Future of the X100?

[Aristophanes]

I've argued the overpriced point many times before, and I'll do it here once more just because it's late and I've got nothing to do.
...
So please, for the love of electro-beam coatings, explain how the x100 is overpriced. Just the fujinon lens alone is worth probably $600-800 - it's a match optically for the 35mm zeiss biogon M mount lens which is $1200 by itself. I'm very curious!

Because it is competing against APS-C and m43 systems that themselves are getting less expensive, and some APS-C DSLR's are about to get a whole lot smaller.

There is huge price pressure on the market to price down. Nikon, not willing to lose D800 margins for example, is contemplating a D600 to capture that or lose to other suppliers. The detente of a few years ago in the industry has disappeared.

The error you make is that people will look for x design (non-RF whatever the X100 is) and not make informed choices about other designs. That's not how the market works. Most consumers are not anywhere close to being that rigid or setting up such huge lens-specific barriers as you use for examples, like a $1,200 Zeiss. Those are esoteric arguments for this forum, but have diminished impact on the overall market. The % of potential X100 buyers who comparison shop with a $1,200 lens in mind is probably a fraction of 1% of that potential. Retail is moved by price points, so comparing to a Leica or the pretty much unavailable RD-series is not really functional.

Fuji cannot ignore the price pressures from other suppliers. In the short run, being unique with the hybrid VF system helps, but that advantage will diminish over time. I think that diminishment is already starting to occur. One of Fuji's strengths has been its balance sheet; it's a very price conscious and volume-ready company.

 

[umcelinho]

- Fujifilm x100 - $1200 body AND 23mm f2 fujinon lens.
- leica m8 - $7000 body only
- Epson r-d1 - $2000 body only

more like

- Fujifilm x100 - $800 (used) / $1300 (new) body + 23/2 fujinon -> $1300 tops with clean, useable iso 3200 and an ok 6400. extra benefits: macro, af, panorama.
- leica m8 - $2000 body only + 28/1.9 Ultron $500 = $2500, but above iso 640 it starts to suck
- Epson r-d1 - $1000 body only + 21/2.8 Biogon $1000 = $2000 with a loss of 1 stop, and usable up to iso 1600.

still makes your point though.

 

[jsrockit]

Because it is competing against APS-C and m43 systems that themselves are getting less expensive, and some APS-C DSLR's are about to get a whole lot smaller..

People who buy the X100 do not want a cheap DSLR. It is not even an option. As for potential customers... they've been realized in great numbers already. Fuji is already in the bonus with any future sales of the X100 I would imagine.

 

[Paul T.]

Because it is competing against APS-C and m43 systems that themselves are getting less expensive, and some APS-C DSLR's are about to get a whole lot smaller.

Well, of course, there's always some vague design in the distance that will make current cameras obsolete!

It's a bit like saying I shouldn't fancy Rachel Weisz, because one day she'll be old and wrinkly.

 

[Aristophanes]

People who buy the X100 do not want a cheap DSLR. It is not even an option. As for potential customers... they've been realized in great numbers already. Fuji is already in the bonus with any future sales of the X100 I would imagine.

The market Fuji needs to sell through the X100 on a continual (halo and glow gone) basis DO compare to "cheap" (who says they are cheap?) DSLRs.

To say that the X100 stands apart and in isolation from the larger market is not how retail camera markets work. DSLR is *always* an option save to those very few who are fanatic about NOT owning a DSLR.

Last I heard from the large chain I do biz with, X100 sales have stalled. It's just another camera on the shelf; the buzz is short-lived these days. It has a certain appeal, but price looks more and more to be an issue when you balance against the trend for all APS-C and larger sensor cameras.

Don't forget, this camera was also positioned as a smaller, lighter, FFL RF-style second camera for those lugging a D3x. It's competing in the second camera segment, where options are growing every quarter.

As with any camera system in the retail market, sales volumes and model age are rectified by price adjustments. I would not be surprised to the X100 get $200 or more cheaper post-PK 2012.

And by 2013 Fuji will need to upgrade the sensor etc.

 

[Paul T.]

UK retail for the X100 was £999. Now it's £799, with most available for £670. Two thirds the price of the OM-D without a lens.

I can't quite see your point.... the Fuji X100 is a failure because it sold more than any other prosumer Fuji in years??? Because it got Fuji into hundreds, perhaps thousands, more outlets than was the case before?

Fuji have alwasy done great, quirky cameras like the X Pan or the Natura.... the X100 is perhaps the summation of that aesthetic. No it won't appeal to everyone, but better to be a huge niche camera than a small mainstream camera.

 

[jsrockit]

The market Fuji needs to sell through the X100 on a continual (halo and glow gone) basis DO compare to "cheap" (who says they are cheap?) DSLRs.

To say that the X100 stands apart and in isolation from the larger market is not how retail camera markets work. DSLR is *always* an option save to those very few who are fanatic about NOT owning a DSLR.

To me the X100 proved that there were people out there who didn't want a DSLR and wanted a rangefinder STYLE camera instead. Of course, it is not everyone and some of those folks most likely did go for a DSLR...just not the low-end level... maybe more like a D7000 as opposed to the D5100.

Last I heard from the large chain I do biz with, X100 sales have stalled. It's just another camera on the shelf; the buzz is short-lived these days. It has a certain appeal, but price looks more and more to be an issue when you balance against the trend for all APS-C and larger sensor cameras.

Yeah, I can see that. It's no longer a hype camera, it's just another option these days. However, it is still a unique option.

Don't forget, this camera was also positioned as a smaller, lighter, FFL RF-style second camera for those lugging a D3x. It's competing in the second camera segment, where options are growing every quarter.

I would say that was one market segment. Most of the people I know that bought the camera were not using a huge DSLR as well. Admittedly, the number of people I know with the camera is small. The OM-D appears to be the biggest competitor at this point.

As with any camera system in the retail market, sales volumes and model age are rectified by price adjustments. I would not be surprised to the X100 get $200 or more cheaper post-PK 2012.

And by 2013 Fuji will need to upgrade the sensor etc.

I can agree with this completely.

 

[dbarnes]

Fujifilm has said that there will be a another X-pro camera that will be simpler, so presumably also less expensive. It'll be interesting to see how that camera will be positioned relative to the X100.

 

[Aristophanes]

UK retail for the X100 was £999. Now it's £799, with most available for £670. Two thirds the price of the OM-D without a lens.

I can't quite see your point.... the Fuji X100 is a failure because it sold more than any other prosumer Fuji in years??? Because it got Fuji into hundreds, perhaps thousands, more outlets than was the case before?

Fuji have alwasy done great, quirky cameras like the X Pan or the Natura.... the X100 is perhaps the summation of that aesthetic. No it won't appeal to everyone, but better to be a huge niche camera than a small mainstream camera.

All I said was it is overpriced, not a failure. It's an $1,199 camera in an APS-C market diving well below $1,000 for sensors and features of this size and quality.

It's value is mostly in the hybrid OVF, retro-ish styling, and relatively compact design. Sensor is very good, but no better than the Sony dominance.

Right now, hype mostly, gone, it's a US$999 camera.

Don't get me wrong; I really like the X100, but in relation to the OP, I am seeing its competitiveness slip. I agree ith the recent Tom Hogan article about the plethora of choices (http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/the-collision.html). Right now the X100 looks to be a very expensive alternative. Some will never go to a DSLR and some will never abandon any OVF, but IMO that's a pretty small segment given the value out there and getting better. The X10 to X100 is a huge gap in IQ (sensor size) and features also. So Fuji is crimped in the sub-$1,000 very lucrative market. The X100 appears to have legs there until they revamp it.

 

[Paul T.]

Yup, well, given that UK retail price is now around $999 (retail down from £999 to £799) I can't argue with that, I'm sure the US price will be at that level soon.

 

[sevo]

Don't get me wrong; I really like the X100, but in relation to the OP, I am seeing its competitiveness slip.

Probably. But who, apart from the owners of one, will care? Fuji don't seem to sit on a pile, or the price would have dropped more significantly, and it certainly re-established their reputation prior to the Xpro1 release. Compacts don't differ from other electronic costume jewellery in having a shelf life of barely half a year, and the X100 is no exception. Its age is already over, after a grace period of another half year Fuji will present a successor, in time for the X-mas season.

 

[benlees]

Some people are tilting at windmills in this thread! Of course a digital camera will lose its competitive edge! That is the whole point. Constant upgrades is how its done now and has been since AF and matrix metering came along. We all know this! The X100 is actually (aside from sticky blades) very good value. Gavin put it in very good perspective. And when the next comes out the X100 will still take pictures. Right?

 

[OwenStegemann]

In my opinion the x100 is most similar to the luxury point and shoots of the film days, except far more feature laden and dare I say useful. In this category it really only has the Leica x series to compete with (although the x series is a little behind needing an accessory viewfinder). Hopefully fuji acknowledges this an continues the line as this is an important gap to be filled.

 

[Aristophanes]

Probably. But who, apart from the owners of one, will care? Fuji don't seem to sit on a pile, or the price would have dropped more significantly, and it certainly re-established their reputation prior to the Xpro1 release. Compacts don't differ from other electronic costume jewellery in having a shelf life of barely half a year, and the X100 is no exception. Its age is already over, after a grace period of another half year Fuji will present a successor, in time for the X-mas season.

But my nested point was that a fixed lens, X100 successor using an APS-C sensor, targeted at a similar market in, say, 2013, will not be at the same price point as the original X100.

It will be lower because all the APS-C market is going there. Sub-$1,000, even positioned as a "luxury" compact. It's breathing the same air as other APS-C cameras (X-Pro 1 included). I don't think the X100 is a one-off, but you won't see its like again milking a pent-up market at abnormally high premiums again, not until an FF version comes out.

Right now X100 US$1,199 at B&H. I predict an X100 successor will come out at US$999. We may see it previewed or hinted at at PK 2012.

Just trying to answer the OP.

 

[jsrockit]

But my nested point was that a fixed lens, X100 successor using an APS-C sensor, targeted at a similar market in, say, 2013, will not be at the same price point as the original X100.

I think that really depends on what the camera ends up being, the materials used, quality / speed of the lens, and if there is any innovation (such as the X100's OVF/EVF combo in 2011) in 2013. Leica charges $2000 for the X2, Voigtlander has made +$1,000 lenses for m4/3, Schnieder is rumored to have $1500-$2000 lenses coming for mirrorless, and bodies are actually going up in prices at times vs. previous models (E-M5, Nex-7, etc). 2013 might be too soon for this prediction. We are only 6 months away from 2013.

 

[benlees]

The road map for the X mount includes a 23mm f2 so I wonder what the successor to the x100 will have to offer, if there is one. If there is a successor to the X100 and it has similar features (with the mandatory upgrades of some kind) then I can't see the price falling. I been thinking about getting one and have been to every camera shop in town that sells them. The camera is in stock ("It's the last one!" lol) and have stated they are selling well. None of them will negotiate on the price.

 

[bwcolor]

Image quality has reached a level that I can live with and be happy. My only real wish is for a slow improvement in high ISO and dynamic range. The X100 needs a much better manual focus system from the focusing ring to the means to determine correct focus. A much faster and yet accurate autofocus will be the next market shaking development. I really don't care if the X200 has 16 MPix. Also, in order to keep the X100 small, the lens speed will not be increased.

 

[gavinlg]

All I said was it is overpriced, not a failure. It's an $1,199 camera in an APS-C market diving well below $1,000 for sensors and features of this size and quality.

But it's not overpriced. Maybe to a soccer mom who values video modes and zoom lenses it's overpriced, but to a photographer (to whom the camera was specifically targeted), it's not overpriced at all. The fact that fuji sold many many more than what they expected to sell negates your statement that it needs to be cheaper - it has filled a huge void in the camera market in which it is still the only real competitor. The price doesn't need to drop at all - in fact I would have paid more for mine if I had needed too.

What part of no other cameras can offer the specific features that the x100 offers do you not understand? There is no DSLR anywhere near the size of the x100, ESPECIALLY when you factor in the lens into the equation. Even the diminutive pentax dslr with their DA* pancake lens is many many times bigger, and they DON'T make a 23mm f2 lens - only a 21mm f3.2 that is $650 BY ITSELF, and optically WORSE than the 23mm fujinon.

If the camera was marketed to moms and dads who want a point and shoot to shoot their kids with, it would be overpriced. But the camera is not a point and shoot. My girlfriend struggles to shoot with it. It's a photographers tool - no excuses. You need to know how to use this specific camera to be able to use it. It's less about what is does then HOW it does it - and that separates it from DSLRs and other mirrorless cameras. Not to mention (again) that no one else makes a 35mm f2 equivalent lens for the aps-c mirrorless camera, and all the other aps-c cameras you're comparing it to (in terms of price) don't come with a lens.