
Fujifilm Once Struggled To Sell Cameras. Now, It Can't Keep Up With Demand (msn.com) 38
Fujifilm's X100 digital camera, once a niche product, has become an unexpected cash cow, driven by surging demand from young social media users. The retro-styled $1,599 camera has boosted Fujifilm's imaging division to its biggest profit contributor, accounting for 37% of operating profit in fiscal 2023, up from 27% the previous year.
Despite doubling production in China for the latest model, Fujifilm struggles to meet demand. The camera's popularity on platforms like TikTok has transformed it into a coveted accessory. The surge marks an unexpected reversal for Fujifilm, which had pivoted towards healthcare after the decline of traditional film photography.
Despite doubling production in China for the latest model, Fujifilm struggles to meet demand. The camera's popularity on platforms like TikTok has transformed it into a coveted accessory. The surge marks an unexpected reversal for Fujifilm, which had pivoted towards healthcare after the decline of traditional film photography.
I dunno about the X100... (Score:4, Informative)
BUT...I am a BIG fan of their digital medium format GFX cameras!!
So much you can do with those monsters, and lately, they are actually fairly reasonable in price for what you get!!!
Re: (Score:3)
Really an abundance of nice imaging products available nowdays, like you mentioned getting a medium format sensor body with 102MP for $3k is sortof amazing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the sensor readout on the GFX kind of limits how it can be used to landscape or portrait work vs something like action or concert shooting, and Fuji doesn't have the greatest selection of native lenses compared to the usual suspects in Canon, Sony and I guess also Nikon-land.
I do quite like the Instax line. That sounds insane, because I'm a guy who will genuinely walk around Chicago or Manhattan with a 12 grand worth of camera kit about my body for a normal evening in the city (I'm the offici
Re: (Score:2)
Please see my post above this...
With the IBIS and in lens stabilization...while I'll agree that sports shooting is not it's long suit...there's no problem with concert or other low light shooting on these cameras.
There
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Why? (Score:1)
Re: Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as general-purpose mirrorless cameras,
On Canon's side, EF-M was officially put to pasture last year and replaced with APS-C RF-mount bodies, with the flagship being the R7. EF-M is still out there but it's more or less feature equivalent to Rebel DSLRs, missing out on the amazing autofocus found on the R-series bodies, but still a solid option for adapting EF lenses if you've got them.
Canon basically has 24, 30 and 45MP sensors but even the soon to be released R1 and R5ii are kind of frustrating for people looking for a do-everything body, especially if do-everything includes video features; Canon seems to want to make sports photographers happy above everything, but also has some really crazy innovative RF lenses like a 28-70/2 and 24-105/2.8. that almost anybody would want to have.
Sony has amazing high-resolution sensors and trades blows with Canon for autofocus performance. Nothing else is in the same ballpark. It's also a better overall option if video is a primary concern. IMO, it doesn't have the depth of bench in the lens department that Canon does, especially for long telephoto zooms, but Sony also lets Sigma and Tamron do whatever they want, and as such has some amazing and inexpensive native lens options. Sony bodies are also tiny; I switched out a Panasonic MFT for an A6400 (APS-C) and the Sony was the smaller camera.
Nikon is the perpetual 3rd place guy. I mostly associate it with long zooms that the wildlife guys like, and also a lot of old guys who swear up and down they're never giving up their SLR cameras .Their mirrorless bodies don't have the same autofocus magic as Canon or Sony (e.g. I've had the AF on a Z8 focus on raindrops on a window instead of the human being on the other side of the windowpane. Granted, that still made a nice shot). Hopefully, it'll pull up once it starts integrating Red camera tech. Nikon uses Sony sensors and I've been thinking of it more as a lens company than anything else for a while.
Panasonic MAY have recently gotten better but IIRC most of its cameras are tiny Micro Four Thirds sensors and now full frame L-mount. MFT-everything is little, but that means the bodies and lenses are small, too. Panasonic in particular has more advanced video features but is known to be somewhat bad at autofocus. L mount is a new thing that's shared with Leica and Sigma and overall I don't hear a whole lot about it.
Fuji makes chunky cameras with either APS-C or "bigger-than-full frame" sensors. Either way, they read out relatively slowly, so they're not amazing for anything that would make someone use a fast shutter speed, and they don't have many wide aperture lenses or long telephotos, either. The hipster thing is that Fuji has a bunch of in-camera processing presets that can emulate film grain. On the other hand, so do Capture One, DxO Photolab and Lightroom Classic.
OM Digital is the shambling corpse of Olympus, which used to be the sort of nicer all around MFT camera compared to whatever Panasonic was doing.
Pentax still makes DSLRs. I don't think it has made a mirrorless camera yet. Blackmagic Design makes extremely video-centric micro four thirds cameras, but I've never seen one out in the world. And there are also companies like Leica and Hasselblad that sell their more exotic bodies to people who can afford them.
Re: Why? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The Fujifilm X100 (I'm more familiar with the X100VI since I researched it recently) has a APS-C sensor (23.6x15.6mm). Which is bigger than the 1" (13x8 mm) Sony RX100 sensor. But at the end of the day, all these cameras aim for similar specs for a similar price range and you have to spend a lot of time weighing the pros and cons for your particular use case to make the best decision. (sorry, that's no help to anyone looking to buy a camera!)
Subjective, but I think the X100 series are easier to use than any
It looks like a Leica... (Score:2)
I don't understand why (Score:4, Interesting)
For amateurs, phone cameras are good enough in most conditions. It seems it'd make more sense to market a phone that docked with a lens and shutter system to use the phone as a digital backplane for the mid-range stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, the camera gear is fun but it's like 5% of taking a quality photo. If you don't train your eye and understand lighting and framing it won't matter how expensive a camera you have.
And of course the old adage of "the best camera in the world is the one you have on you"
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who doesn't know what they're doing and is rarely taking photos:
1) rule of thirds
2) don't backlight
3) don't shoot further than your flash's reach
4) include a person
5) take a bunch of shots and keep the best
I follow those guidelines and I seem to do better than most who don't. Over 30 years I've actually taken a couple of photos that look like they were done professionally. Of course, those were the two where I didn't follow the guidelines but they turned out anyway... But the guidelines stop me
Re: (Score:2)
Yup that's basiaclly the standard advice and like you mentioned, just follow those and keep shooting and you'll get a feel for what worked and what didn't, it's a practice, practice, practice skill. With how good phones are with low-light now people just wreck shots with the flash sometimes too.
I think even if phones just turned the 2/3 grid on by default everyone photos would improve by default. It's one of the things i've noticed about AI generated pictures is it always seems to center-frame it's subjec
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Phone cameras on average take far *better* photos than film cameras, especially in low light. Back in the day, I tried high ISO films that enabled low-light photography. But they resulted in grainy prints with poor color. Cell phone cameras are nothing short of amazing, by comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
> For amateurs, phone cameras are good enough in most conditions.
I used to be one of those that carried my DSLR with me almost everywhere. Sensors in phone cameras are too small. And I thought they would never be able to get decent pictures in low light. And then computational photography arrived on the scene and blew my socks off. Now it is very rare for me to pick up my DSLR. Computational photography has completely changed the game. Sure the bulky DSLR are better. But, for vast vast majority of
Re: (Score:2)
I was looking at the Fujifilm x100v, but they were unavailable at the time. I already have the very best phone camera on the market (Pixel 8 Pro), but the x100v was still a step up in many scenarios.
The larger sensor and optics can't be entirely matched by software on the phone. Particularly at night, the phone has to stack multiple images over the space of a few seconds, where as the x100v can capture more than enough light in a fraction of a second. The difference is visible in sharpness and noise. Don't
Pictures? (Score:3)
Re: Pictures? (Score:2)
$1600 for something my phone can do? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But the tones are so much "warmer"!
Sixteen hundred bucks? (Score:2, Troll)
For a camera?
I think we've just solved why Gen Z can't afford a house.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I make my living as a photographer, whipper-snapper. A pro quality camera with better specs can be had for a third of that price new, even less used/refurbished.
This is a luxury item for trust fund kids.
Re: Sixteen hundred bucks? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a Nikon guy. I currently shoot a D5 (with a D3s as a second, backup body) which is significantly more costly than the Fuji in this article, but I have a use case that justifies it. For newcomers who think they will be serious, I currently recommend the D750, as the current sweet spot for price, durability, quality, and feature set. Available between $400 and $650, depending on used or new and how used. Or the Canon or Sony Alpha equivalent -- I don't know those brands as well.
If you MUST have a rang
Maybe GenZ should explore film? (Score:2)
There's a lot of really cool looking retro rangefinder film cameras available for a fraction of the cost on ebay. Look for Nikon S series or early Leica.
My daughter shoots with an ancient Nikon FE. It's not a rangefinder, but it has a nice retro look.
I just picked up a working Nikon F4s for $180. I love the thing.
Re: (Score:2)
What part of “TikTok Video” did you not get? 16mm was over in the 80s
Re: (Score:2)
35mm but ok. TikTok, I get it, but there is a movement among Gen Z back to film. It's retro.
For tiktok videos, you don't really need anything other than a ring light and the cell phone you already own. This camera is for people with trust funds.
It's fashion (Score:3)
...with a bit of tech thrown in
I prefer my Sony A7R IV, but some people prefer to look cool and retro
Temporary (Score:2)
They'll get greedy and that'll be the end of it.