Is Fuji the new J K Rowling

lxmike

lxmike

M2 fan.
Local time
9:02 PM
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
4,137
Has Fuji recently done for photography what J K Rowling did for reading, it has been argued that over recent years, through her Harry Potter books, J K Rowling has created or heralded a rebirth in reading and the interest in books. Has Fuji also done the same for photography with the x 100 and there x range. It certainly has caught a lot of peoples attention. I must point out that I am not trying to be provocative with this post, it just seems that csc system cameras are really popular at the moment
 
lxmike said:
Has Fuji recently done for photography what J K Rowling did for reading, it has been argued that over recent years, through her Harry Potter books, J K Rowling has created or heralded a rebirth in reading and the interest in books. Has Fuji also done the same for photography with the x 100 and there x range. It certainly has caught a lot of peoples attention. I must point out that I am not trying to be provocative with this post, it just seems that csc system cameras are really popular at the moment
Click to expand...

For all of the Fuji X's success, Sony has done much more for photography long term by inventing a major new type of camera - the so called full frame mirror less.

By Photokina I think all of the major camera makers will have full frame competitors to the A7/A7r.

Stephen
 
I think that mirrorless (not just Fuji or anyone else) is the innovation that has changed photo gear.

Cellphone cameras and i-tablets with cameras are an even bigger gear change for the masses.
 
First time read this name, but watched some of Pottery.
Fuji X is huge thing... among gearheads.
 
porktaco said:
then who would we nominate as photography's george r r martin?
Click to expand...

Sigma? Long time between updates, one can never be sure what direction they'll take, and some of their surprises shock the fans (original SD1 price/Red Wedding . . .).
 
Could be. I read a ton, but never Harry Potter, and I photograph a lot but don't own a Fuji X.

Stephen's comment is accurate: The Fuji is very popular here and with similar demographics, but it is nowhere near as popular as, say, Sony. This is largely why Sigma has not produced lenses for the X series--they can't (yet) justify it.

All that said, when I finally take a plunge into the dark world of digital, it'll be a Fuji X.
 
I would like to buy an X-E2 or possibly an X-Pro but due to their popularity, none are to be had locally.

Harry Potter books on the other hand can be found everywhere.
 
CameraQuest said:
For all of the Fuji X's success, Sony has done much more for photography long term by inventing a major new type of camera - the so called full frame mirror less.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Not everyone is enamoured of the EVF vs OVF.

But to their credit Sony Industrial has driven the entire market for high-performance sensors.

Fuji is actually struggling financially. Despite all the hype they've been burning through capital trying to leverage their camera business. The move from P&S to smartphone cameras has greatly hurt Fuji who were #2 in unit sales after Canon. All the chatter about Fuji's higher-end models conceals an ugly truth: if these companies did not have other business sectors that were profitable, these cameras would not exist without those subsidies. Olympus has also coasted like this. Neither the Fuji nor Olympus camera divisions are profitable recently, and it is likely there will both be a major shake-up in the industry and some retrenchment.
 
Well, Leica is the first company that put a full frame sensor in a body without a mirrorbox. Technically the M9 is a "compact system camera", just one without live view.

I think the popularity of mirrorless has much to do with Micro Four Thirds, but it was Sony and the NEX3/5 that demonstrated that small, light mirrorless bodies can match or exceed DSLRs in image quality. I was one of the first people who had a NEX camera, having purchased the NEX3 back in 2010...And I was EXCITED. Here was a body 1/3rd of the weight and size of the 7d, delivers better images, and could take all of my Canon lenses with autofocus.

Interest in Fuji, to put it bluntly, is concentrated among RF users and older photographers from the days before digital. And these circles are quite isolated - what's capturing young audiences are smaller and cheaper mirrorless cameras such as the A5000 and GM1.
 
I don't think either Sony or Fujifilm have done anything recently for photography.

They have however done a few good cameras for enthusiasts.

I don't really think that many manufacturers have it within their powers to change photography. Not with their current mindset anyway.

Leica changed photography, Rollei probably did too, and Kodak certainly did. Whether you like or not, Lomography may have done in a small way too.

Fujifilm has released a digital camera which looks like a range finder. Sony have made a camera with a larger sensor than you'd expect from a camera of that size (A7). And that really is it.

Neither of these products will change people's photography. I don't doubt for a second that they are great cameras, I'm sure they are, but a rebirth in photography? I don't believe that for one second. Stirring up more consumerism, certainly.

I'm as consumerist as the next man, though.

My only point is that selling cameras is only slightly related to photography. In the same way that the iPad market is not really related to computer science.
 
I certainly find it very interesting that two camera companies - Fuji and Sony are doing wonders for photographic image making in their own way. Sony is a giant of course but is not a traditional camera company in the way that Nikon and Canon are. Sony has brought to still imaging their technology and skills built up over the years in video equipment (note that for lenses it has its strategic alliance with Zeiss). And this seems to be paying off (Who would have thought it possible to make a camera which can when pushed capture images at up to 400,000 ISO?)

And Fuji while it always has been a camera company has always tended to focus on using non standard sensors. Like Sony perhaps it has chosen not to go head to head with Nikon and Canon but to redefine the field of competition. In the early days of digital Fuji used its specially designed sensors which had special sensing sites designed specifically to capture information from bright spots in photos. In this way the images from one of their cameras were said to have much better dynamic range with less chance of blown out highlights than any other camera. While other manufacturers were chasing each other in a megapixel race, Fuji was concentrating on image quality. Their latest cameras also offer specialist sensors delivering beautiful image quality. And like Sony they have sought to design interesting camera bodies that capture the interest of the market and keep people coming back. With both Sony and Fuji this is about playing to their strengths and not letting the "enemy" define where and how the battle will be fought. (Sun Tzu where are you?)

Will these companies rewrite the rules for cameras as we move into the future. Very likely they will - or if they do not someone else will. Nikon and Canon are still the top pro marques for pro photographers and may be for some time but there is nothing to say they will continue to lead in the other market segments or even in that segment in the long run. Indeed all indications are that this is already changing. Particularly when you consider that they are also coming under pressure from companies like Sigma which is presently making sensational lenses in their Art range - for a fraction of the price of the Nikon and Canon equivalents. (That is if they are even equivalent - the Sigma lenses being rated by all and sundry as technically better with more or less similar build quality). This is not surprising in a way. As comapnies get bigger and more successful it becomes harder for them to innovate and drive the market as they lock their strategies down to take advantage of ones that have been successful in the past. Other hungrier companies with a drive to win will always come along to displace them if they can.

In some ways we should not be surprised. This is how competition, combined with research and development works. Whatever happens, the future for photogrpahers is going to be very exciting indeed. Particularly as one of the things we are seeing more and more is that camera companies are focusing increasingly on image quality now that the megapixel race is over.

Specifically about Fuji. I must say that I am tempted to buy one of their offerings which rely a lot on traditional values. I think Fuji has done wonders playing to that aprt of the market that loves older traditional cameras and they have now succeeded with several of their offerings that have used this approach. Possibly an x100s with the new tele adaptor is one which would tempt me. My only doubt. I probably would stop using my Leica M8 totally. But I suppose I could buy one of their interchangeable lens cameras instead and at least use my Leica glass with adapters. In either case I certainly do not envisage buying another Leica M body. Unless I happen to hit a particularly big lottery win that is. And maybe even then.
 
I think Enid Blyton was more significant personally. Her books dominated my childhood and I'm sure many people my age will feel the same way.

And A. A. Milne was also large in my life ... who can forget Winnie The P00! :) (I can't believe the forum software just censored my post for the word p00) :p

As for Fuji's cameras ... meh!
 
Aristophanes said:
...

Fuji is actually struggling financially. Despite all the hype they've been burning through capital trying to leverage their camera business. The move from P&S to smartphone cameras has greatly hurt Fuji who were #2 in unit sales after Canon. All the chatter about Fuji's higher-end models conceals an ugly truth: if these companies did not have other business sectors that were profitable, these cameras would not exist without those subsidies. Olympus has also coasted like this. Neither the Fuji nor Olympus camera divisions are profitable recently, and it is likely there will both be a major shake-up in the industry and some retrenchment.
Click to expand...

How puzzling. The Fujifilm Holdings Corp.'s stock price went from ~ 1,500 jpy to 2,750 jpy (today's close) since July 2012. And their 31, January financial summery states

"During the third quarter year to date of the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014, the Fujifilm Group recorded ¥1,774.4 billion in consolidated revenue (up 10.1% from the same period of the previous fiscal year). Consolidated revenue increased by ¥163.2 billion, comparing to the same period of the previous fiscal year, reflecting such factors as strong sales in the medical systems business, the graphic systems business, and the documents business, and positive effects of yen depreciation, in spite of harsh situations of sales of digital cameras owing to a decline in overall demand for compact digital cameras.

Income

Operating income totaled ¥99.6 billion (up 52.4% from the same period of the previous fiscal year), reflecting such factors as increases in sales, and positive effects of yen depreciation. Income before income taxes amounted to ¥114.2 billion (up 81.7% from the same period of the previous fiscal year), and the net income attributable to FUJIFILM Holdings totaled ¥62.5 billion (up 116.6% from the same period of the previous fiscal year), reflecting such factors as the improvement in foreign exchange gain."

Their net income increased ~ five fold since 3rd quarter 2009.

This does not resemble struggling to me... especially if you compare this to Nikon's corporate finances.

Of course smart phones have killed Fujifilm's P&S camera business. Yes, the digital camera division is subsidized by the other business sectors, but the subsidy levels are low. Their total corporate R&D budget is about 7% of their total corporate revenue. So how much of a drag is the digital camera division?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom