Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses

Fujifilm Once Struggled To Sell Cameras. Now, It Can't Keep Up With Demand (msn.com) 38

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fujifilm Once Struggled To Sell Cameras. Now, It Can't Keep Up With Demand More

Fujifilm Once Struggled To Sell Cameras. Now, It Can't Keep Up With Demand

Comments Filter:

  • I dunno about the X100... (Score:4, Informative)

    by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Friday June 28, 2024 @12:07PM (#64585449) Homepage Journal
    I dunno about the model being talked about here, an APS-C model I believe...

    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!!!

    • 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)

      by Gavino ( 560149 )
      There’s actually not that much you can do with GFX near-medium-format. Studio portrait work is best. Too slow for sports. Too big and too conspicuous for street work. Wide-angle landscape is OK so long as it’s all Ansel Adam’s style wide angled and with limited foreground, or else you’re focus stacking due to the shallow depth of field. There’s also no real telephoto options. Mark Denney - a huge content creator on YouTube - explained in the last week why he’s dumping Fuj

      • Thereâ(TM)s actually not that much you can do with GFX near-medium-format. Studio portrait work is best. Too slow for sports. Too big and too conspicuous for street work. Wide-angle landscape is OK so long as itâ(TM)s all Ansel Adamâ(TM)s style wide angled and with limited foreground, or else youâ(TM)re focus stacking due to the shallow depth of field. Thereâ(TM)s also no real telephoto options. Mark Denney - a huge content creator on YouTube - explained in the last week why he

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by slaker ( 53818 )

      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

      • 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.

        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

    • I dipped my toe in the GFX world late last year, getting a used GFX 50R with a 35-70mm lens, I've been blown away by the quality. I just added two new lenses to my kit and plan on upgrading to the 100S II later in the year.

  • I don't understand why (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Friday June 28, 2024 @12:42PM (#64585553)

    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.

    • 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"

      • 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

        • 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

    • Don't get me wrong, they're great cameras, but for most, it's largely a fashion accessory.

    • 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)

      by linuxguy ( 98493 )

      > 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)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      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)

    by methano ( 519830 ) on Friday June 28, 2024 @01:06PM (#64585595)
    You'd think this article might actually have a picture of the camera under discussion.
  • There really is too much cash in the world right now, isn't there?

  • For a camera?

    I think we've just solved why Gen Z can't afford a house.

    • Everything costs more now, grandpa.

      • 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.

        • Which models do you reccomend?

          • 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

  • 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.

    • What part of “TikTok Video” did you not get? 16mm was over in the 80s

      • 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)

    by MpVpRb ( 1423381 ) on Friday June 28, 2024 @01:53PM (#64585695)

    ...with a bit of tech thrown in
    I prefer my Sony A7R IV, but some people prefer to look cool and retro

  • They'll get greedy and that'll be the end of it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Computer Science is merely the post-Turing decline in formal systems theory.

Close