What do YOU think of X100's pricing?

[Juan Valdenebro]

Even though it's not here yet, I think we already know, more or less, what this model offers, and what it doesn't for IQ, user interface, fast control, etc...

Has its price surprised YOU?

Cheers,

Juan

 

[jsrockit]

No, the price is adequate and competitive IMO. Of course some joe will come by saying that you can get a Nikon D3100 for half the price, but those are the types that don't understand camera ergonomics and / or the appeal of rangefinder style cameras (or the fact that others just do not like DSLR designs).

That said, use whatever works best for you at the price you want to pay. There will always be people who make too much and those that are cheap-asses.

 

[Keith]

I voted 'fair price' but I think that needs to be qualified by the camera's actual performance when it hits the shelves. If it's a slow AF focuser and has less than the expected/promised stellar high ISO performance, that would change to a 'too much!'

 

[hipsterdufus]

I think it's too much for me to spend. That's what I voted for. However, I think that, assuming the build quality, design, and image quality are as good as they can be, it might be an appropriate amount for others to spend.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

I think it's too much, because for most who buy it, it will be a six month camera at most. Ether there will be an updated version in six months, or some other company will have come out with an even "cooler" camera in six months. I just think $1,200 is too much for a basically disposable camera.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Of course some joe will come by saying that you can get a Nikon D3100 for half the price

Well, I feel for my friend Joe, but, yes...the argument "but Nikon" or "but Canon" always always always comes up.


"What do you think of this Audi?"
"My Astro minivan was cheaper!"

🙄

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I voted 'fair price' but I think that needs to be qualified by the camera's actual performance when it hits the shelves.

It's never prevented people who have never used a certain camera from bashing its performance by quoting misquoted misquotes 😀

 

[Phantomas]

Too much for ME. That is I wouldn't buy it even if I had money to spare. I think it's a great little cam, but the price doesn't fit the benefits that I can get out of it. €700 would be more justifyable to me.

 

[GSNfan]

I'm not paying $1200 for 400g of plastic (the other 50g is the battery).

 

[jsrockit]

Yeah, I just threw my M8.2 in the gutter because it is disposable.

 

[tbarker13]

Personally, I'd be much more interested in it around the $800 range.
It's just too limited in function, in my opinion.
Now, if the images it creates are just spectacular, perhaps I'll change my mind.

 

[Paul T.]

I voted too much, just because I'm irritated by the £100 UK mark-up.

Of course, if I see photos of Annie Liebovitz with one slung around her shoulders, I shall come back and vote "It's cheap for what it is."

But, in real life, when are we going to see how quick the AF is?

 

[whitecat]

$1,200.00 is too much for a model that will be outdated in 6 months.

 

[ampguy]

yeah

yeah

I was thinking 700-800 was fair, since there are now several APS-C+ mirrorless options out there, X1, Nex, GXR, DP2, M8 etc., several with the flexibility of interchangeable lens.

Am surprised they didn't just set the price at 1800. The folks who want this, really want it bad.

Personally, I'd be much more interested in it around the $800 range.
It's just too limited in function, in my opinion.
Now, if the images it creates are just spectacular, perhaps I'll change my mind.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I was thinking 700-800 was fair, since there are now several APS-C+ mirrorless options out there, X1, Nex, GXR, DP2, M8 etc., several with the flexibility of interchangeable lens.

Am surprised they didn't just set the price at 1800. The folks who want this, really want it bad.

Yes, that could be our future... I doubt their move was designed for keeping the price instead of taking it higher for updates soon, or for just this first model, or for Fuji only...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Rob-F]

I was thinking $1200 is a lot for just one focal length. But of course then my reservations should center around focal length and not price. There are cameras that have stood the test of time, and yet have only one focal length; like a Rolleiflex, or a Fuji 6 X 7 or 6 x 9 (and various 120 folders). Build quality and usability should probably determine value or price. So if the X100 meets those tests, I guess it should be worth the price.

 

[conradyiu]

I would prefer spend $120 for an Oly SP for a 42mm single focal length. Too much to me though I really want get one.

 

[TimothyHughes]

I'm not paying $1200 for 400g of plastic (the other 50g is the battery).

You sir, have obviously done your research. 🙄

 

[mdc]

I'd say too much, not because it doesn't deserve that price according to market value, but because I believe market value is far too high for ALL cameras. I'm one of these stubborn people who won't pay more than £20 for a camera, so unless someone gives me an X100, I won't be shooting one any time soon.

Saying that, if Fuji wanted to trade me one in exchange for being a shameless shill, I'd happily take them up on the offer.

 

[cidereye]

Who knows? It's not been launched yet so until it is it's anybody's guess as to if it's any cop or not and worth the price.