gdgt

I think the best way to illustrate it is to juxtapose it against some of its competition. Sony has tow new models that I think do a good job of illustrating. The fact of the matter is, at that price point, it's not competing with micro four thirds stuff as much as it's competing with the new breed of APS-C interchangeable lens compacts.

The new NEX-7 is $1,100 for the body only and the 16mm pancake lens is $250, making that set-up cost approximately $150 more than the X100. It's not an inconsequential amount of money, but the extra expenditure is getting you MUCH faster AF speeds, a far more robust suite of video features, a tilting display for awkward compositions and an eye-level viewfinder that offers information in a way similar to the X100's innovative hybrid system. That's not even mentioning the ability to swap lenses if you want, which is huge. You could stick the pancake lens on and just leave it forever, but you always have the option. The X100 doesn't give you that.

Now you can move down to the new NEX-5N. You lose the viewfinder, which is a dealbreaker for some people, but they're making it available as an add-on for something like $300, which means that since the body is only $599 to begin with, you could get the camera, the finder and a lens of your choice for the same price as the X100. You still get faster burst rate, faster AF and all of the lens options. Still has that sweet APS-C sensor, too.

Of course, those aren't necessarily advantages for everyone. The X100 has a true optical finder, which some people love. The only way to figure that out is to try the Sony EVF and see if it works for you. The Fujifilm lens is also likely slightly sharper than the mid-level sony stuff.

Buying an X100 is simply buying a camera, where as buying an M43 body or a different ILC is buying into a system. Which one is right for you depends on your style. But, if you buy the X100, you better be sure it's your style because upgrading is out of the question.