-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
NYT: Great article on Fuji X
- Thread starter Les Berkley
- Start date
harold1968
Senior Member
sorry that you wish to censor forums, where the OP has posted an article inviting comment
I am sure when you are dictator of the world everything will go much better
harold1968
Senior Member
thanks
its probably the paper I am least likely to read as I think its cr@p, but no prob reading article on tech by link as long as I am not paying them anything
nice quote from the article:
“When we were little, when we went into our father’s room or our grandfather’s room, there was an important-looking camera on the shelf, and we were told not to touch it because it was valuable,” Mr. Imai said. “We wanted to create that kind of look and feel.”
johnbandry
Senior Member
<big snip>
Please note the nuance if replying: "indication" "may".
I care. I'm interested. I don't read the NYT, but I would have put in the same class as the Washington Post or WSJ. Nice to have an indication that it may not be, so I can approach with care. I even find all the OTT responses amusing.
Please note the nuance if replying: "indication" "may".
One of the problems with making a serious assessment of Fuji X's success is that with the only reliable data - namely CIPA - the X series is spread over both mirrorless and compact sales - Compacts is defined by CIPA as fixed lens so that the X10, X20, X100 and X100s are all included in compacts. Now that given that in even this year there are going to 45m compacts sold finding the 500,000 or so Fujis is essentially a rounding error and less than a rounding error if we date back to 2011.
If we turn to the 18m or so ILCs that will be sold this year, you will note that ILC stands for interchangeable lens camera - now effectively for Fuji that equates for historic sales in the XE-1 and X-Pro-1. Now if we are heroically optimistic and assume that the XE-1 and X-Pro-1 have sold 200,000 units since 2011 (incidentally that would be more than the Olympus E-M5) then that equates to around 0.5% of ILCs. It also roughly equates to around 3% of the mirrorless ILC market.
So really the problem with the tone of the NYT article is that it 'implies' that the Fuji X series has been a success - and even a success in the scheme of things for Fuji. The reality is that the Fuji X series is simply a great set of cameras that have failed to make a sales unit impact and with a fair degree of certainty have generated substantial losses for the parent company.
If we turn to the 18m or so ILCs that will be sold this year, you will note that ILC stands for interchangeable lens camera - now effectively for Fuji that equates for historic sales in the XE-1 and X-Pro-1. Now if we are heroically optimistic and assume that the XE-1 and X-Pro-1 have sold 200,000 units since 2011 (incidentally that would be more than the Olympus E-M5) then that equates to around 0.5% of ILCs. It also roughly equates to around 3% of the mirrorless ILC market.
So really the problem with the tone of the NYT article is that it 'implies' that the Fuji X series has been a success - and even a success in the scheme of things for Fuji. The reality is that the Fuji X series is simply a great set of cameras that have failed to make a sales unit impact and with a fair degree of certainty have generated substantial losses for the parent company.
Sal Baker
Forum Pro
Fujifilm's last 2 annual reports show that Fuji is just a bit over a year into their new camera strategy, one which clearly identifies the demise of small pocket cameras due to smartphones. Their strategy is focused. I hope and think it will succeed. Slowly jettison the lower end cameras that can't compete with smart phones, reduce manufacturing costs and differentiate their offerings by focusing on higher-end cameras that perform well, and have a design cache that appeals to more well healed customers. I'm sure they are capitalized to cover the initial losses, just like Honda was, and Apple was when they had zero market share in the portable music player market.
I'm not at all worried that a large established Japanese company would pull the plug on a long-term business plan without the plan having a chance to mature.
As a long-time Canon user who is also a potential X-E2 buyer, I want to invest in a company that is creating fresh products and is slightly "hungry." That's how Apple was in 1995 when most experts said Apple should just give up and give investors back their money.
The only thing I'm sure of is how much I want to start a Fuji system and have fun.
Sal
This is exactly right and even more so with regard to Fujifilm. They have taken a long-term view and made long-term investments from the beginning of the demise of their film business. Someone earlier in the thread compared them to Kodak (or was it Thom?) and said that Kodak had been just as forward-trhinking as Fujifilm. I don't think so.
Kodak bought a couple of new businesses but never really committed to them in a long-tem fashion - hardly surprising with the pressure for short-term profit-taking in the USA markets. Fujifilm took a strategic look at their resources, realized they had expertise in coatings and chemicals and moved into...cosmetics. It took them years and now their cosmetics line makes them big money.
Fujifilm gives every appearance of a company committed not just to a product line, but to a corporate culture of long-termism. I don't think they will let 18 months of sales results in a recession (from a standing start!) put them off their plan.
As someone pointed out, Nikon does break out camera sales and is unusually transparent about sales numbers.
I am probably correct about Fujifilm. Their >700K figure did not clarify whether the very fine FinePix X100 was an X camera, and whether the not quite so fine (but not FinePix) X10 was as well.
What a read! I don't read the NY Times or the Wall Street Journal. I try to stay away from MSNBC and FOX News. I track down the middle.
I have a Canon, Sony and Fuji. Whichever survives, I'll be covered. I once had an Oldsmobile and a Saturn, and GM "discontinued" both cars. I just drove the Oldsmobile until it blew an engine after 23 years and am still driving the Saturn (11th year). If Canon, Sony or Fuji go bellyup, I'll just use their camera until it breaks. Then, on to the next camera.
I have a Canon, Sony and Fuji. Whichever survives, I'll be covered. I once had an Oldsmobile and a Saturn, and GM "discontinued" both cars. I just drove the Oldsmobile until it blew an engine after 23 years and am still driving the Saturn (11th year). If Canon, Sony or Fuji go bellyup, I'll just use their camera until it breaks. Then, on to the next camera.
BillyInya
Senior Member
The truth of the matter is you could go on and on with what Fuji do. If you've been to a hospital of late chances are you've been inspected or examined behind Fuji made glass/optics (the lens/optics material supplier to Philips Medical).Fuji has also been making the huge lenses for TV studio and remote cameras for 20 years. Most broadcast sports remote truck cameras use Fujinon lenses that run close to $20k each. Their only real competitor in this space is Canon which I rarely see being used in the past few years.I am concerned for Sony too. While Fujifilm is enjoying reasonably healthy profits, for Sony its a very different story ....A company only deserves to survive on its merits. I don't see big or small, only product and market.Very interesting article.
I guess a contributing factor in Fujifilm being in the black while many other manufacturers are struggling with losses, some very worrying like with Sony.
The future still looks murky to me, the rise of the do-it-all mobile phone devices I feel will one day result in there being only a limited number of genuine stand-alone camera manufacturers remaining.
Sony had to buy its photographic division (purchasing Konica Minolta SLR Division because it had no hope of developing and establishing its own) and with their record losses they maybe could just end Sony cameras in one hit.
Fujfilm on the other hand enjoys a 100% genuine photographic heritage and have forged a niche for themselves in the increasingly competitive digital camera industry.
It is the relatively small players I am worried about, like Nikon, Leica and Hasselblad that deserve to survive more than most IMO. I don't care about Sony, it can go back to doing what it does well, making radios, computer game consoles and T.V's. But Nikon, Leica and Hasselblad, like Fujifilm, are the real deal in the world of photographics. There's nothing fake in anything they do - none of them had to "buy" their expertise in photographics, each have earned their right to always be a part of the industry in my opinion.
As Sony makes so many great products I am deeply concerned with its well being, and I think more then any other company at the moment deserves to be a dominant camera player.
Fujifilm make the range of extremely high end lenses for the Hasselblad cameras. They are badged as "Hasselblad" but 100% Fujifilm made. Sadly I can only see Hasselblad's market share continue to be put under pressure.
But on the subject of Fujifilm making Hassleblad lenses, Fuji's cine lenses are regarded as the best in the industry (also the most expensive). The last three Harry Potter films were filmed with Fuji cine lenses and all the big production houses in the US, UK and India use Fuji cine lenses.
Parts of the new Disney Malificent movie was filmed in England early this year and I saw a spread on it and low and behold Fuji logos on the lenses of all the car-size cameras in use. You talk Sony lenses to anyone in that industry and they will have a laughing fit. A typical Fuji cine lens costs more than my house!!
The fact is monster conglomerates like Fuji have entire teams of people to manage and manipulate its finances. They are doing a good job because unlike Sony and other manufacturers of camera/photographic gear Fuji are making a profit and are in a pretty good financial position, even though profits are not as good as they once were.
Developing a completely brand new digital camera line complete with a full range of supporting exceptional quality lenses plus taking sensor technology to the next level better than the old Bayer by creating the X-Trans would represent a prohibitively expensive undertaking for many companies but for Fujifilm it's but a drop in a profitable and healthy Fuji ocean.
I honestly believe Leica will be a survivor because it knows what it does well and sticks to it without allowing itself to be influenced by "trends" that come and go. Risky but its worked for them so far.
Fujifilm were a hair's breath away from buying Olympus not long ago. I fully expect that will eventually happen. This I feel is how the industry is headed. The bigger players will swallow up the little ones that are struggling. Heck, Fujifilm might even buy the Sony camera division if Sony can't stop spiraling downwards.
One thing is for certain ... in ten years time the landscape will be very different to how it is now.
Lawrence Fleischer
Well-known member
Good point
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum