Fair price in Europe would be cheap NY price + round trip flights to JFK, because the 1DX retails for $7900 in Dublin
Seriously though, does it cost twice as much to produce a 1DX than it does to make a 5D3? Please ignore the incremental R&D expense as these ought to be amortised across the product range as components trickle down the product line, such as Digic5 chips, AF system, sensors etc. So if you accept the three and a half grand price tag of the 5D3 as 'fair' then a 1DX should cost no more than two grand more, say $5500 or thereabouts. The extra margin is probably a professional premium.
Or maybe it's the other way round. How much was the 1DsIII at launch ? Don't forget that it also boils down to unit production cost as the volume is much lower than cheaper models. Having said that, this 1D series has something out of this world which is worth paying for.
This is where I want to go: all is a matter of perceived value. We don't mind paying for something if we feel we get the bang for our bucks. Everything in life. Call me stubborn, but at nearly 3900 incl. grip, I am still circling around the 5/3 as I don't have that feeling. Since I need to put a price here, say at 5900, I'd grab one - whenever it reaches the shelves - and leave the 5/3 behind. No second thoughts.
I totally agree that from a personal viewpoint it is all about perceived value and not actual price, or perhaps even production costs. For all we know the 1DX might be the Buggati Veyron of the camera world, in that Canon might be forced to sell it below cost (as a loss leader) just so that enough enthusiasts as well as pro's buy one and give them exposure, as well as creating the desire and aspiration for 5D users to trade up.
As far as the other point - "Relative Value" - I also agree too that at 2 grand more for 1DX vs 5D3, many potential buyers would go the whole hog and buy the flagship model. It all boils down to what the marketing people think the market will bear (price that is) and how this relative pricing will have a knock on effect on margins on the more profitable consumer end of the business. These new DSLR prices have absolutely nothing to do with 'Supply' (a known entity) and 'Demand' (a stochastic variable), otherwise MSRP's would be fluctuating weekly or monthly, plus in economic there exist multiple equilibria at a given price. Nor may it have anything to do with production costs - just look at L lenses vs EF-S, which make more money for Canon, well obviously the latter as they sell a helluva lot more. Just look at the $1000 hike in the 24-70 mk2 as concrete evidence -> pure avarice or absolute necessity?
On balance then, this is why we're all often confused about their pricing policy - the 5D3 costs more than double the 5D2 (3600 vs 1600 euros where I am). Every business on the planet is either "Volume" or "Margin", IMHO Canon is the former, but they're strategically using relatively high FF camera body prices to raise everyone's price expectations. I mean as a 7D owner (traded up from T2i) who one day will like to move up the digital ladder, will likely shell out an extra $1000 for a 7D2 instead, because I cannot afford a 5D3 or 1D. It's sheer brilliance on Canon's behalf, they must have Quants working for them in their marketing or sales area, using quadratic linear programming algorithms to calculate 'optimal' pricing structure. Why we'll always be in the dark.