A company called C&A Marketing, actually... Production is farmed out, too. Polaroid makes nothing. It's identical to Vivitar. It's only a name to be licensed out.

The difference is that on Fujirelated articles the decrease is caused by "the market". The same news on Canonrelated articles are causeing the whole crowd to hate and to blame the company for bad strategies ;)

I would agree, for all the hand wringing on here about Canon and their tentative steps into the mirrorless market, its worth remembering that Canon are by far the most successful camera company in operation today and their own CEO has intimated that they are reluctant to enter a market that is the most rapidly shrinking of all digital camera markets.

But the X-series market is very small.... I hope it can survive as a standalone unit, but I have my doubts.

@ Mike FL.

You may or may not be correct regarding the Sony sensor used by Fuji, but what is more important is what they do with it. Uniquely, they don't deploy a standard Bayer filter array, but use one specific to them, and then they dispense with the AA filter. So one may expect this to perform differently to a Sony. And, IMO, it does. I've recently acquired an X-Pro 1 with obviously a "dated" sensor, but I am really pleased with its IQ and which I prefer over my Nex 5N, albeit I still like the IQ of the 5N, and the Fuji can still give the higher resolution of my A7 a run for its money.

All this is very subjective of course, and I can even put up with the somewhat leisurely focusing speed of the Fuji as this doesn't impact on my type of imaging. In fact, the Fuji has slowed me down even more and made me think more about what I am about to shoot. Apart from incorporating AF, I find I am using it more like my M6!

"Enthusiasts, OTOH, are the ones who are trying to make an artistic statement with their complex cameras. "

I did not miss your point but disagree as to how much the "enthusiasts" are willing to pay. Any company trying to sell a camera that is >$1,000 that will be outdated in 3 yrs is asking a lot. Even during the P&S time, the lower-end users were still interested in getting "Pro-looking" images. This usually happens when people start a family and want to document the growth of their kids. If a "serious" camera costs only about $500 and is as easy to use as their phone-camera, they will "upgrade" now just as they did in the past. However if we are asking them to pay >$1,000 to get serious, they are more likely to say No. A >$1,000 top of the line Fuji (or any brand) plus those very expensive lenses do not make photos that are 3x more artistic than those created by other APS-C or m4.3 cameras in the $500 range.

Strange statement. The internet has driven the prices down to historical lows. Grey market camera's and lenses are pouring into the internet for sale.
Not that it can't happen. But, at this point it is going the opposite direction IMO.
Definitely a buyer's market right now for camera body's.

The sad part of all this is the mom and pop businesses are going out of business.

Whatever, Canon has the worst sensor...Fuji goes from mid-tones straight to black or white. That's how I see it. If you see it the other way, it's fine with me.

@Jim As I mentioned elsewhere, this statement is ambiguous, if you read the transcript fuji are specific about where sales are growing across all their market sectors but for x series just 'strong' this will be channel sales as well so hard to determine retail. Given the whole digital camera market is on the decline and that mirrorless is shrinking the fastest strong may perhaps mean that they have maintained their numbers. The fact that x series sales is not something they are specific about says a lot.

Missed that ! More like printer ink than film - has to be something somebody wants ;)

My daughter wants an instant camera. Just because it looks "fun". (She's 13 and used to sharing pictures instantly, so naturally, she wants her prints instantly ... I wonder if that's driving the demand for Instax). But at 80-90 cents per picture (Instax) it's not happening.

Guess you'll have to wait for the new sensor in '16.

Did you see a selfie arm?

Funny that you don't mention Sony. In Berlin Sony imo is the leader in the mirrorless crowd. However, Canon still seems to be the go-to brand for many people that want to upgrade from cellphones, simply because their image is too strong and the prices on the xxxD are too good.
Still, mine and yours is only anecdotal, we don't know if we observe an actual trend. Though I fear selfie sticks are here to stay.

It's like the a6000 they are selling boatloads of them (allegedly) but you hardly ever see them, in the guise of sex toys.

Interesting, maybe the camera has ascended to such level to be used in pro sport photography circles which I don't frequent much. I UT and AZ I see consumer and pro dslr, almost exclusively.

Bought one for my girlfriend. Ended up buying one for myself.

I've seen one or two.

X-A1 is a special one, really amazing camera and IQ.

Thats true ........most DSLR and lenses seems to be over priced......

The X-A1 image quality is because X-Trans (which it lacks) is arguably as much of a liability as it is a benefit. Fuji chose an unfortunate way to differentiate their images...

The X-trans sensor and a good EVF are relevante differences; the EVF is a very relevant usability feature but... yeah you won't be able to tell the difference between an entry level and top of the line level camera image of any brand unless you dig into the exiff.

I meant something like Olympus E-M10II. X-T10 & 18-55 is like a DSLR sizewise.

@just a photographer
There is nothing wrong with a X-T10/18-55, you are just completely ignoring what he wrote.

He meant like a Sony RX-100 Mx or a Panasonic LX100

Exactly...

Just wait for it... there will be cellphone apps who emulate shallow DOF (that's no problem). There are Tilt/SHift effects out and no one could see the difference. Fuji has no T/S lens yet, anyway. I guess the middle of the sensorline (MFT and maybe APS-C) will be starved to death. What remains is the cellphone and the ("Pro-")equipment of fullframe/mediumformat.

a phone has no ergonomics what so ever like a tool designed specifically to take photos. A tool of the size like a xt1 or a OM-D, etc. (no matter if it has FF, APS-C or 4/3 sensor) is in my opinion the best "compromise" between quality, price, usability and even connectivity. Of course here count the subjective factor, the interraction between the photographer and his tool. Yes, the photos are better when I like the tool I work with ;-)
Maybe that's just me.
True, a phone can "go" where a camera shaped tool can not but it will never offer the technical quality of a picture like a bigger sensor does.
PS. Good luck with that app that makes a phone photo look like a photo taken with a 56mm f:1,2 Fujinon lens in 1/60 seconds, not to mention the ISO performance ;-)

Which ISO Performance? the real ISO1600 of the X-Trans? Can be done in a few more evolutionsteps of cellphonesensors, believe me. Even the IPhone 6 isn't that bad anymore. The Look of an f1.2 lense can be done in Tools you get for free on the net or Alien Skin Bokeh.

Most people don't even need the f1.2 look and if I tell you, you can't do what I can do with my 85L 1.2 on fullframe you would also tell me that you won't need it. Won't you? :)

100-400 is not delayed. Coming Q1 2016

In a previous lens roadmap the 100-400 was supposed to be in the stores already. Fuji pushed it back about year supposedly because they were not satisfied with the overall IQ.

@Badi. It *can* produce such pictures, because film still can give you sensorsizes any digitalcam (reasonable priced) could dream of. You get a 9x6 mediumformat for 50$ on ebay, take a roll of b/w film for 3$ and get a look you probably wouldn't dream of on digital. Not even with any brenizertechnique.

APS was an under-rated format. My wife and I traveled for years with a little APS camera, and have hundreds of very nice photos to show for it.

There are many variables here, so it's not clear why your wife prefers a cellphone. It could be that the general convenience of a cell phone (always with you, photos immediately there, easy to share pictures) is the biggest factor. Or the Nikon you bought her isn't much better than her cellphone.

I don't think they ever made a really comprehensive APS camera. I had a compact Nikon and Olympus.

VisualFX, yes the XE1 is a pinfully slow camera... i still have it and it takes ages to write the raws, and can't do much in the meantime :) ... so in terms of body performance, fuji really imporved. A lot.

But, yes, they are not "up to date" with features, and especially movie, however for someone who just records clips occasionally and who will not do video editing anyway it's just "good enough".

Yes, we may see a fraction of digital market. Like vinyl sales ($100M?) as compared with the multi-billions in digital sales. Niche market, nothing else.

fmiam,

Apart from the folly of inferring a trend from a single quarter's sales, the source you link shows about 13% *increase* in smart phone sales, from about 290,384,400 in 2Q2014 to 329,676,400 in 2Q2105. Meanwhile sales of mobile phones other than smart phones declined, keeping total mobile phone sales almost flat. So there is a continuing shift amongst phone users towards smart phones, which tend to be the phones most likely to be regularly used as a camera.

That is an increase of about 40 million sales in single quarter: how do you think growth in Instax and other film camera sales for 2Q2015 compare?

I'm not comparing anything nor am I inferring anything. I'm simply leaving the assumptions to you guys.
Are digital sales not decreasing?
Are analog sales not increasing?

Digital has decreased due to phones, no question. Unless you want to include phones in with them as cameras. Analog is probably at an equilibrium point now. Film died, but there has been (according to Ilford, others) an uptick in sales in the last year or two.

"Are digital sales not decreasing?"

No, sales of digital photographic equipment are not decreasing! They are just shifting to different product categories. (The same for digital music players; see below.)

And this is shown by data in the source that you cited. To repeat: smart phones ("digital camera-phone-music players") are now the dominant digital photographic tool (in fact the dominant digital tool, period – also for music playing, etc.) and even in that supposedly bad quarter, sales were UP by 13%, for an extra 40 million in a single quarter, which completely overwhelms the decrease in sales of other types of digital camera, which decrease is mostly people buying less of the low end P&S digital cameras.

P. S. Over the last six month or reported sales, the year-on-year in increase in sales of "digital camera-phone-music players" is even more impressive, at 21%, and 124 million more units sold.

Okay,

DSLR sales are down.
Mirrorless sales are down.
P&S sales are down.
Mobile phone sales are down.

Smartphone sales are up.
Analog sales are up.

Better?

Mobile phone sales are not down: they at worst were only slightly up in in that one quarter, with a shift in the mix towards more smart phones. Last I saw, mirrorless sales were about level or up slightly.

So:
- Digital camera-phones (smart phone) sales well up: 13-20% and in numbers that overwhelm everything else in this list.
- Total mobile phone unit sales up a bit, revenues up more due to the mix shifting towards smart phones.
- Mirrorless ILC sales about flat.
- P&S sales going down for years now (as camera-phones largely replace them)
- DSLR sales down after a "bubble" of film to digital transitions, and not because of a move back to "analog" SLRs!

The bottom line is that your real and imagined downs are mainly shifts in the digital product mix towards different kinds of digital tool, with total sales and usage of digital photographic equipment going up.

P. S. Are analog photography sales up? A one-time uptick in one niche product line (Instax) does not quite show that.

BJL wrote: 'Meanwhile sales of mobile phones other than smart phones declined'

and then he wrote: 'Mobile phone sales are not down'

So which is it?

In regards to analog photography, Ilford says sales are up, my suppliers in Sydney says sales of film, chemistry, paper and darkroom printing services are up. Fuji says Instax is up. My film processor here (one of a handful in Sydney) says he's been processing more and more C-41 over the last year or so. Prices of second hand equipment are increasing due to demand.
Second hand SX-70's were selling on Ebay for $25 about 3-4 years ago. Now they are selling for $200+
Yes, more people are turning to analog photography.
Alternative process photography is also getting a lot of interest.
I think people are just getting bored of digital cameras.

"an out of focus and out of date polaroid of the corner of the room"

This in a comment about an article covering "strong sales of Instax products"? The only difference between that "elite" photograph of the corner of the room and, presumably, the average Instax shot is the smiling partygoers in the Instax shot.

What were we arguing about again?!

Perhaps you should have read through the thread Paul? It appears that you're randomly picking up on and reacting to a discussion that you haven't contributed to.

Jadot: It works both ways -

What is it with Digital photographers (or those who fear buyers remorse as I like to call them) seeming to need film to fail as a way of justifying their own personal expense?

You know the ones - the 'Film is Dead" protests are always driven by the pitch that film is too expensive and difficult to use. These are the same people who spend huge sums of money on updating their gear because there's a bigger number on the box this year, and somehow this will up the quality of their photos. While their cameras are so complex that even after chimping and checking their LCD screens that they blow highlights. Y'know... if they spent 1/10th the money and just concentrated on composition, lighting and some pre-thought they would be better photographers. Regardless of analog or digital.

The irony being that this is a visual medium and they still can't tell how an analog shot looks different. 'I can edit a photo to make it look just like analog!' they say...'

that's what the winkies are for ;)