NYT: Fujifilm Finds Niche With Old-Style Cameras That Mask a High-Tech Core

Both interesting reads, thanks.

I was taken back by just how small the portfolio of film and digital cameras are to Fujifilm.. "Fujifilm still makes film, but it now accounts for less than 1 percent of the company’s sales. The entire imaging solutions division, which includes the company’s cameras, generates a mere 13 percent of revenue."

No wonder they're axing emulsions left and right. Let's hope they can sell off that part of their business to someone willing to keep it alive.
 
It seems the X-Pro1 is the odd man out... too bad, it's a hell of a camera. I hate to see it go DSLR shape in the X-Pro2, but if Fuji isn't selling them, I guess I can understand that.

As far as numbers... Thom Hogan does not work at Fujifilm... we don't know how Fuji views these cameras and how many it needed to sell to be considered a success. However, the fact that they expanded the line from one camera to many cameras must mean they felt it was worth it in some form.
 
jsrockit said:
... However, the fact that they expanded the line from one camera to many cameras must mean they felt it was worth it in some form.
Click to expand...

Possibly. Or, maybe the introduction of many cameras was a way to find different corners of a niche market --- corners that would buy into the set of excellent lenses Fuji had decided to produce. Multiple bodies, at multiple price points, increase the potential base of consumers for those lenses.
 
JRG said:
Multiple bodies, at multiple price points, increase the potential base of consumers for those lenses.
Click to expand...

Agree. It has to start from somewhere. Fuji has shown a lot more commitment on its X-series than what Olympus did within the few years of the launch of E-P1.

John
 
Say what you will about the cameras that Fuji makes, I still respect them for doing what they did. For a big company to turn around like this and invest in something risky is a big step, I hope Kodak learned a lesson and while I don't wish the death of Canon or Nikon I do hope they get a little kick in the rear :D
 
JRG said:
Possibly. Or, maybe the introduction of many cameras was a way to find different corners of a niche market --- corners that would buy into the set of excellent lenses Fuji had decided to produce. Multiple bodies, at multiple price points, increase the potential base of consumers for those lenses.
Click to expand...

Which would make it worth it to them in some form as I stated. :)
 
I find Thom Hogan insightful and he makes some good points. The trouble with most newspaper articles is that they are a bit, how do you say it, simplistic, because they lack industry insight. Not saying Thom is the end-all on this. However, I think he is right that there is a difference between the internet buzz of these Fuji cameras and the actual sales... But in the end the only important bit is that Fuji makes a profit - anything else is extra.

1% film is good, it is a niche market and they cater that niche market, but they aren't dependant on it!
 
I've found Thom to be the most pragmatic and intelligent of the internet photo-pundits and, in regards with the NYT article, he's right on once again.

Beyond my photographic interest, the New York Times' sloppy regurgitation of press releases, unchecked sources, and general ignorance on the part of its editors and journalists should be a much greater concern. If the NYT is one of the leading news sources and they are this sloppy with a minor business story, how loose and sloppy are they with other, more critical stories?

I found that every news article in which I had any first hand experience with the players or situation was reported poorly, with misrepresentations, lies, and general incompetence. The "journalists" would even manage to screw up puff-pieces so much so that I recommended that clients never solicit media coverage even for good causes and happy outcomes. My friend teaches at the Missouri School of Journalism and he told me the children in his classes are feeble idiots, not much smarter than education or poll sci majors.
 
OK, so what's the definition of "mirrorless"? The Times article basically defined it as "lacking a reflex mirror." So by that definition, aren't the Fuji cameras Hogan says are not mirrorless, in fact mirrorless?

I more or less found his article to be picking nits that aren't really relevant in the overall scheme. Am I supposed to know who he is?
 
Not really familiar w/Hogan, but this quote mystifies me:

"Let’s assume for a moment that only 300k of those are the X10, X20, X100, and X100s, none of which are mirrorless."

Is he using a weird definition of mirrorless, because I don't recall any of those cameras having mirrors?

EDIT: Just saw that KoNickon made the same point. Maybe Hogan means interchangeable lens mirrorless?

Addy101 said:
And as Thom Hogan already pointed out they areoff the mark: Thom Hogan on NYT's take on Fuji
Click to expand...
 
I'm wondering about their numbers on film: does the 1% represent their % of the entire company or 1% of their imaging division? Seems like that would be a pretty big difference - if 1% of the entire company then that would be almost 8% of their imaging division. Which isn't bad. If 1% of their imaging division then we might as well just accept that Fuji film is dead.

(once I hit "Post Quick Reply", I'll be cowering in the corner waiting for the inevitable takedown on why my math is wrong).
 
fuji deserves all the credit in bringing innovation to the market, at the same time by overpricing initially and then panicking when sales sagged and heavily discounting, i don't know if that might have pissed off lots of early adopters
 
Margu said:
fuji deserves all the credit in bringing innovation to the market, at the same time by overpricing initially and then panicking when sales sagged and heavily discounting, i don't know if that might have pissed off lots of early adopters
Click to expand...

It didn't piss me off. All of the digital camera manufacturers not named Leica use this same overpricing strategy. I bought the Fuji X100, X100s, and X-Pro1 on the day they came out. I have no regrets... because I got to use them instead of waiting to use them over a few hundred dollars.
 
I was also one of the early adopters for the XP1. Got mine through Japan before they were available in North America (much less Western Europe). I really wanted it for an event I was photoing, and I used it for something like 6000 shots in the first month I had it. Totally worth it to me. But I'm not necessarily an early adopter by rule. I didn't get an M8 and then an M9 until Leica had already come out with another new model.

Back to the Fuji, while they do have retro styling, I think that they are uniquely innovative, and the styling preserves some of the most important things acquired in the development of film cameras (like hard knobs for the key exposure controls).
 
Hogan falls into the category of people who are highly informed and thoughtful, yet consistently reach wrong or incomplete conclusions.

In my opinion.

I'd like to see Hogan and Dante Stella in a no-holds-barred cage match. My money would be on Stella.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom