What's the point in high quality rather expensive cameras with permanently mounted prime lens?

Question

Sony RX1R II and Leica Q are two good examples for the current state of technology. Both are packed with a lot of neat features, both have high ISO, impressive stabilization, both are rather compact and both are rather expensive (over three thousand USD at this moment).

What I don't get is why anyone would buy such a camera which has good but permanently mounted prime lens. I've read a lot about how prime lens have superior quality (compared to zoom lens) and how using a single lens for prolonged period of time makes one a better photographer but why limit yourself to just one lens for the whole life of the camera (which is perhaps 5+ years for cameras I listed)?

What's the point in such camera which cannot zoom and cannot have its lens changed at all and are rather expensive?

Answer 1

What's the point in high quality rather expensive cameras with permanently mounted prime lens?

To take pictures.

By creating a camera intended for only one focal length a lot of things cans be optimized for that particular lens. The camera can also be simpler with no need to adapt to a variety of different lenses and focal lengths. A through-the-lens viewfinder is not necessary since the field of view is constant. Each location on the sensor can be optimized for light from an exact angle. The various connections between the main body and the lens can be stronger and more permanent than on an interchangeable lens camera.

There's also a bit of marketing going on with such cameras. By using traditional high quality external materials and by making them seem exclusive and "not for everyone" they attempt to give them the same cachet that similar film cameras once had. In the case of Leica, it's even the same company that has made many such niche cameras for seven decades. Leica has been making cameras for a century. Following increased competitions from Soviet and Japanese cameras following WWII, they established themselves as the leader in the high-end rangefinder market space.

Answer 2

About a decade ago, prominent photography blogger Michael Johnston wrote an essay describing his ideal digital camera, which he called the Decisive Moment Digital, after Cartier-Bresson's phrase. The theoretical "DMD" was a compact camera with a large sensor and fixed prime, just as you describe here.

Michael is a popular and persuasive writer, and this essay became somewhat famous. The phrase "DMD" became fairly common on Internet photography forums. No one actually sold such a camera, though — mainstream consensus was that it'd never sell. Out of the blue, however, Sigma released the DP1, a compact device with, yep, large sensor, fixed prime. It was slow, quirky, frustrating, and in the right hands produced beautiful results. To everyone's surprise — I bet even Sigma's! — it was a market success.

Once the category was proven to be a viable niche, other manufacturers followed.

Answer 3

What's the point in such camera which cannot zoom and cannot have its lens changed at all and are rather expensive?

To have a specific type of tool to take certain kinds of pictures with.

For many people who buy these types of cameras, this is not their only camera. I have a Fuji X100T. I also have Canon full frame and APS-C gear, as well as a full micro four-thirds outfit. If I need to change lenses and zoom, I can. But many times I don't need to do either.

For me, the X100T is a perfect walkaround camera, for social, street, and casual shooting. The 35mm-equivalency f/2 pancake lens is wide enough for landscapes, fast enough for portraits, small enough and wide enough for street shooting/travel photography, and the lens is short enough to do near-macros. It's not perfect for all occasions, but it is my grab'n'go/travel light camera and can handle a surprising range of situations for me. YMMV.

It also pairs exceedingly well with my GX-7 micro four-thirds camera. I used to shoot on that camera with a 20/1.7 pancake lens (40mm equivalency) as a default, but now I often do two-body shooting, with the X100T taking the place of the 20/1.7+GX-7 combo, while I'll attach an ultrawide zoom, short telephoto prime (90-equivalency) or telephoto zoom to the GX-7.

Answer 4

It is like playing electric keyboard vs. classical guitar. With the keyboard you can generate pretty much any sound you want. But some people still enjoy playing ordinary guitar with limited sound palette and limited possibilities.

When you start using a camera with limited number of lenses or with a fixed lens, you start focusing on different values. For example, you can better learn to pre-visualize the image before looking to the viewfinder.

You can think that giving up a zoom means giving up some sort of freedom - but you are usually getting another kind of freedom in exchange. Fixed lenses are usually faster and smaller, therefore less conspicuous and giving new options when playing with depth of field.

Answer 5

It's really a simple answer: to fulfill market needs.

It's a luxury point and shoot, nothing more or less really. Would I personally love some of them? Yes. I'd also love a Ferrari. But there's other options that are more versatile and useful than both.

Then there's wealthy people that can afford expensive toys and created a demand for it. Companies see that, produce a reasonable amount, and enjoy high profit margins. It's like Leica these days --- is it a great camera? Absolutely! Is it magnitudes better than the competition? Nope. But its a collector's item, a statement piece, and a fashion accessory.

The problem you're having is comparing it to cameras that the lens can be changed on. It's real market is the point and shoot market. It's for people that aren't necessarily interested in dealing with lenses but want to FEEL like photographers. Its an emotional connection that manufacturers know people are looking for and are willing to pay for. Like a vintage feel, a simpler time, all of that stuff. Almost all of them are branded and marketed that way.