carstenw
Active member
About the price ratio of low-end vs. high-end, if you compare a Canon EOS 50D versus the 5D2 and 1Ds3, you will see that for 33% extra MP, the price more than doubles. For the 1Ds3, you only get an improved body, yet pay 3x as much or more. For Nikon the story is the same. For Sony, it is the same. For Phase One, it is the same: a P65+ has a 2.7x the MP of a P25+, yet costs 5x as much. It is the same for every brand. Comparing across unlike product ranges has no meaning. Should a Canon 50D cost the same as a Canon G10? That isn't the way things work, and it isn't the way they will be priced. It would be nice for us, but would probably put the relevant companies out of business.
The S2 will be worth and cost much more than 1.5x a D3x. The lenses will be so much better than average Nikon lenses (or Canon). If the price is really only €15.000, that is only 2x as much as a Nikon D3x. I consider that quite amazing for a sensor delivering 1.5x as much resolution, but in a body with a much larger sensor.
---
Forrest, I am not rich. Photography is my primary hobby and my passion, and if I really want something photographic, I can save for it and get it, provided it is not a new P65+ or anything like that. I am a programmer. If I get the S2, I will have to sell all my Contax 645 stuff, one of my Hasselblad V cameras, and perhaps a Leica M lens or two, and even then, I will have some money to save up. I don't own a car, because it isn't necessary in Berlin. I don't own an apartment, because I have moved around a fair amount. I have some disposable income, because I live a modest life in most ways, except for photography. I will not be first in line, but if the camera is really great, I might save up for one.
In answer to the "red dot" argument: it isn't, and never was about the red dot. It was about the excellence of the lenses and the cameras. The price is high, but for some, what they got was worth more than the money they had to pay. It is like that for me. I found the Canon 5D horribly disappointing, but the M8 I loved from the beginning. The teething problems was something I had to put up with to own this camera. I could have bought any other 35mm camera I wanted for similar money, but there wasn't a single one I liked as much, so the choice was obvious for me.
The S2 will be worth and cost much more than 1.5x a D3x. The lenses will be so much better than average Nikon lenses (or Canon). If the price is really only €15.000, that is only 2x as much as a Nikon D3x. I consider that quite amazing for a sensor delivering 1.5x as much resolution, but in a body with a much larger sensor.
---
Forrest, I am not rich. Photography is my primary hobby and my passion, and if I really want something photographic, I can save for it and get it, provided it is not a new P65+ or anything like that. I am a programmer. If I get the S2, I will have to sell all my Contax 645 stuff, one of my Hasselblad V cameras, and perhaps a Leica M lens or two, and even then, I will have some money to save up. I don't own a car, because it isn't necessary in Berlin. I don't own an apartment, because I have moved around a fair amount. I have some disposable income, because I live a modest life in most ways, except for photography. I will not be first in line, but if the camera is really great, I might save up for one.
In answer to the "red dot" argument: it isn't, and never was about the red dot. It was about the excellence of the lenses and the cameras. The price is high, but for some, what they got was worth more than the money they had to pay. It is like that for me. I found the Canon 5D horribly disappointing, but the M8 I loved from the beginning. The teething problems was something I had to put up with to own this camera. I could have bought any other 35mm camera I wanted for similar money, but there wasn't a single one I liked as much, so the choice was obvious for me.