How come the RX1 depreciates so much in value?

Discussion in 'Sony' started by eye2i, Sep 19, 2013.

  1. eye2i

    eye2i Rookie

    Aug 28, 2013
    I'm just curious. Its well built and has no known issues. The RX1 has an amazing, AMAZING sensor. A remarkable Zeiss Sonnar lens and is the ONLY fixed lens full frame camera in the market. It's a camera that has earned praises from every reputable testers.

    The market for these RX1's (without any accessories) seems to be around the $1900-$2100 range.

    I bought mine on EBAY for close to $2150 about a month ago. The camera is like new and was purchased by its original owner, June 2013, making the camera barely 2 months old. I received a copy of the invoice and the original owner bought it for full retail price (around $2800). In less than 2 months, the owner loss more than $700, including the Paypal and EBAY fees he accrued.

    I've owned a Nikon D700, Canon 5D Mark II, Fuji X100 and Canon 6D and none of those bodies dropped as much as the RX1.

    Any explanation why this is?
  2. Yeats

    Yeats All-Pro

    Jul 31, 2012
    New Jersey, USA
    I'd guess because if someone can't get a pretty large discount, if you're going to spend $2100 on a camera, may as well spend $2800 and get one new with warranty coverage.
  3. Armanius

    Armanius Bring Jack back!

    Jan 11, 2011
    Houston, Texas
    Supply and demand.
  4. Luke

    Luke Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Nov 11, 2011
    Milwaukee, WI USA
    I think part of it explained by the giant user installed base of potential upgraders. There's already a gazillion Nikon and Canon DSLR owners who are potential upgraders. When the RX1 was released, there was a small number of people willing to spend $2,800 for a compact camera with a fixed lens. There were also some that were willing to check it out if it dropped to $2,000. I think a lot of those people have already jumped in. The marketplace for expensive compacts is getting kinda crowded and now we're into camera announcement season. Some will wait to see what the next cameras are going to look like.
  5. RT Panther

    RT Panther All-Pro

    Dec 25, 2012
    I didn't know they were that cheap.
    Then again, perhaps the owner has quite a bit of disposable income and "breaking even" wasn't his/her goal. :smile:
  6. eye2i

    eye2i Rookie

    Aug 28, 2013
    I agree with Supply and Demand and with your thoughts as well Luke.

    My guess is those people who don't mind losing several hundreds of dollars simply treat the loss as a rental fee. Honestly, this was my thought process as well. I was going to rent the camera for $150.00 for exactly one week. I figured, testing this camera for one week won't be enough, and I'm going to end up extending the rent for another week which will run me another $125.00, so I decided to just buy the camera and use it for as long as I want and truly test the camera (if it's for me) and will end up paying less by owning it as opposed to renting it for a month or two.

    I originally put my RX1 up for sale for $1950.00, I didn't get any offers so I lowered it to $1750.00 but I just can't do that. At this point, I'd rather sell some other Canon lenses than to let this camera go for such price. The engineering and craftsmanship placed in this camera deserves so much more respect, I think most people doesn't see much value in this camera.
  7. stratokaster

    stratokaster Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    Dec 27, 2010
    Kiev, Ukraine
    I'd say the market for such cameras is very limited; even at $2000 it's decidedly less practical, less versatile — and more expensive — than something like a Canon 6D or Nikon D600. My guess is that most people who want a full-frame sensor are simply buying DSLRs.
    • Like Like x 1
  8. asiafish

    asiafish All-Pro

    Aug 9, 2013
    Bakersfield, CA
    Actually I would guess that most people looking at $2800 compacts are already in Leica M territory and would rather just buy the real thing.

    I am actually looking to trade my M8.2 for an RX1.
  9. serhan

    serhan All-Pro

    May 7, 2011
    There were RX1R upgraders/X100s downgraders who sold their cameras. Also the new coming FF sony doesn't help esp on the demand side:

    As you say the RX1 lens is perfect match for the camera/sensor. Even the new FF Sony will not match as the 35mm f/2.8 lens is same size as RX1 lens.

  10. wt21

    wt21 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 15, 2010
    If I'm reading this correctly, you bought it and tried to sell it a month later. Why did you want to sell it?
  11. eye2i

    eye2i Rookie

    Aug 28, 2013
    Honestly, it was an itch. I wanted to see if the RX1 can fulfill both my needs, which is to have a compact full frame camera that I can use both for work and travel. My vision was to keep the 6D strictly for portraits (85mm) and the RX1 for a moderate wide end.

    I wanted to sell because for this price, I can just get a Sigma 35 1.4 and save some cash since the novelty is wearing off but for the price of $1750.00, since I can't get $1950 for it, I'd rather keep it and use it more since I'm beginning to fall in love with it.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. wt21

    wt21 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 15, 2010
    You might have hit something there, then. If the RX1 is an "itch" camera, a novelty, then perhaps not enough people are willing to spend $2K for an itch, and those that were might already have.
  13. rogerc

    rogerc Regular

    May 16, 2013
    The Hexagonal.
    I haven't seen that many RX1's for $2k or less. Quite honestly, next time I am in the US I will hunt on ebay like a madman.

    Where did you find those $2k RX1s? I want a back up to mine.
  14. eye2i

    eye2i Rookie

    Aug 28, 2013
    Hi Roger. EBay has tons of it. Craigslist, though it's rare to find one on that marketplace. Fred Miranda had a few too but EBAY offers the best selection.
  15. john m flores

    john m flores All-Pro

    Aug 13, 2012
    Seems like there were a lot of people with some cash and an itch to scratch. Maybe those with less expendable incomes are less itchy or can't spend that kind of money for a one trick pony; they need more versatility in their gear.
  16. serhan

    serhan All-Pro

    May 7, 2011
  17. Sorry to be contrarian, but, honestly, if a camera which lists for $2800 is selling for a quarter less, used - $2100 or 2K - that doesn't seem like truly excessive depreciation to me. It seems to me, on the contrary, that many if not most excellent digital cameras tend to appreciate in a quick falloff within the first year or so after their release - but after that they stabilize. Then there's another falloff a year or three down the line when their once-new (and cool) technology gets leapfrogged and surpassed either by competitors or newer models. This phenomenon seems to have occurred in most of the digital cameras I've ever bought or owned. Before shooting micro 4/3, I had a truly fine Pentax DSLR system which underwent a similar steep depreciation/decline in list prices vs used prices during the first year or two after its release.

    So, I guess to me, the notion that a $2800 camera is still worth $2100....seems about right.

    The only obvious exceptions tending to be Leicas - and, these days, certain more 'collectable' film cameras which, years ago, were relatively worthless but now, with the new trends (crazes?) towards digital phographers re-embracing their film roots, have acquired more value.

    Just my .02.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. wt21

    wt21 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 15, 2010
    This is an important point. 25% depreciation off $3000 is a lot more than 25% off $800
  19. retow

    retow All-Pro

    Jul 24, 2010
    2009, the Olympus EP1 for USD 800 and the Leica M9 for USD 7000 are released.
    Used, excellent condition EP1 go for about USD 150 on e-bay. Used M9s are traded around USD 3500-4000. 60% depreciation of the Oly and 40%-50% of the Leica. The loss in absolute USD is another story. Used RX1s for about only 25% less than new ones are actually showing tat it holds its value pretty nicely. For a factory new Leica XV an official Leica dealer offered me a 15% discount the other day (no buy for me). Unthinkable for a RX1 in its year of launch as demand outstripped supply.
  20. colonel

    colonel Regular

    Apr 25, 2013
    depreciation matters less the longer you use something
    if you use for 2 years and loose £500 per year that could be quite acceptable.

    the good news about the RX1(R) is that it is quite unique. Its unlikely that you will rush to change it. The shutter is silent, the detail is massive, the lens is good.

    Lets say you are using a RX1, the RX1R probably only tempted a few of the original users (idiots like me ;) ). But then, what can Sony do. 36mp ? nice but I wouldn't upgrade for that. Focus point pixels to speed AF ? I wouldn't upgrade for that as it reduces acuity (Sony, interestingly, has this on the A7 but not on the A7r and states this is to increase detail). f1.4 lens - this could tempt me but physics would dictate a much larger lens. Better construction - no. built in EVF - no, as I have said before I like the option to go as small as possible. An f-speed dial ? nice but no.
    I am not saying the RX1 is at the end of devlopment but unless sensors go to 1 billion pixels could be good enough for many years
    • Like Like x 1