Fujifilm Debuts Wideangle Gf670w Film Camera

[furcafe]

As a reference point, a gray market GF670 can be had below $1700 US right now.

The prices are quite probably going to drop a bit after a few months but it will still be too expensive for those most. People were expecting the Bessa III to come in at under $1000 new and were disappointed by hearing that it's twice as expensive. I don't think they will buy a GF670W even if it drops to $2000 which is unlikely anytime soon.

 

[rxmd]

My thinking is this: if there are 1000 people in the world who would buy the new camera for $3000, then there will be at least 5000 people who would buy it at $1500 (for example, myself). That's a significant difference both in potential manufacturing cost-reduction and revenue.

A high-end fixed-lens non-folding wideangle camera for 6x7 film photographers is a niche within a niche within a niche. It's also competing with all sorts of used gear, from wideangle Makinas over Mamiya C330s and Mamiya 7s with the appropriate optics, to Kiev 60s with Mir-26 lenses at the absolute bottom end. I'd be surprised if they even plan on selling 1000.

It's not like when you lose money you can make up for it in volume. I think Fuji knows their market in medium-format wideangle cameras way better than anyone here and have a pretty good idea how many cameras of this type they can possibly sell to make them the best bottom line.

 

[Jamie123]

On the second point, my thinking is this: if there are 1000 people in the world who would buy the new camera for $3000, then there will be at least 5000 people who would buy it at $1500 (for example, myself). That's a significant difference both in potential manufacturing cost-reduction and revenue.

Ok so, as a thought experiment, let's say the actual cost of the camera (materials and labour) comes in at $1000. So if they sell 1000 pieces at $3300 they made an investment of $1'000'000 and make a profit of $2'300'000. If they make and sell 5000 pieces at $1500 they made an investment of $5'000'000 with a profit of $2'500'000. So that's five times the investment/risk with only marginally more profit.
Of course the per item cost of a single camera goes down with higher volume but the distributing and staff cost increase. However, this small thought experiment shows you that it's not necessarily smart to sell more at lower prices. Also, I highly doubt that you'll find 5000 people who'd buy this niche camera at $1500. If you poll for all the potential buyers on RFF at that low price it probably would still be in the low hundreds. And only a small percentage of them would actually put their money where their mouth is.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger,

On the first point, these new GF670 series are probably not the products that keep Fuji afloat revenue-wise. I'd be surprised if this is not more of a niche product designed to create a new market.

What new market? Rollfilm rangefinders? Slightly wide-angle 6x7 cameras? It's all been done before, arguably better (Plaubel 67). It's not so much 'flogging a dead horse' as 'flogging an elderly and sleepy horse that ain't gonna go far'. Jamie123 may or may not be wrong on the numbers -- none of us knows -- but his underlying argument is unanswerable.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

A high-end fixed-lens non-folding wideangle camera for 6x7 film photographers is a niche within a niche within a niche. It's also competing with all sorts of used gear, from wideangle Makinas over Mamiya C330s and Mamiya 7s with the appropriate optics, to Kiev 60s with Mir-26 lenses at the absolute bottom end. I'd be surprised if they even plan on selling 1000.

It's not like when you lose money you can make up for it in volume. I think Fuji knows their market in medium-format wideangle cameras way better than anyone here and have a pretty good idea how many cameras of this type they can possibly sell to make them the best bottom line.

It's the old joke, isn't it: "We lose $20 on each one, but we make it up on volume."

I'd guess 2000-5000 (Fuji + Voigtländer combined), but your argument still holds.

Cheers,

R.

 

[nightfly]

I think the flaw in some of this reasoning is that much of the cost is sunk into setting up a factory to produce the camera and R&D. Since they've already done most of it for the original GF670, I would think it would be relatively easy to make this one a bit cheaper and sell more of them, if , big if, of course there is a market.

The incremental costs of making another camera probably aren't that great once you've got the R&D done and the factory set up. It's basically a 670 with a fixed mount and lens instead of the bellows. I would doubt if they lost money on each one they would have added a second camera to the line. I suspect material and labor cost are well under half retail probably a third if they need to have wholesalers and retailers take their cut.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I think the flaw in some of this reasoning is that much of the cost is sunk into setting up a factory to produce the camera and R&D. Since they've already done most of it for the original GF670, I would think it would be relatively easy to make this one a bit cheaper and sell more of them, if , big if, of course there is a market.

The incremental costs of making another camera probably aren't that great once you've got the R&D done and the factory set up. It's basically a 670 with a fixed mount and lens instead of the bellows. I would doubt if they lost money on each one they would have added a second camera to the line. I suspect material and labor cost are well under half retail probably a third if they need to have wholesalers and retailers take their cut.

Isn't it actually being built by Cosina? That should make it cheaper too, like the ZM lenses are.

 

[Jamie123]

I think the flaw in some of this reasoning is that much of the cost is sunk into setting up a factory to produce the camera and R&D. Since they've already done most of it for the original GF670, I would think it would be relatively easy to make this one a bit cheaper and sell more of them, if , big if, of course there is a market.

The incremental costs of making another camera probably aren't that great once you've got the R&D done and the factory set up. It's basically a 670 with a fixed mount and lens instead of the bellows. I would doubt if they lost money on each one they would have added a second camera to the line. I suspect material and labor cost are well under half retail probably a third if they need to have wholesalers and retailers take their cut.

Of course, I chose the numbers so they're easy to operate with for the thought experiment. I'm sure it doesn't cost $1000 to make them.

Anyways, the problem is that no matter what the numbers are, the camera item still costs money to produce (I would venture to say that R&D was not that high for both of the cameras. There's wasn't much innovation to be done for these MF rangefinders so I'm sure they could draw on a lot of experience.) So the costs still rise the more cameras your produce and the point of the thought experiment was to show that if you increase the number of items by 400% and reduce the price by only 30% your added profit is only marginal.
Also, lets not forget that we're talking about a fixed lens rangefinder here. When Canon sells a $400 camera they are gaining a new customer who will then buy lenses, flashes, more expensive bodies, etc. etc.. What do Cosina and Fuji get when they sell a GF670W? An annoying customer who'll pester them for free repairs under warranty.