Well, if the price is around $1700 body only then it would indeed be on the high side for me. But we don't know what technology it has in it yet, we don't know a lot about it... So hard to say whether it is really high for what it is compared to the nex-7... and as has been said, it's a very personal question when you talk about price/expenses.
From my perspective Sony have always offered very good value for money in terms of overall spec, so I never expected it to compete in that area. At the same time, Sony have often been more focused on wizz and bang, rather than refined photographic products, which is why I was always more interested in the Fuji and (theoretically) willing to pay that bit more for it.
alba63 wrote:
Sales numbers for the x100 are rumoured to be 300.000 - 400.000 units. Best selling Fuji digital camera ever, by a long shot - sold probably more than S2pro, S3pro and S5pro together. Has only a moderate WA lens, not interchangeable.
The kit X-pro 1 camera + 35mm (= normal on crop sensor) lens costs not much more than the x100. Plus you will be able to change the lens.
To me - also regarding the first reactions on forums - this looks like Fuji will have another home run. Of course only if the camera performs well, or better: Excellent.
douglasf13 wrote:
We're still talking about relatively cheap lenses from Fuji, not Hasselblad or anything.
Of course, for the current Hasselblad H system, those lenses are made by Fuji and Fuji has quite a history of making some of the best MF and LF glass available. It's also quite subjective but the X100 lens actually does blow me away. I would expect these Fuji lenses to be at least as good as Sony made ZA lenses. Not counting discontinued Minolta lenses (there are some great non G ones), what I have noticed with the newer non ZA or G Sony glass is that it's good and sharp but it sometimes lacks the color and contrast performance of their top tier lenses though I have certainly not used all of them.
philber wrote:
There is no reason why this Fuji camera should cost more than a NEX 7, it should actually cost less, as its spec is a bit less. That could be pride on Fuji's part, thanks to the resounding success of the X-100's launch, or it could be the price on pays for being a specialist player aiming for a niche segment, rather than a heavyweight aiming for a mainstream segment...
Be it what it may, this price has somewhat dampened my enthusiasm...
IF the Fuji lenses are at least equal to the ZA APS Sony lenses, then the initial price will be very similar as I previously posted. Sony charges more for their best lenses, Fuji less but with the body it's the opposite. Price the Fuji XP1 + 35 1.4 or 18/2 and compare it with the NEX-7 + 24/1.8 ZA. Almost identical pricing. Things will actually move in the Fuji's favor if you add more lenses and Sony releases more 1K ZA lenses. I think one also can't discount the extra cost and utility of having a built in optical finder which is capable of dealing with multiple focal lengths. That alone would likely significantly increase the cost of the Fuji XP1.
allofthelights wrote:
So you think that they on impulse decide to do market research less than 24 hours before release, and adjust the price accordingly? This is a listed Japanese company, and I can reassure you their decision-making process does not work this way.
They did beta test the x100 on the first adopters before fixing the firmware.
According to Huff there will be an announcement at 9PM GMT today. Gotta say, I am getting pretty excited about this camera; if it looks like it will deliver I may toss in a pre-order.
douglasf13 wrote:
Who perceives non-G or non-Zeiss Sony lenses as crap? There are quite a few good A-mount lenses without these designations, and there's a vast wealth of knowledge from serious users about these lenses over at Dyxum. I've really seen nothing but good reviews of the new 50/1.8 OSS, and I'd doubt any of these aps-c Fuji lenses will stand out above it. Even the lens in the X100, while a good performer, doesn't blow me away or anything. We're still talking about relatively cheap lenses from Fuji, not Hasselblad or anything.
You missed my point. Sony has 3 lens line designations. There is only 1 lens offered from the higher-quality lines. At the very least, the implication is that the lenses that are offered are not as good as they can do, that they are of lesser quality by Sony's own measure and ultimate classification. Before one even tests a lens or see a test report, the question, "Why isn't Sony putting out their better quality lenses with this camera?" Whether the 50/1.8 is good or not, is not the issue, Sony has signaled to us that it isn't that good and that it could be better. "Why aren't they giving us the best they can do?"
Differentiation of lens quality by branding is a double edged sword, it can help sell, and get a better price, for the best lenses, but it also makes a segment of the population turn their noses up at offerings from the lower quality line because they are being told from the beginning that they are cheaper and lower quality. Canon has the same issue with the "L" lenses. There is a whole class of customer that won't even bother with the non-L lenses. Its a bit worse for Sony becuase they have 3 grades of lenses.
Come on, the Sony budget line is full of Fantastic lenses for the price.
And for everyone bagging on the 16mm F2.8. It's a wide angle F2.8 lens that is a kit lens and is very inexpensive as well as being a pancake and having a metal body.
1.4 vs 2.4 m dot viewfinder. I've seen through the a77, which seems "okay"... So the Fuji won't be as good ? Or as clearly defined? Doesn't sound so good there...
Focal plane shutter? Does that mean we no longer have the silent leaf shutter operation of the x100?
ricardovaste wrote:
1.4 vs 2.4 m dot viewfinder. I've seen through the a77, which seems "okay"... So the Fuji won't be as good ? Or as clearly defined? Doesn't sound so good there...
Focal plane shutter? Does that mean we no longer have the silent leaf shutter operation of the x100?
Sounds like yes on both accounts. I was really expecting a better EVF. The focal plane shutter is good news though for adapting other lenses. Sync speed is a bit of a downer. Sure would have been nice to sync up to 1/4000 outside. I guess Fuji could release a leaf shutter lens at some point. Battery life also seems quite anemic at 300 shots.
Ah yes, I suppose leaf shutter only would have made adapting lenses next to impossible, unless they had some sort of digital shutter. Perhaps the lenses will have leaf shutters and the curtain will just come up? A long shot I guess... I was just hoping this would be the silent assassin!
FlyPenFly wrote:
Come on, the Sony budget line is full of Fantastic lenses for the price.
As you say, "... for the price." That doesn't prevent them from being "average" (to quote another poster). That doesn't make them "good" or "desirable". Again, let me repeat and underline that what I am saying has nothing to do with ACTUAL quality or performance, merely what Sony itself is signalling to it customers. Being told from the start that they are less good than their best lenses is not a selling point.
Let me ask a related question. "If the Sony 50/1.8 OSS lens is so good, why didn't Sony make it a "G" lens?"
