_larky
Well-known
It's not a bad price, I would never have bought this thing for this much 2 years ago, but times change.
sper
Well-known
It's about what the EP-2 cost when it came out. Plus it's not plastic, it's metal. Read the DP-Review preview and they gush about the build quality.
The X1 costs double and does less than half of what this thing can do. HD video, plus a finder for people who like optical or digital. This is a big, big reason why this camera is expensive. HUD technology like this hasn't been seen before. It makes the LED framelines in the M9Ti look like a nice try.
This is not just a cheap point and shoot with a tiny sensor, this is aimed at the professional market. Professionals are used to paying quite a bit more than $1200 dollars for their equipment. That would barely even get you a Nikon pro zoom lens. Plus the fact that it's well made and professionally oriented, means they won't actually sell a lot of them. Just like with Leica or medium format digital equipment, the niche market will drive the price up.
And as far as being outdated in six months, I guess that's only if the user gets bored with it. I can think of a few RFF members who use 'outdated' cameras, and they still seem to take nice pictures.
I'm just glad it's cheaper than the Fuji GF670!
The X1 costs double and does less than half of what this thing can do. HD video, plus a finder for people who like optical or digital. This is a big, big reason why this camera is expensive. HUD technology like this hasn't been seen before. It makes the LED framelines in the M9Ti look like a nice try.
This is not just a cheap point and shoot with a tiny sensor, this is aimed at the professional market. Professionals are used to paying quite a bit more than $1200 dollars for their equipment. That would barely even get you a Nikon pro zoom lens. Plus the fact that it's well made and professionally oriented, means they won't actually sell a lot of them. Just like with Leica or medium format digital equipment, the niche market will drive the price up.
And as far as being outdated in six months, I guess that's only if the user gets bored with it. I can think of a few RFF members who use 'outdated' cameras, and they still seem to take nice pictures.
I'm just glad it's cheaper than the Fuji GF670!
Soothsayerman
Established
I wonder why people would think it would be outdated in six months...
gilpen123
Gil
I bookmarked this for future reference let's see who will eat his/her words.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I obviously haven't been paying attention because I'm curious about focusing the X100 in really poor light where there is virtually no contrast for the AF to lock on to. I gather you would focus manually using the electronic viewfinder?
The reason I ask is because I figure at some stage one of these may be an asset for the gallery opening shoots I do occasionally. In this situation I focus my D700 manually because the AF doesn't have a hope in hell and hunts constantly. I use the Nikon with a 35mm f2 Distagon and shoot mainly at 3200 and occasionally 6400 so the X100 does fit the bill here and could provide an alternative to the big DSLR when the occasion suits. I guess this also does depend on just how good the high ISO performane of the X100 actually is which we won't know for some weeks yet!
The reason I ask is because I figure at some stage one of these may be an asset for the gallery opening shoots I do occasionally. In this situation I focus my D700 manually because the AF doesn't have a hope in hell and hunts constantly. I use the Nikon with a 35mm f2 Distagon and shoot mainly at 3200 and occasionally 6400 so the X100 does fit the bill here and could provide an alternative to the big DSLR when the occasion suits. I guess this also does depend on just how good the high ISO performane of the X100 actually is which we won't know for some weeks yet!
sooner
Well-known
Definitely overpriced, because you can get a CMOS based dslr for almost half the price. But I'm beginning to feel like all these cameras are overpriced, given how cheap they are to make. The retro styling is cool, but that doesn't justify the price. Personally, I would pay up to $800 for it, given that it is a fixed lens camera. But I do want one!
DougFord
on the good foot
price wise, it'll be less expensive than the nex5 body with the soon to be released zeiss 24mm f1.7
personally, i'm gonna need to see the test/reviews from both the x100 and the nex5 w/zeiss 24mm before I'd buy either.
personally, i'm gonna need to see the test/reviews from both the x100 and the nex5 w/zeiss 24mm before I'd buy either.
damien.murphy
Damien
Ha ha, I would pay the difference for the viewfinder, and just the fact I would not have to wrestle with the camera to make a picture.
But why even bother taking pictures, when you can simply sketch an image for the meagre cost of pencil lead and paper, lol
damien.murphy
Damien
And pointless in any case, with regard to digital, without some sort of interchangeable electronics to justify producing an all-metal body built for decades, when the electronics will be outdated in but a few years.
For this type of camera I don't mind so much plastic, just as long as there are no blatantly weak points, such as a shoddily constructed battery door, for example.
damien.murphy
Damien
Re: price, the X100 is verging on the edge of what I consider acceptable. I would love a cheaper alternative, but this camera, for me, is in a class of one at the moment.
Fuji has stolen the march on the rest of the digital market by finally giving photographers what they have wanted for so long, but the others will catch up fast, and it should make for an interesting year.
Nikon, for example, are due to release a mirrorless camera in April, which if the rumours are to be believed and it is not just vapour-ware, should be interchangeable lens also.
Fuji has stolen the march on the rest of the digital market by finally giving photographers what they have wanted for so long, but the others will catch up fast, and it should make for an interesting year.
Nikon, for example, are due to release a mirrorless camera in April, which if the rumours are to be believed and it is not just vapour-ware, should be interchangeable lens also.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I don't think it's hugely expensive considering it contains technology not seen so far. When Nikon and Canon disect the hybrid viewfinder system and give us their own versions it will start to get cheaper as always happens.
Back when rangefinders ruled the planet the first SLR was probably a similar attention grabber and likely quite expensive ... no internet to speculate about it endlessly though!
Back when rangefinders ruled the planet the first SLR was probably a similar attention grabber and likely quite expensive ... no internet to speculate about it endlessly though!
tom in mpls
Member
It's priced just right.
It's priced just right.
Lots of engineering went into this new product; they didn't grab a bunch of off-the-shelf parts and glue it together. I am assuming that in order to make a reasonable profit that Fuji could not price it lower. If that is so, then it's priced right. It either comes to market at this price, or it remains just an idea. Fuji can't just say "we'll sell a lot more at $900, so that will be our price even though we lose $100 on every one we sell".
If you mean that price alone keeps buyers away, then I guess you could say it is priced too high.
Thus, I think it would be more meaningful to ask if, assuming that it's performance matches expectations, would you buy one at this price?
I would.
It's priced just right.
Lots of engineering went into this new product; they didn't grab a bunch of off-the-shelf parts and glue it together. I am assuming that in order to make a reasonable profit that Fuji could not price it lower. If that is so, then it's priced right. It either comes to market at this price, or it remains just an idea. Fuji can't just say "we'll sell a lot more at $900, so that will be our price even though we lose $100 on every one we sell".
If you mean that price alone keeps buyers away, then I guess you could say it is priced too high.
Thus, I think it would be more meaningful to ask if, assuming that it's performance matches expectations, would you buy one at this price?
I would.
benlees
Well-known
I would love to have this camera but it is a bit pricey for a fixed lens camera. I love fixed lens cameras, by the way. As long as you can get film and the GA645, for $300-400, I will remain without the X100. For now.
We'll see how it performs. After all, people pay $1200 for a nice M6 body.
We'll see how it performs. After all, people pay $1200 for a nice M6 body.
gilpen123
Gil
Camera manufacturers are now seeing the viability of large sensor compact cameras. IMO, Canon and Nikon should have been the leaders considering their capabilities and huge R&D budget, now they are "me too" for Nikon at least. Canon is still not budging ever contented with their humongous DSLRs and small sensor compacts. Is this a question of short term economics or complacency? Way to go Fuji, you can do things these giants don't want, hopefully the AF issue and lowlight capabilities are there.
damien.murphy
Damien
I don't think it's hugely expensive considering it contains technology not seen so far. When Nikon and Canon disect the hybrid viewfinder system and give us their own versions it will start to get cheaper as always happens.
Back when rangefinders ruled the planet the first SLR was probably a similar attention grabber and likely quite expensive ... no internet to speculate about it endlessly though!
I'm just glad to see the big incumbents in the market finally (hopefully) seeing the demand for large sensor compact cameras in the market.
The viewfinder is nice, but no big shakes for me. I'm just content to be able to buy a digital rangefinder-type camera, even if it is more akin to a Contax G than a Leica M.
gilpen123
Gil
$ 1200 if it is what it is I'll take it any day. I love 35 FL and I can live with it, give me the colors of the S5 and good ISO 1600 never mind 3200> .
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Close to 100 voters and it's a tie between fair and pricey... Maybe it's reflecting two groups: "camera will be great and it's unique and not a common digicompact", and "yet I don't believe it will be able to focus in a way I can really trust"...
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
Last edited by a moderator:
shashinka-ichiban
写真家 一番
From what I recall, back at Photokenia when it was announced, there was so much speculation. At the time, everyone was guessing 1500-2000, and then we started thinking 1000, so the 1200 is not bad at all. I can live with it. It's a hell of a lot cheaper than the 5k I usually drop on a Nikon dSLR.
Spyro
Well-known
Quiet leaf shutters have never been cheap, neither have parallax corrected OVFs, or EVFs, or wide f2 lenses, or new technology, or cameras aimed at small niche markets . Niche markets are used to pay a fair bit extra for their toys, so I think the x100 is actually cheap for what it is. Fuji was never the type of camera maker that tries to flood the mainstream market, Ca/So/Nikon will take care of that.
A more utilitarian way of looking at the price is taking the sum of its parts (going by B&H prices):
-Glass viewfinder (voigtlander $150)
-Electronic viewfinder (olympus $240)
-Autofocus 23/f2 lens for APS-C (closest I could think of was Nikon 24/2.8 for full frame $344)
-APS-C mirrorless body (NEX, I cant find one without lens, say $400?)
-Analog controls (?)
It all adds up quickly. I'm not subtracting anything for the fact that it is not interchangeable because this can be anything from a curse (for someone who wants to change lenses) to a blessing (for someone who generally doesnt). It is very hard to design a lens that is interchangeable & wide & f2 & pancake & keep the cost down & have manual controls & AF & digital with good quality for the specific size sensor. If you look at the lens line up for NEX or M4:3 you will find that they dont actually have a lens with all of the above specs. Besides, 35/2 is the most popular lens in the small/RF camera world, and most people buying will be either street shooters or DSLR/RF owners with a range of lenses to cover all their other needs. Niche product for a niche market.
A more utilitarian way of looking at the price is taking the sum of its parts (going by B&H prices):
-Glass viewfinder (voigtlander $150)
-Electronic viewfinder (olympus $240)
-Autofocus 23/f2 lens for APS-C (closest I could think of was Nikon 24/2.8 for full frame $344)
-APS-C mirrorless body (NEX, I cant find one without lens, say $400?)
-Analog controls (?)
It all adds up quickly. I'm not subtracting anything for the fact that it is not interchangeable because this can be anything from a curse (for someone who wants to change lenses) to a blessing (for someone who generally doesnt). It is very hard to design a lens that is interchangeable & wide & f2 & pancake & keep the cost down & have manual controls & AF & digital with good quality for the specific size sensor. If you look at the lens line up for NEX or M4:3 you will find that they dont actually have a lens with all of the above specs. Besides, 35/2 is the most popular lens in the small/RF camera world, and most people buying will be either street shooters or DSLR/RF owners with a range of lenses to cover all their other needs. Niche product for a niche market.
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The times I've advertised something in the classifieds here and it's disappeared in less than half an hour always make me think "Maybe I could have asked a little more!"
If Fuji has trouble keeping up with demand for this camera will they be thinking the same thing ... "Maybe it should have been $1500.00!"
There seems to be quite a few people here who feel it is in fact a little expensive but intend getting one ASAP none the less.
If Fuji has trouble keeping up with demand for this camera will they be thinking the same thing ... "Maybe it should have been $1500.00!"
There seems to be quite a few people here who feel it is in fact a little expensive but intend getting one ASAP none the less.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.