No idea what that is so I'll just say yeahIt's not noiseMaybe it is this"star eater" thing...?
From what I can tell, the supposed issue with the shutter on the A7iii (and to a lesser extend reported on the A7iv) is simply a case of huge numbers of the cameras being sold, and the internet amplifying the voices of those who (quite rightly) are upset when they are upset that the shutter has failed earlier than the rated mean life (as is to be expected in some instances, when a mean time before failure is quoted).
Still significantly more than the R line or canon/ Nikon offerings. So there is definitely a weak part in these cheaper cameras, hence why they have half the life expectancy of the R line up. You would have thought after quite high reports on the iii they would have fixed it on the iv but now it’s been out a while there seems to be to be a fair amount and it seem to have been bought less by consumers.( doesn’t seem to offer that much more other that MP)
The Sony A7R cameras do indeed have a higher rated shutter, and also sell in significantly lower volumes as they are more expensive models - the A7iii camera out 6 months before the first FF Canon or Nikon mirrorless cameras, and was one of the top selling models globally for several years - the greater number of failure reports are simply a case of there being a lot more cameras sold, which is then amplified by the internet - more failure reports means more people posting it has a 'high failure rate', so more people read and repost this, leading to yet more reposts.
I’ve labelled the batteries and will see if it’s one particular battery that’s causing it as that appeared to be the issue last time despite Sony changing the motherboard twice.
www.sonyalpharumors.com
But 60+mp just isn't for me and that'll bump the price up too. I haven't read everything or Googled but I do hope there is a non r version but sadly even that may well be waaaay out of what I'm willing to pay.
Fixed 3.0" 2.36m-dot touchscreen for AF tracking and intuitive control.
The original RX1 (I'm assuming the new camera is a similar size/weight) is a remarkably small camera and I think smaller than most people realise. I have a friend with a Q3 and side by side, the Leica absolutely dwarfs the Sony and closer to the size of an A7C with lens (I haven't had them side by side) whereas the RX1 body is only slightly bigger than the RX100 series. Portability wise it's the RX1 lens that lets it down a bit since it sticks out a lot which means it doesn't really fit in a pocket but it's still a remarkably small package, I always saw Q2/Q3 comparisons but I was really surprised how big the Leica is.
Funnily enough I was thinking much the same and I think it would be possible by taking the internals of an A7C and putting them into the smaller RX1 body. It seems likely Sony were aiming squarely at the Leica Q3 and while the Sony is a lot smaller I don't think people are prepared to pay a premium for Sony cameras as they will for Leicas, from what I can see the RX1RII was certainly not a strong seller and the new version isn't really doing anything much different apart from a big bump in the price. Sony are clearly an incredibly innovative company (arguably I feel the most innovative camera company over the last 15 years or so), this camera though feels more like a me too effort.
I'll confess to buying one of them as well (D-Lux8 100th Anniversary Edtition) for my wife. I agree that its inflated compared with the Panasonic, but it has a few things going for it (over the Panasonic):- better residuals, the Leica User-Interface (now similar to the Q3) and most importantly for my wife Leica Fotos integration, which is probably the best camera to phone/ipad integration from any camera manufacturer.
Yeah I understand why the Sony is more expensive than the X100VI, all I was saying was that if it was in a similar price bracket I could have been tempted. For what it’s worth I think the Fuji is overpriced for what it is, but at least that’s a popular camera. RX1 sales have not been great.
Sony won't care about me as I only buy a camera every 15 years or so but if things carry on as they are I might be priced out of the new camera market.
I agree with Snerkler below I think the Fuji overpriced for what it is and Sony have an electronics advantage compared to Fuji as well, looking at the price of the A7CII they're already in that ballpark. Also amusingly the the RX1RIII price puts it in the same price bracket as the Fuji GFX100RF with the bigger MF sensor.
Much smaller sensors though so not comparable to the FF sensors, I would say both solutions are big for what they offer compared to the 1in compacts.
I thought the same about the Fuji although I'm not criticising them for it because clearly they can however as you've mentioned, Sony can't. I'm not aware of any sales figures for the RX1 mk1 and mk2 but I can't believe they were anything other that a complete disaster. There's a small number of mk1's for sale second hand but very few mk2's plus you almost never seen either camera mentioned online. I suspect the high price of the mk3 is to make up for low sales numbers however I think it's narrows down the potential market even further.
I must admit I didn't actually look at the price of the RX1R III, I just assumed it would be similar to the RX1R II launch price. What are Sony smoking?????? £4199
Leica you expect to be expensive, but Sony are more of a 'mainstream' brand. I know it's not as compact but you can buy the A7cR and 35mm f1.8 for £1k less than the RX1R III, and the A7cR with 35mm f1.4 GM for the same price. I'm not sure what I'm missing????
There's already a few GFX100RF around at the £3750 mark @trevorbray has been trying to get me to buy one, he's learning at last......let someone else make the expensive mistake
There's already a few GFX100RF around at the £3750 mark @trevorbray has been trying to get me to buy one, he's learning at last......let someone else make the expensive mistake
The US tariffs may be having a global impact (at least in the Sony costing analysis): higher US price = lower US sales = lower total global sales = increased per unit production + r&d costs.
There's as much r&d gone into rxriii as the reading glasses from poundland
Cripple Hammer implies they had something better in mind.
I don't find the difference on the A7C series noticeable at all since they can't fit anywhere in my bags the A9 can't while smaller cameras like the RX100 or RX1 can.
I think the comparison to an ILC camera was more as a reference point price wise and I do absolutely understand your preference for fixed lens cameras. When I first bought the RX1R the 35mm lens seemed incredibly limiting but I found it quickly quite freeing since I didn't need to debate which lens or lenses I wanted to take, I could just take the camera and work around it. I was quite excited to see a new RX1 but while the price is an immediate deal breaker, the lack of any real improvements is a further disappointment and doesn't correct the few issues I have with the original model. As you've mentioned there's no weather sealing I've seen mentioned nor image stabilisation either.
Exactly....I must admit I didn't actually look at the price of the RX1R III, I just assumed it would be similar to the RX1R II launch price. What are Sony smoking?????? £4199
No weather sealing and no lens hood for £4199???? Sony really are taking the mickey with this.
£150 for the lens hood seems utterly absurd as well.
You're not wrong but Sony's accounting team will still have some costs that will need to be amortized on a per unit basis.
