ruby.monkey
Veteran
I think the Ricoh GRD3's control layout has ruined me for other small cameras. Can't see any reason for me to pick this over a GRD4, let alone whatever follows it.
danielsterno
making soup from mud
second thought, without EVF=$399.
Sensor size doesn't only effect the output size though...
Do you really think the difference between modern APS-C sensors and full frame sensors equals $1000?
--
Well-known
I think Nikon did themselves a great disservice by halving the price of the V1 so dramatically. I bought three and am thus not complaining, but nor will I ever take Nikon's initial street price seriously. If this bombs (which I hope it will not) why should it not be available at $600 this time next year? Customers are like dogs. We learn what we should not quickly and will never forget a price reduction.
Last edited:
willie_901
Veteran
I voted $200 because after paying about $200 for a third-party finder, The cost would be $400.
Why $400? I might need a truly pocketable camera 3 or 4 times per year.
Why $400? I might need a truly pocketable camera 3 or 4 times per year.
dweekie
Member
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Leica doesn't count... because of the Leica brand name tax.
jsr .. That's kinda silly.
There are now six of these high-end, fixed lens, 'no viewfinder built in', large sensor cameras on the market at prices from $800 to $2800. The most expensive is a Sony, the least a Sigma. The Nikon and Leica are the middle ground.
What I don't know yet is how the Nikon performs and how well it works in the hand. Could be great, might not be. I know the Leica works very well indeed, as does the Sony and (in a more limited way) the Sigmas. If the Nikon works well and performs well, then I can assign a value to it.
I kinda assume it will perform well. How well it works is the question mark. Responsiveness and sensible control organization has become my critical measure for this class of camera. For me, at present, the X2 takes the limelight, the RX1 is darn close. The Nikon could be a contender.
G
It was meant to be... I gave you one of these...
There's no doubt about it, this Nikon will work well. I think the price is ok because there isn't much competition. It just isn't for me.
thegman
Veteran
I'm not sure if you feel that's too low or too high. The industry probably feels it's worth more than $1000. I'm just going by the cost of the cheapest brand new APS-C DSLR, and the cheapest brand new full frame DSLR.
I'd also say many digital Leica owners feel it's worth a lot more than that, just to be able to use their lenses are they were made to be used.
Anyway, back to the point, I would not give Nikon a penny for it, although I do find it attractive in a utilitarian kind of way.
Good point thegman. I didn't think of it like that.
Bike Tourist
Well-known
I could not vote. I would not want it at any price. No viewfinder. The sensor size is not important to me in a little camera. My Panasonic LX7 has only ten MP, enough for my purposes, a great accessory viewfinder plus a step zoom and an f1.4 lens.
I love my D600 but I don't think Nikon knows what to do with the Coolpix line.
I love my D600 but I don't think Nikon knows what to do with the Coolpix line.
teleparallel
Established
I think what really determine the price of the camera is the target market, cause it tells the potential income. Nikon did this beautiful(although kind silly) commercial to attract wealthy people who want a differentiated product with Nikon's brand. Sensor size does affect price, but it's far from the telling the hole story.
For instance, you can get a D3200 with a basic 18-55mm plus a 55-300mm, and probably the 35mm DX Nikon prime, for the same amount(or a close pricing). Why? because it sells a lot.
The A, is not likely to have the same selling potential. It's not as appealing for the general public. It's a differentiated product, with a niche market yet to be fulfilled. Who? Nikon users who are already familiar with Nikon's brand, and want a companion to they're super expensive D700/D800, and maybe D600.
Thus, the price.
For instance, you can get a D3200 with a basic 18-55mm plus a 55-300mm, and probably the 35mm DX Nikon prime, for the same amount(or a close pricing). Why? because it sells a lot.
The A, is not likely to have the same selling potential. It's not as appealing for the general public. It's a differentiated product, with a niche market yet to be fulfilled. Who? Nikon users who are already familiar with Nikon's brand, and want a companion to they're super expensive D700/D800, and maybe D600.
Thus, the price.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
It was meant to be... I gave you one of these...
There's no doubt about it, this Nikon will work well. I think the price is ok because there isn't much competition. It just isn't for me.
Well, it's not for me either mostly because I already have gear that covers this camera's oeuvre. But how much I would pay for one IF I was in the market is hard to answer until I know more.
I don't figure a price and then start looking for a camera. I start looking for a camera, find what works, then work out whether I can afford it. If I can't, I look for the next best thing that I can afford. Putting price first seems the wrong way to determine the desirability of a camera.
G
Well, that's the point. It just isn't desirable at this price point due to the other cameras I own. It doesn't mean it sucks though. I like my cameras to have a shutter speed dial and aperture ring. This camera is too much like their other coolpix cameras i.e. made for consumers with stupid modes etc. That said, I'm very sure it'll be a great performer since Nikon knows how to make good APS-C cameras.
btgc
Veteran
Sure, every housewife knows DSLR ir the real thing and also looks like it. General public will not pay this money for camera which looks like $200 piece. Dooh, Fuji bridge cameras for about same sum look just like serious cameras - much better value!
No doubt about it, this is what the average person thinks is a "pro" camera.
daveleo
what?
Thanks for the input
Thanks for the input
That was interesting, and I appreciate the input, for no reason except my curiosity.
I voted $600, using the X100 as a product / price baseline.
If the mods are watching this, could someone please lock the polling at this point, thanks ! (I could not figure how to do that).
IMO . . . Nikon should start off at $800 to grab all those folks, then drop it to $600 to catch the rest of us (truth be told though, my 2013 $$$ is going most likely to Fuji).
Thanks for the input
That was interesting, and I appreciate the input, for no reason except my curiosity.
I voted $600, using the X100 as a product / price baseline.
If the mods are watching this, could someone please lock the polling at this point, thanks ! (I could not figure how to do that).
IMO . . . Nikon should start off at $800 to grab all those folks, then drop it to $600 to catch the rest of us
(truth be told though, my 2013 $$$ is going most likely to Fuji).unixrevolution
Well-known
The Coolpix A doesn't tempt me as much as, say, an X100, mostly because of the 28mm lens and f/2.8 aperture. But it does something no other APS-C compact has done so far: Be truly pocketable. For that I applaud them, and I don't even like Nikon. That puts the A in kind of its own class.
Is it worth it? Depends how much you need to fit it in a pocket. If only pocketable cameras work for you, it's the only game in town. For instance, when I bought my RX100, "pocketable" was the only 100% non-negotiable criterion I had. The Coolpix A would have been a front runner in that race.
Is it worth it? Depends how much you need to fit it in a pocket. If only pocketable cameras work for you, it's the only game in town. For instance, when I bought my RX100, "pocketable" was the only 100% non-negotiable criterion I had. The Coolpix A would have been a front runner in that race.