Hasselblad x2D but love the design, would spend half the time just looking at it. But I’m totally happy with what I have, and that’s the important part.
"I drive a Citroën C3 with only 82 hp, but it makes me happy and it does 20 kilometers on a litre of fuel, don’t know how many mpg that is, about 50 I guess"
Wow that kind of mileage is amazing! It works out to 47 miles per gallon.
If I could find a Citroen like that in my price range (a used one with 250,000 or more km on the odometer) then I would seriously consider buying it as my next car. I do not care about horsepower and have no desire to drive fast.
I just see a car as a tool that carries me and my gear from one place to another. And the most practical and most economic tool is the best tool. A tool is not supposed to make me feel good, it is supposed to do a task. There are plenty of other things in life that make me feel good, I do not need or want a car to do that.
I had a Ducati SS600 from 1994 in 2008, not the most reliable or practical, but I loved riding it. Also loved looking at all the wonderful craftsmanship of its parts. I agree a tool must do its job, but a beautifully designed tool makes me more happy using it.
Also rode Honda’s with a lot of pleasure and they always worked, but the Ducati was just that tiny bit more special.
I don’t think they sell Citroën in North America.
Forget the cars. You could rent the Eastwood movie "For a Few Dollars More," then, for a few dollars more, buy this from B&H:
Leica SL3-S Mirrorless Camera with 28-70mm f/2.8 Lens $6,495.00
Now this is a solid plan haha