The GF670 (new) is 176,800 yen in Tokyo.
Price Point for the Fuji Voigtlander 667
- Thread starter david b
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 137
- Views 4K
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Don't forget the 10% GST on top!
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Well, up to a point you're right, but it's a constant theme I see on RFF - not just for the Bessa - but we get a froth of excitement about real or imagined features on a new camera, then a dumper load of complaints that it should/should not have this feature or that and that the designers must be off their heads for ignoring all the good input freely available on RFF, then the same people start saying they won't buy it unless their preferred feature set is offered, and finally the interest dies down, the naysayers move on to the next little bit of excitement and the pattern repeats.
Frankly I've become very cynical about a lot of the posts along these lines. I doubt that many of the posters had the money in the first place and probably wouldn't buy any new camera unless it was virtually a gift. Even then they'd complain! I've seen the same thing in another field I'm involved in. Those who complain the loudest never buy a new model and the manufacturers know this and ignore them and target the customers who do have the money. Sounds like Leica? Well, it's not, but the industry centre is in Germany!
Maybe the same applies to motorcycles???
Nevertheless, $1700 sounds a lot better than $3300 or even $2800, but then their $1700 is our $1950 and to import might well attract another 10% GST, even second hand.
glchua
Established
I'm not sure, but I do know that cheaper might not mean better.
Cheap had always gave us toxin laden toys, disposable handphones, pirated music that killed the industry, food grown in contaminated water.
I don't want cheap stuffs. Just well-built and reasonably priced products.
I rather save my pennies for a good product than rush out to buy that disposable with little money.
The market is flooded with cheap disposables, hence our perception of certain things being "overpriced".
From the pricing history of Voightlander, I would think that they are building something at a price. Maybe time will tell, but I do believe that there must be good reasons to price it at more than $2000.
Cheap had always gave us toxin laden toys, disposable handphones, pirated music that killed the industry, food grown in contaminated water.
I don't want cheap stuffs. Just well-built and reasonably priced products.
I rather save my pennies for a good product than rush out to buy that disposable with little money.
The market is flooded with cheap disposables, hence our perception of certain things being "overpriced".
From the pricing history of Voightlander, I would think that they are building something at a price. Maybe time will tell, but I do believe that there must be good reasons to price it at more than $2000.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
I sense there's an important difference between "cheap" and "less expensive". Some of the original posters on this thread were saying it would only be an acceptable price if it were under $750, new. In fact, one or two recent posters have used the same figure. I considered then, as now, those people are delusional and are not really in the market for this camera. They have little appreciation of R&D costs, manufacturing costs, limited production runs and niche marketing for quality articles.
The price, when introduced, was impacted by currency movements to the extent that now, the price new is almost 20% lower than at the the time of introduction. At least in this country. And that's nothing to do with manufacturers pricing - it's all to do with global economics.
But consider this. At one stage of my working career the company was running at over capacity, meeting competitors pricing aggressively and barely making a profit. I decided to cut production back to match a reasonable five-day capacity and put our prices up to the point where sales matched the capacity we decided on - and we made record profits! We lost quite a number of customers who only bought on price (and who usually gave us debtor problems) and we were happy to see them go to our competitors.
Pricing by manufacturers isn't always driven by the expectations of all potential buyers.
Even at today's price the Bessa III is not a cheap camera. It is still considered expensive by most, if not all. Some people will dig deep to buy one (and have done so). Others will continue to desire it but be unwilling or unable to make the expenditure. Quite a few will wait patiently or impatiently for second hand units to surface in the 'market' at a price they feel they can justify. Everyone has their point of resistance. And with limited new sales that second hand market will take time to develop and be patchy.
The original question I set myself was simple. Is this camera a better camera than my Rolleiflex? In terms of image quality and convenience of use I'm satisfied that it is. At 8x10 and larger I can see the difference in the prints. Not a lot but it's there. And it is more convenient in use. Not a lot, but it's there. Is it built as robustly as the Rolleiflex? No, but it'll see me out. There have been some minor problems reported but as they appear to be random and non-repeatable or remain unsubstantiated I'm biding my time to see what the outcome is after a little more user experience.
So the second question is, do I see so much difference that I would buy one at current prices? The jury is still out on that one but, no, not as a straight out purchase. The Rolleiflex (and associated accessories) cost about $1450 AUD. I might not even get that much if I sold it. So I could still end up $1500 short of the current new price for a Bessa III. That's too big a gap - but one I could close by selling some other gear that I no longer use. So I might eventually find there's only a $500 gap provided I'm prepared to let go of a couple of items, including the Rolleiflex. And that's something I could contemplate.
At that point the quality and convenience difference might be just enough to tip the decision towards the Bessa. Time will tell!
The price, when introduced, was impacted by currency movements to the extent that now, the price new is almost 20% lower than at the the time of introduction. At least in this country. And that's nothing to do with manufacturers pricing - it's all to do with global economics.
But consider this. At one stage of my working career the company was running at over capacity, meeting competitors pricing aggressively and barely making a profit. I decided to cut production back to match a reasonable five-day capacity and put our prices up to the point where sales matched the capacity we decided on - and we made record profits! We lost quite a number of customers who only bought on price (and who usually gave us debtor problems) and we were happy to see them go to our competitors.
Pricing by manufacturers isn't always driven by the expectations of all potential buyers.
Even at today's price the Bessa III is not a cheap camera. It is still considered expensive by most, if not all. Some people will dig deep to buy one (and have done so). Others will continue to desire it but be unwilling or unable to make the expenditure. Quite a few will wait patiently or impatiently for second hand units to surface in the 'market' at a price they feel they can justify. Everyone has their point of resistance. And with limited new sales that second hand market will take time to develop and be patchy.
The original question I set myself was simple. Is this camera a better camera than my Rolleiflex? In terms of image quality and convenience of use I'm satisfied that it is. At 8x10 and larger I can see the difference in the prints. Not a lot but it's there. And it is more convenient in use. Not a lot, but it's there. Is it built as robustly as the Rolleiflex? No, but it'll see me out. There have been some minor problems reported but as they appear to be random and non-repeatable or remain unsubstantiated I'm biding my time to see what the outcome is after a little more user experience.
So the second question is, do I see so much difference that I would buy one at current prices? The jury is still out on that one but, no, not as a straight out purchase. The Rolleiflex (and associated accessories) cost about $1450 AUD. I might not even get that much if I sold it. So I could still end up $1500 short of the current new price for a Bessa III. That's too big a gap - but one I could close by selling some other gear that I no longer use. So I might eventually find there's only a $500 gap provided I'm prepared to let go of a couple of items, including the Rolleiflex. And that's something I could contemplate.
At that point the quality and convenience difference might be just enough to tip the decision towards the Bessa. Time will tell!
John NYC
Established
I really do not get all this hubbub about the Bessa III being expensive. A brand new, from a store, Mamiya 7 II with an 80mm lens is currently $3,699 USD. The Bessa is $2249. There are differences in what these cameras offer, but they are comparable in quality.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
I agree, and I think you've put it in perspective very succinctly. I think we've done the topic do death, actually. Nothing is going to change. The price is what it is. Some people have the money - some don't. We make choices accordingly. Wishing it were otherwise is one of life's more futile activities.
John NYC
Established
This is the current price at both Adorama and B&H in NYC.
http://www.adorama.com/MY72VP.html?searchinfo=Mamiya+7+II
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/357366-REG/Mamiya_215_220_7_II_Pro_Value.html
You are right, though. I did some searching and found it for $2,795 at Badger Graphic:
https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=279
That is still more than the Bessa III though.
EdSawyer
Established
basically no one buys the Mamiya 7 new at Mamiya USA prices, they are insane and way out of line with the rest of the world. The used market and international sellers on ebay is where Mamiya 7s are coming from. Taking that into account, the Bessa III seems slightly expensive by comparison, given that it's a non-interchangable lens. A premium is put on the foldability, I suppose. I am sure it's a great camera but it's not for everyone. If you must have a folder though, it's probably the best choice out there.
akarin
Established
Totally agreed. If Mamiya 7ii is your thing, a kit with body and the 65mm + the panoramic 35mm kit could be had for a little under US$2,000 including shipping. Look east, and you shall find! 😉
akarin
Established
I agree that to some people (me included) there is a premium on foldability. I'm resisting the urge to go to my local shop and plonk down my hard earned cash...I have a feeling that my resistance may end up being futile
Jamie123
Veteran
Yes, but I think the point is that for a *new* camera the Bessa is in line with other *new* medium format cameras on the market today, i.e. it's even a bit cheaper than the Mamiya 7II as it's got a fixed lens. The fact that no or few people actually buy a new Mamiya 7 has to do with the large used market for this camera and the fact that it's been around since the 90. In 10-15 years the Bessa III will be quite a bit cheaper than it is now (even with the low production volume).
John NYC
Established
I'm sorry but it is ridiculous to compare used prices to new... for any type of product.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
It's the same logic as saying I'd like to have a new Corvette, but until the price is near to what I can get a 1960's MGB for, then I'm not going to. And what's wrong with GM anyway? Both cars only have four wheels two seats and an engine - if they'd reduce the price of the Corvette they'd sell a lot more of them and make more profit. And I might buy one.
Makes sense to me! (Not).
TWoK
Well-known
I'd love to have one of these, but I think 225,000 yen or $2,250 is far to high, especially for the build of the thing. I had my first chance to play with it yesterday and I really liked it, but it doesn't have the strong metal chassis like older Fuji medium format rangefinders and being limited to only 1/500th gives it no great advantage over any other big RF. I'd rather keep using my $30 GW690II and $200 GSW690II. When I can find one used for under a G I might consider it.
thegman
Veteran
When I first saw the GF670, I was not that interested, folders did not appeal as to me they looked old fashioned. The more I look at it, the more I like it though, and the folder aspect is quirky but also extremely clever and efficient.
176k yen though is £1300, which is too much in my mind. If it were £999 brand new, and I wanted to treat myself, then I'd probably prefer it to the Mamiya 7, can't really explain why, although the idea of supporting a new film camera is part of it.
176k yen though is £1300, which is too much in my mind. If it were £999 brand new, and I wanted to treat myself, then I'd probably prefer it to the Mamiya 7, can't really explain why, although the idea of supporting a new film camera is part of it.
morganism
Morganism
$2250 is just crazy talk!
thegman
Veteran
It is, although B&H have it for less than $1900. I still think this is a little rich, $1500 would seal the deal.
How crazy is $2000 for a new GF670 when that's what you might have to pay for a used Plaubel Makina 670?