daveleo
what?
Maybe this will work, maybe it won't, but I've been itching to try this for a while, and the Nikon Coolpix A has pushed me to do it.
I'd like to know what is the *maximum* price (these are US dollars, thanks) that you would actually shell out (in 2013) for a camera design exactly like the new Nikon Coolpix A (disregarding who makes it).
I hope to do some multiplying later and see what price would maximize sales $$$ receipts (# sold * price paid).
Thanks, for not fudging with your input and my marketing survey
FYI : http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-coolpix-a/
I'd like to know what is the *maximum* price (these are US dollars, thanks) that you would actually shell out (in 2013) for a camera design exactly like the new Nikon Coolpix A (disregarding who makes it).
I hope to do some multiplying later and see what price would maximize sales $$$ receipts (# sold * price paid).
Thanks, for not fudging with your input and my marketing survey
FYI : http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-coolpix-a/
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
While I voted for $600, at this point in my life I won't pay more than $499...
Duane Pandorf
Well-known
Maybe this will work, maybe it won't, but I've been itching to try this for a while, and the Nikon Coolpix A has pushed me to do it.
I'd like to know what is the *maximum* price (these are US dollars, thanks) that you would actually shell out (in 2013) for a camera design exactly like the new Nikon Coolpix A (disregarding who makes it).
I hope to do some multiplying later and see what price would maximize sales $$$ receipts (# sold * price paid).
Thanks, for not fudging with your input and my marketing survey
FYI : http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-coolpix-a/
I would pay exactly Zero.
DNG
Film Friendly
Seeing that is is not a "Loaded Feature" camera... just an APS-C sensor and a not too fast fixed lens.....
$600 max.....
IF... it had a 18.5mm f/2 ($800) or 18.5mm f/1.4 ($1100)
But it better be made like a tank.... not with fantastic plastic... AND have Great ISO to 6400 min.
$600 max.....
IF... it had a 18.5mm f/2 ($800) or 18.5mm f/1.4 ($1100)
But it better be made like a tank.... not with fantastic plastic... AND have Great ISO to 6400 min.
jay_kay
Member
Very interesting camera that I have no interest in buying.
If they released a 50/2 version theyd have my attention.
I voted $600. It looks like a $600 camera.
If they released a 50/2 version theyd have my attention.
I voted $600. It looks like a $600 camera.
ssmc
Well-known
I voted $600 because for what I'd use such a camera for, 28mm is too wide, and f/2.8 without VR is too slow (especially since no VF means holding it away from your face, increasing the risk of camera shake. I am of course ignoring the ridiculously overpriced OVF).
If the lens was (say) 35mm EFOV (or 45-50mm), f/2 and had VR I would be tempted to pay up to a grand for such a camera, provided the image quality was up to snuff and the lens did not require much if any baked-in distortion correction. If it had a built-in EVF like the NEX-6 it would be a slam-dunk.
If the lens was (say) 35mm EFOV (or 45-50mm), f/2 and had VR I would be tempted to pay up to a grand for such a camera, provided the image quality was up to snuff and the lens did not require much if any baked-in distortion correction. If it had a built-in EVF like the NEX-6 it would be a slam-dunk.
richardhkirkando
Well-known
If it were $800, or if it had an EVF, I would have considered buying one today. I like 28mm, I *really* like the size of the camera, I expect the AF to be very good, and the controls look decent.
This camera is very appealing to me, but it's hard to justify $1100 when I can get a m4/3 body and 14mm lens for so little.
This camera is very appealing to me, but it's hard to justify $1100 when I can get a m4/3 body and 14mm lens for so little.
billybookcase
Member
I'm not too sure why people are complaining about the price. A Ricoh GRD IV with a puny little 1/1.7" sensor from the Canon S95 days, no view finder, no evf is $550. Nikon would not be really doing itself any favors in the RnD department if they didn't have some sort of margin on the camera and it is still competitive with existing non-interchangeable APS-C sensor sized cameras.
If it had some better way of dictating focal distances and maybe a slightly better autofocus systems I wouldn't hesitate looking at preliminary photos/video of how small this thing is.
If it had some better way of dictating focal distances and maybe a slightly better autofocus systems I wouldn't hesitate looking at preliminary photos/video of how small this thing is.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
If it's as good a camera as the Leica X2, it's worth the same thing. Since we don't know what it's performance is yet, its worth is unknown.
G
G
Duane Pandorf
Well-known
There's a lot more than a CMOS APS-C sensor. The damn thing has 8 buttons on the back of it. I can bet the menu system sucks as most of this cameras that try to cram everything but the kitchen sink in them where all you really need access to is the aperture, shutter and ISO settings.
I refuse to hold my arms outstretched to take a photograph.
I refuse to hold my arms outstretched to take a photograph.
gavinlg
Veteran
without a VF, 800.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Gosh, the X2 doesn't have a viewfinder built in either. It's got the same or a very similar 16Mpixel CMOS Sony sensor, a 24mm f/2.8 lens, high quality build, high quality images, simple controls. I consider it one of my best cameras, easily worth what I paid for it. I've made an awful lot of photos I really like with it.
Knowing little else about the Nikon, it could well be on par. At $1200, it could be a tremendous bargain.
G
Knowing little else about the Nikon, it could well be on par. At $1200, it could be a tremendous bargain.
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
dweekie
Member
APS-C with NO LOW PASS FILTER. Like the RX1, I really want to say it's overpriced, but it is unique enough to stand out. It seems like a great street or casual camera. The NEX 3N is a very tough competitor at only $500. The Nikon makes the NEX with lens look large by comparison. I have an MS Optical Perar lens that I can put on the NEX, but I think it may still be a bit taller and definitely more expensive. I just have my doubts about the lens quality, but stopped down it should do some impressive things given its size.
I have this gut feeling that this camera will be a hit once the pixel peepers get hold of it and start posting in the forums. I still wouldn't buy it for myself, but it does have me quite intrigued by a future interchangeable lens version.
I have this gut feeling that this camera will be a hit once the pixel peepers get hold of it and start posting in the forums. I still wouldn't buy it for myself, but it does have me quite intrigued by a future interchangeable lens version.
I voted $600 for this camera because I just can't disregard who makes it. However, I may pay up to $1000 for a Ricoh GRD version.
Paddy C
Unused film collector
I'm getting interested in this thing. If the reviews are good I would be willing to part with $800 for it.
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
Don't worry, like all digital compacts, it'll be superceded soon and the price will drop like a stone. Probably a very good second-hand bargain of the future....
leicapixie
Well-known
i am one of those who said "$200".
The reason for these now BIGGER sensors is the disaster encountered with camera phones. Sadly the 'small camera only' is in full retreat ,if not close to extinction..
Digital has changed the photographic landscape forever. Sensor size truly means nothing in looking at images on monitors. Maybe a few make small prints. I hear about those mural wall prints. Seen a very few. Bigger=Boring
The darling of the Art Gallery crowd.
Why should one pay more for a partially amputated box, with no finder, eye, evil,or a genuine mirror box! A DSLR entry costs $400 here.Yes a recent discontinued model..It's small.
i will stay with really small P/S. If not available, will move to a DSLR.
i always thought the Digital small camera had given us way too much, for way too little.You can't go back!
The reason for these now BIGGER sensors is the disaster encountered with camera phones. Sadly the 'small camera only' is in full retreat ,if not close to extinction..
Digital has changed the photographic landscape forever. Sensor size truly means nothing in looking at images on monitors. Maybe a few make small prints. I hear about those mural wall prints. Seen a very few. Bigger=Boring
The darling of the Art Gallery crowd.
Why should one pay more for a partially amputated box, with no finder, eye, evil,or a genuine mirror box! A DSLR entry costs $400 here.Yes a recent discontinued model..It's small.
i will stay with really small P/S. If not available, will move to a DSLR.
i always thought the Digital small camera had given us way too much, for way too little.You can't go back!
Spicy
Well-known
ideally it should be FF and then it could be 1300-1400, but would need a slightly better lens (at least f/2)
with an APS-C sensor and quite a slow lens, maybe 300-450. i don't see what all the fuss is about. lately it seems like nikon is intentionally trying as hard as possible to disappoint... rather frustrating, really.
with an APS-C sensor and quite a slow lens, maybe 300-450. i don't see what all the fuss is about. lately it seems like nikon is intentionally trying as hard as possible to disappoint... rather frustrating, really.