Do Fuji still make top cameras ?

Terrywoodenpic said:
As does Fuji, but they only make a tiny fraction of what they once did. And mostly only higher end models.
The numbers are hardly enough to bother the statisticians.
Click to expand...

That may be the case but there are still enough compacts and bridges for enthusiasts who want something better than a smartphone.
 
sphexx said:
I read recently ( no link :() that in their camera division the majority of the profit comes from the instant cameras!
Click to expand...


At a guess, the CAMERAS themselves are probably a very small part of their profit but the consumables are a relatively large part! In much the same way that inkjet printers are dirt cheap but ink and (good) paper are anything but...
 
I have used Fuji over the years, I started with an X-M1, it was a lovely little camera. I upgraded that to an X-T10, which I still have. I enjoyed both those cameras more than a Canon 7D I was using at the time.

It got to a point that I had to decide between Fuji and Canon. Canon won out, as I was quite heavily invested in Canon glass and I didn't have an awful lot of Fuji glass. My decision wasn't based on the actual bodies per say, it was because of the glass I owned. I evetually bought a 5Div, which I love but I still have my T10 and still love using it occasionally, that little sensor has a magic all of its own.

The T10 was my last Fuji camera to date and despite loving my 5D, I remember my Fuji days fondly. My T10 sits in a drawer just now, for the reasons below.

In answer to your question, I am sure Fuji still make top cameras. If I could get my head into 2 sysytems, I would run Fuji alongside my Canon gear but I choose to run 2 Canon bodies now, just for simplicity when it comes to button layout and menus.

Fuji make very splendid cameras. (y)
 
Last edited:
ShinySideUp said:
Until they make phones as physically easy to handle as compact cameras then phones will never take over as anything other than a Snapchat, Facebook, et al. device. They could put lenses and processing in them that would rival a Leica or Hasselblad but while most of one's concentration is applied to not dropping the bloody thing on the ground it's all a bit pointless. I have a phone that has a very reasonable camera in it but it is mostly used for taking pictures of the dogs while on a walk, for all other photography I use a 'real' camera, be it a compact or DSLR.. Of course, if they made a phone as easy to handle as a camera it would be a camera that also acted as a phone....now there's an idea, a DLSR on which you could make phone calls!
Click to expand...
Missing the point - by miles.

The vast majority of compacts used to be bought by people who weren't interested in photography but did have a need to take pictures sometimes. And for those people, a phone does a good enough job.

There was, and still is a small market for compact cameras built for photographers who wanted a convenient camera without the hassle of carrying the gear we're often burdened with, and also for people who haven't been sucked into the smartphone culture.

But those markets are tiny compared to the traditional market.
 
Apropos to not a lot. A few years ago whilst sat in an airport I watched a middle aged lady buy a camera. I think she picked it because of the colour :D A good enough reason I suppose. A while ago my then GF who was an online seller bought a batch of pink compacts and they sold, pdq.
 
ShinySideUp said:
Until they make phones as physically easy to handle as compact cameras then phones will never take over as anything other than a Snapchat, Facebook, et al. device. They could put lenses and processing in them that would rival a Leica or Hasselblad but while most of one's concentration is applied to not dropping the bloody thing on the ground it's all a bit pointless. I have a phone that has a very reasonable camera in it but it is mostly used for taking pictures of the dogs while on a walk, for all other photography I use a 'real' camera, be it a compact or DSLR.. Of course, if they made a phone as easy to handle as a camera it would be a camera that also acted as a phone....now there's an idea, a DLSR on which you could make phone calls!
Click to expand...
Good point. I use my smartphone on a tripod for You Tube videos and it makes a heck of a difference. Not used it a great deal for still images though, I'll have to try it.
 
Plain Nev said:
Interesting. Tell me more.
Click to expand...
I think @ancient_mariner is referring to the early Fuji digital cameras but Fuji made quite few exceptional film cameras (the “Texas Leica” etc) including the Hasselblad badged x pan.
 
Phil V said:
Missing the point - by miles.

The vast majority of compacts used to be bought by people who weren't interested in photography but did have a need to take pictures sometimes. And for those people, a phone does a good enough job.

There was, and still is a small market for compact cameras built for photographers who wanted a convenient camera without the hassle of carrying the gear we're often burdened with, and also for people who haven't been sucked into the smartphone culture.

But those markets are tiny compared to the traditional market.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by missing the point (by miles!?). What point? Are you saying that it's a camera phone or a high-end DSLR and compacts don't fit in anywhere?

These days, the vast, vast majority of camera phones are bought by people who have no interest in photography. Every phone has a camera, no camera has a phone. Look through Flickr, how many of the best (or even not so good) pictures were taken on a phone? Personally, I have no idea and I'm not going to try and count them either but if someone does require a job for the next thousand years I'd still feel comfortable guessing that 99% were taken on a 'real' camera be that film, DSLR or compact.

Fuji still make compacts as do Nikon, Canon, Olympus etc. and I don't see that changing anytime soon while camera phones are so high quality but so ergonomically crap.
 
Last edited:
sphexx said:
I think @ancient_mariner is referring to the early Fuji digital cameras but Fuji made quite few exceptional film cameras (the “Texas Leica” etc) including the Hasselblad badged x pan.
Click to expand...

Ah, thanks for that. I've got a few Fujica's knocking about and got quite confused. :p
 
ShinySideUp said:
Not sure what you mean by missing the point (by miles!?). What point? Are you saying that it's a camera phone or a high-end DSLR and compacts don't fit in anywhere?

These days, the vast, vast majority of camera phones are bought by people who have no interest in photography. Every phone has a camera, no camera has a phone. Look through Flickr, how many of the best (or even not so good) pictures were taken on a phone? Personally, I have no idea and I'm not going to try and count them either but if someone does require a job for the next thousand years I'd still feel comfortable guessing that 99% were taken on a 'real' camera be that film, DSLR or compact.

Fuji still make compacts as do Nikon, Canon, Olympus etc. and I don't see that changing anytime soon while camera phones are so high quality but so ergonomically crap.
Click to expand...
That's the point - going straight past you again unseen.
Of course phone cameras are crap - and from a photographers PoV the image quality is crap too (completely irrelevant)

But here's the salient fact. 98% of the worlds population aren't photographers, they don't want to be photographers and just need a simple to use device that'll take an OK picture. 40, 30 or 20 years ago, to do that meant going into a camera shop to be patronised by a salesman to buy a compact camera.

Nowadays, their email, social media, and gaming device also takes pictures and movies. You might not like them, I don't like them, but the simple fact is that for every photo taken today with a DSLR there'll have been tens or hundreds of thousands taken on phones.

40 years ago as a keen photographer, I took more photos (with an SLR) than all of my family put together. Nowadays my kids will take more pictures in a day than I take in a month.
 
Phil V said:
That's the point - going straight past you again unseen.
Of course phone cameras are crap - and from a photographers PoV the image quality is crap too (completely irrelevant)

But here's the salient fact. 98% of the worlds population aren't photographers, they don't want to be photographers and just need a simple to use device that'll take an OK picture. 40, 30 or 20 years ago, to do that meant going into a camera shop to be patronised by a salesman to buy a compact camera.

Nowadays, their email, social media, and gaming device also takes pictures and movies. You might not like them, I don't like them, but the simple fact is that for every photo taken today with a DSLR there'll have been tens or hundreds of thousands taken on phones.

40 years ago as a keen photographer, I took more photos (with an SLR) than all of my family put together. Nowadays my kids will take more pictures in a day than I take in a month.
Click to expand...
Phil V said:
Missing the point - by miles.

The vast majority of compacts used to be bought by people who weren't interested in photography but did have a need to take pictures sometimes. And for those people, a phone does a good enough job.

There was, and still is a small market for compact cameras built for photographers who wanted a convenient camera without the hassle of carrying the gear we're often burdened with, and also for people who haven't been sucked into the smartphone culture.

But those markets are tiny compared to the traditional market.
Click to expand...

Your posts would make a valid and interesting point were it not for the demeaning comments highlighted above in red. Why some people on this forum can't just put over their point of view without adding sarcastic, point-scoring expressions is beyond me.

Ignore those elements in red above and you make a reasoned argument, perhaps we can continue in that vein?
 
Last edited:
Plain Nev said:
Interesting. Tell me more.
Click to expand...


Their S3Pro was based on the Nikon F80 (a film body) and the S5 was a D200 in a Fuji overcoat. There were a few slight differences between the S5 and the D200 but they were mainly firmware and battery grip variations.
 
Hi, the only Fuji I had and still have :


Fuji-DSC09710-a7r2-z50ma_bearbeitet-1.jpg



Fuji-DSC09709-a7r2-z50ma_bearbeitet-1.jpg


Fuji made and make great cameras. - So, why do I not have one? When Fuji brought out the APS-C bodies I used to adapt Leica M mount lenses, which did not work well with
the Fuji bodies, but somewhat better with SONY's.

I bought myself up the SONY chain (NEX-3, NEX-5, NEX-6, A7, A7R2) and was quite happy. Meanwhile, I bought SONY native lenses, too.

Additionally, I use NIKONs (D500, 850) and Leica M9. I have my requirements covered, I think.

I find the FUJI GFX series interesting, but too bulky for my taste. I would not like using them very much, knowing me.

But if FUJI introduced a 24x36 body, I might be tempted ... ---
 
Nod said:
At a guess, the CAMERAS themselves are probably a very small part of their profit but the consumables are a relatively large part! In much the same way that inkjet printers are dirt cheap but ink and (good) paper are anything but...
Click to expand...
Inkjet printers have changed. All the major brands now have printers with built-in tanks so you pay a realistic price for the hardware and the ink is cheap. A full set of four inks for my Epson ET-4700 costs about £30 and will last for several thousand prints.
 
justpix said:
Hi, the only Fuji I had and still have :


View attachment 355015



View attachment 355014


Fuji made and make great cameras. - So, why do I not have one? When Fuji brought out the APS-C bodies I used to adapt Leica M mount lenses, which did not work well with
the Fuji bodies, but somewhat better with SONY's.

I bought myself up the SONY chain (NEX-3, NEX-5, NEX-6, A7, A7R2) and was quite happy. Meanwhile, I bought SONY native lenses, too.

Additionally, I use NIKONs (D500, 850) and Leica M9. I have my requirements covered, I think.

I find the FUJI GFX series interesting, but too bulky for my taste. I would not like using them very much, knowing me.

But if FUJI introduced a 24x36 body, I might be tempted ... ---
Click to expand...

I would agree that Fuji made some outstanding Medium format film cameras. both for themselves and for others. ( Hasselblad and Polaroid in particular)

However they have made their position in the digital world quite clear, that they have no intention of competing in the Full frame pool.

When it comes to actual images they have cameras capable of matching the results from any other maker.

Personal preferences for the equipment that we choose to use, is largely that, purely Personal. and based more on handling qualities and perceptions rather than demonstrable results.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
I would agree that Fuji made some outstanding Medium format film cameras. both for themselves and for others. ( Hasselblad and Polaroid in particular)

However they have made their position in the digital world quite clear, that they have no intention of competing in the Full frame pool.

When it comes to actual images they have cameras capable of matching the results from any other maker.

Personal preferences for the equipment that we choose to use, is largely that purely Personal. and based more on handling qualities and perceptions rather than demonstrable results.
Click to expand...

Hi, I could not agree more. - Being a hobbyist, I follow my whims, trying to be happy ...

Cameras are complex devices with many properties. And based on individual assessments of their realization, there are many right decisions ...

I am happy with my toys (at present) ...
 
Last edited:
Isn't "Fuji" the Japanese word for "mountain"?
 
Nod said:
Isn't "Fuji" the Japanese word for "mountain"?
Click to expand...
Nobody knows! According to Wiki some say that the name of that that thing we call Mount Fuji comes from characters meaning “without equal” which I suspect might have been in the mind of the company namers — it is quite apposition currently now Kodak has almost gone.
 
Nod said:
Their S3Pro was based on the Nikon F80 (a film body) and the S5 was a D200 in a Fuji overcoat. There were a few slight differences between the S5 and the D200 but they were mainly firmware and battery grip variations.
Click to expand...

Well, I never knew that. That sort of change over period is a bit of a grey area for me.
 
Dryce said:
it's about being comfortable with the kit and getting results that satisfy you.
Click to expand...
Dryce said:
In that sense for some Fuji are a destination that is reached after a journey.
Click to expand...
Well said Dryce, this sums my feelings up about my current situation. I've owned cameras and lenses from almost all the major brands and for all sorts of reasons have swapped but in my hands my Fuji XH-1 feels right and I've not really paid any attention to what else is available although I will look closely to the soon-to-be-released X-H2 as there are a few improvements that I'd like. I rarely do any paid photography work so for me it's a source of pleasure so a camera system is something I have to be comfortable with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top