At one point a couple of years ago I owned both a black and a chrome Fuji X100V. They very nice cameras. The 35mm equivalent lens was very good and the images I could get out of the camera were competitive with anything else even close to the price. I didn't really like the way the camera felt but that was something I'm pretty sure I could get over, if necessary. It was missing one or two things but in total it was a smart solution for an every day carry camera. Now it's (at least on paper) better. The APS-C sensor has been engorged with 40 megapixels which means you can make better use of the in-camera cropping. But the big new item is the addition of image stabilization --- which everyone in the universe seems to crave.
I'll probably skip the new version. And a couple of years ago I sold off the previous version cameras. I have a Q2 and while it's a really, really good camera it has shown me that I more or less resent being limited to one lens choice. Or one lens lack of choice. I'm guessing that's why I bought some interchangeable lens rangefinder cameras. Similar body style but with a wide choice of lens focal lengths --- from very wide up to a usable 90mms.
I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the X100V or the X100VI to people who want a single camera solution that's simple and, image-wise, powerful. People who are comfortable with one focal length. Folks who don't need to look at things differently on different days. The new Fuji is a wonderful solution for those who want to simplify but still demand great images. No question.
Someone out in the web mentioned the price creeping up compared to the old model and said that the new Fuji is approaching the point where it is becoming a "Veblen" product. An observation generated by the fact that the new camera is about $200 USD more than its predecessor. A 'whopping' $1600.
I think some people are living in an alternate universe in which they feel that no product, and certainly no new product, should ever cost more than what they paid for a camera back in 1995.
The introductory price of the previous X100V was $1399. It was introduced over four years ago. In the interim inflation here has gone up by 14.16 %. Even if the new camera had no improvements whatsoever its inflation adjusted price should be in the ballpark of $198 + $1399 = $1597.00. And those inflation numbers are for U.S.A. consumers, not international camera buyers who may have endured even higher rates of inflation. Add in the new features such as image stabilization and a higher resolution sensor and it boggles the mind that anyone would begrudge Fuji a fair profit on their very, very desirable product. People will vote with their wallets. I think the X100VI will win that election.
To suggest the product might be verging on "Veblen" is bizarre at a time when its closest competitor in that particular camera niche is the (unobtainable/short supply) Leica Q3 which currently costs $6,000 --- if you can find one for sale. Seems silly, churlish to label a product that costs 3.75 times less as extravagant.
For some the asking price of $1599 for the Fuji might put the camera out of reach. There are plenty of folks who would have to stretch to buy a $500 camera. But manufacturers are good at figuring out a package of capabilities and features that can be offered for a price many can pay. There are tiers for everything under the sun. Just ask any wine or watch enthusiast. Loads of ten dollar cabs. Load of $30 Timex watches.
It's time to stop being so hung up on the price of products that we absolutely don't need for our survival. It's up to every consumer to decide the value proposition of a new camera for themselves. It's not as if every maker of cameras out in the world has an exactly competitive product. And as long as a product isn't a commodity or a necessity the maker can set the price they want and reap the rewards for their initiative. If they price it too high sales drop; especially if there is a "slightly" more expensive alternative that has its own advantages...
You can buy clothes at Walmart and you can buy clothes at Nordstroms. And a lot of stores in between. You get to choose. That's the beauty of free choice and a capitalist system.
I'd love to get everything for free but I'm pretty sure that's never going to happen. For now I'll select the products that do what I want at a price I think I can afford and be happy that someone made a product that really appeals to me. It's just not going to be a Fuji X100VI. At least not right now.
13 comments:
I find it interesting how some people can be all over the map when it comes to where their price point is on certain items. Example, the person who buys their clothes from Walmart, lives in a studio apartment, but has a brand new Corvette parked outside.
I read that you can get accessory lenses that I think clip on to the standard 35, making it either 28 or 50 equivalent. (At a pretty high price: $349.) What would you expect from those lenses? Will the images be degraded. And if you put a 50 on it, and then use the cropping feature, would you get a 75? (so that you potentially would have 35-50-75?) With that range, the camera would be pretty useful, if the image wasn't much degraded.
Envy is one of the side effects of robust capitalism in some people. They see it, want it, and if they can't have it, they embark on fault=finding missions. Whatever "it" is.
The Fox and the Grapes remains a timeless classic.
Well said. I'd like a historic Ferrari for the price of VW Jetta, but it isn't going to happen. Given the improvements to the camera and inflation I think the X100VI is certainly fairly priced. I ordered mine within minutes of the order book being open. I had the X100V for a few years, and actually sold it last year for more than the X100VI costs (I was itching for an interchangeable lens camera again), so in that regard the X100VI is quite a good deal.
I don't disagree with you, but it would be pretty weird if when a new product was introduced, people reacted by wishing it would cost more.
My X100V is the last of my Fuji gear that I haven’t sold off. I dunno. Part of me thinks 40mp is a good idea with a fixed lens. I’m not so sure whether I care about IBIS. I’ll have to think about it.
Good point about the price of the X100IV, adjusted for inflation. I don't plan to buy one either, for the reason you mention: fixed wide-ish focal length. I've been looking for a small and lightweight travel camera, and note that a Nikon Z50 with two kit zooms can be had for less money than the new X100. I'm waiting for a successor to the Z50, which should happen unless Nikon abandons the DX (crop sensor) format.
Since that particular photographic commentator regards all Leica products as Veblen goods, possibly it's the resemblance to an M camera that provoked the Veblen comment.
I've never bought an X100 so am not tempted by the new one, good though it may be. I don't really see it as a 'Q' alternative since I find there is a significant difference between a 28mm and 35mm lens. At one point I thought a GFX-R and 45mm GF lens would be my ideal combination, but found the GFX range rather clunky and not a lot of fun, though great image quality. If Leica produced a Q with a 35mm lens I would be first in line......
Wonder why the Canon G1X III isn't often mentioned as an X100x competitor? Fixed lens, albeit zoom. Weatherproof, built in flash, image stabilized, also APS format. If anything more compact and definitely lighter than the X100x. Being a compact zoom lens, it is slower than that of the X100x, but other than that seems to shine.
OK, it's not a slicktop. That seems to be a requirement for 2024 compact walkaround cameras. (I can't say rangefinder type, since The Kodak 3A- one of the most successful cameras of all time- or the Graflex SLR, and even the Horseman and Speed Graphics were available as rangefinder cameras, but were not slicktops. And the wildly successful Kodak Instamatic was a slicktop, but for the most part not a rangefinder.)
I've read quite a bit about the X100V shortage, but as of yesterday evening there were 10 used ones on the MPB USA site.
As for Veblen goods, there are plenty of examples that defy the common understanding of price vs demand. Good blogs don't cost more than bad blogs, for example.
Apropos the price of cameras. In 2001 Minolta launched the Dimage 7. Zoom lens, shot until your 4 AA batteries ran out and a whole 5 MP. All for $1500. A quick Google says inflation in the US has been 74% since then, so that's $2,610 in today's money. Just sayin' ;)
I owned the original X100. It didn't resonate with me. Loved the images it produced but the camera had operational issues. I'm looking for some inspiration so I pre-ordered. Let the bonding begin.
Unless you are using flash and can take advantage of the leaf shutter high speed sync, I suspect you could do as well with a phone for classic street shooting. WHen I use the phone as if it were a camera, I am endlessly amazed at the results. (Not so great if you want something other than wide shots.)
Post a Comment