Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
6 Days Ago   #31
Pentaxian
Not a Number's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 5,490
According Wired Polaroid's sales of film and cameras in 1991 amounted to just under 3 billion USD. That's 5.4 billion inflation adjusted to 2017 USD.

The value of the social ritual of taking the photo, waiting for it to develop, passing it around and finally handing/gifting it over to someone cannot be estimated. Certainly more valuable than failed promises of an emailed copy.

6 Days Ago   #32
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Durham, England
Posts: 10,487
QuoteOriginally posted by Not a Number Quote
The value of the social ritual of taking the photo, waiting for it to develop, passing it around and finally handing/gifting it over to someone cannot be estimated. Certainly more valuable than failed promises of an emailed copy.
Agreed. Which underpins my original response in this thread:

QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Cell phones and Fuji Instax cameras have something in common, in that neither is aimed squarely at advanced hobbyist or professional users. They're for casual consumer photography, which could almost be viewed as a seperate market...
Most (not all, but most) of those buying Instax cameras are not hobbyist or professional photographers, but regular folks (I'll go a stage further and say that the majority will be kids, teens, or in their early-to-mid twenties). They're buying something for its social function, and not as a serious photographic tool. They may just as well buy a friendship-bracelet-making set.

That aside, I'm frankly amazed by how many Instax units are being sold, and as the OP has mentioned, it's a great source of funds for their MILC development.
6 Days Ago   #33
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 587
Except that no one emails photos, they share them to dozens or hundreds (or thousands) of people on social media.
QuoteOriginally posted by Not a Number Quote
According Wired Polaroid's sales of film and cameras in 1991 amounted to just under 3 billion USD. That's 5.4 billion inflation adjusted to 2017 USD.

The value of the social ritual of taking the photo, waiting for it to develop, passing it around and finally handing/gifting it over to someone cannot be estimated. Certainly more valuable than failed promises of an emailed copy.


---------- Post added 12-06-18 at 04:16 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Agreed. Which underpins my original response in this thread:



Most (not all, but most) of those buying Instax cameras are not hobbyist or professional photographers, but regular folks (I'll go a stage further and say that the majority will be kids, teens, or in their early-to-mid twenties). They're buying something for its social function, and not as a serious photographic tool. They may just as well buy a friendship-bracelet-making set.

That aside, I'm frankly amazed by how many Instax units are being sold, and as the OP has mentioned, it's a great source of funds for their MILC development.
I'm amazed because I can't say I've ever seen one in the wild.
6 Days Ago   #34
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Durham, England
Posts: 10,487
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
I'm amazed because I can't say I've ever seen one in the wild.
Me neither.

I suspect most Instax cameras are bought as Christmas, birthday or "just because" novelty presents, or impulse / curiosity purchases, accompanied by two or three packs of film. They'll get used for a short while... days or weeks (until the film packs run out), or in fewer cases, some months. Then, most of them will be relegated to a cupboard, never to see the light of day again - especially when the younger generation using them realise that the image quality and filters from their phones and Instagram offer far more creativity.

I'd be really interested to see a country-specific, month-by-month break-down of the number of Instax cameras sold versus the number of film packs sold (not to retailers, but to the general public). Then, an average number of film packs bought by each camera owner, calculated as the film packs sold divided by cameras sold. I could be completely wrong, here, but I suspect that would be a very telling set of numbers

6 Days Ago   #35
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,131
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Me neither.

I suspect most Instax cameras are bought as Christmas, birthday or "just because" novelty presents, or impulse / curiosity purchases, accompanied by two or three packs of film. They'll get used for a short while... days or weeks (until the film packs run out), or in fewer cases, some months. Then, most of them will be relegated to a cupboard, never to see the light of day again - especially when the younger generation using them realise that the image quality and filters from their phones and Instagram offer far more creativity.

I'd be really interested to see a country-specific, month-by-month break-down of the number of Instax cameras sold versus the number of film packs sold (not to retailers, but to the general public). Then, an average number of film packs bought by each camera owner, calculated as the film packs sold divided by cameras sold. I could be completely wrong, here, but I suspect that would be a very telling set of numbers
You may be underestimating the number of these that Lomography practitioners buy. I would think that Fuji prices the cameras and film to get the more dedicated user to come back again. Development costs (no pun intended) canít be that great now, and there may not be any royalties to pay on the system (correct me if Iím wrong there).
6 Days Ago   #36
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Durham, England
Posts: 10,487
QuoteOriginally posted by RobA_Oz Quote
You may be underestimating the number of these that Lomography practitioners buy. I would think that Fuji prices the cameras and film to get the more dedicated user to come back again. Development costs (no pun intended) can’t be that great now, and there may not be any royalties to pay on the system (correct me if I’m wrong there).
You could well be right. Yet, I still don't see any of them when I'm out and about. In fact, even when I lived in central London pre Winter 2014, I saw very few "Lomographers" (despite being one myself, sort of, a few years before that). However, I do now (and did then) see plenty of people taking photos with mobile phones, and fewer (but still plenty) using mirrorless or DSLR cameras. Maybe all the Instax users are taking photos at home or in their gardens. Or maybe they've put those cameras back in the cupboard? I'd still love to see how the film pack sales stack up against the bodies
6 Days Ago   #37
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 587
QuoteOriginally posted by RobA_Oz Quote
You may be underestimating the number of these that Lomography practitioners buy. I would think that Fuji prices the cameras and film to get the more dedicated user to come back again. Development costs (no pun intended) canít be that great now, and there may not be any royalties to pay on the system (correct me if Iím wrong there).
How many "Lomography practitioners" are there? My assumption is that's a pretty small niche of enthusiast photographers, which isn't a huge niche by itself.


But then again, if three days ago you'd asked me how many Instax cameras Fuji sells a year I would have been off on the low side by a couple orders of magnitude. Since I've literally never seen one that wasn't still in its plastic packaging material on a lonely display in WalMart, and I don't personally know of anyone who ever even talked about buying one. And my own calculations were that $1 a picture plus $50-200 for a camera to get poor 1970s nostalgia photos is insane. So I'm missing something here.
6 Days Ago   #38
Pentaxian
bobmaxja's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Laval, Quebec Canada
Posts: 1,848
I just completed a 15 weeks trip of Canada and US National park, I saw none. But I saw tons of Phones and Tablet . My wife took some photo with her phone and honestly, they were great, so much that I use some in my blog. Dont underestimate the value of these tool. Today as we are back home(She dont indicate we are not home ), she put one of the photo on her Facebook page and it's incredible what the reaction was and I really love that photo myself.
I use my KP most of the time and we use our Lumix ZS100 many time when we done hiking and most photos were really good.

Camera are tools and each of them can do great thing at the right time.

6 Days Ago   #39
Pentaxian
Not a Number's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 5,490
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
Except that no one emails photos, they share them to dozens or hundreds (or thousands) of people on social media.
Wanna look in my mail box on how many photos people email me? I don't use social media. Neither do many of my family members and friends. Some of us still believe in a forgotten concept of privacy.
6 Days Ago   #40
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,968
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote

I'm amazed because I can't say I've ever seen one in the wild.
That does not mean much though.

I have never seen even a single macro photographer or macro lens out in the wild.
I have never seen a wedding photographer "out in the wild".
Yet they are said to exist.


The instant cameras produce very small format prints, which are not good for landscapes but very good for people close by. Basically it is "portraits only".

Reading comments from users those cameras are for parties, weddings, other social events and similar things where you join friends. That typically would be indoors.
So unless you spend a lot of time indoors on hip young people events, chances are you'll never see one.
They wont be taking images of the Eiffel tower.

---------- Post added 7th Dec 2018 at 07:56 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
that $1 a picture plus $50-200 for a camera to get poor 1970s nostalgia photos is insane
I guess it is perception.

You can also see it as $1 for a physical memory of that fun moment with friend X; without time wasted for sitting down on PC or smartphone to develop an image and then having to do the extra step to print it with a much more costly printer.

And it "is insane" to spend 4-digit numbers of money on electronic toys which only produce bits and bytes and you have to spend hours to get to the real image and invest more to print it. A huge PITA. The results then are not better in any meaningful way. The memory of the fun moment will not be any better, just because it has 1600 lines/mm.
6 Days Ago   #41
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,706
If I were guessing, I would think that it has more to do with the coolness factor and nostalgia. If you had a Polaroid camera when you were younger (I did when I was a kid, although I never could afford film) then maybe this sort of thing takes you back.

As I said before, I just don't see it as a real memory making device, because the photos aren't really scrapbookable and there is no good way of storing them. People find shoe boxes full of old photos and will look through them, but my guess is that if you find a shoe box full of faded instax photos you just pitch it -- the quality wasn't great in the beginning and they aren't exactly archival with regard to ink and paper used to make them.
5 Days Ago   #42
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 587
QuoteOriginally posted by Not a Number Quote
Wanna look in my mail box on how many photos people email me? I don't use social media. Neither do many of my family members and friends. Some of us still believe in a forgotten concept of privacy.
My parents and grandfather and aunts and uncles and siblings mostly don't have social media accounts, either. So I post photos to online repositories like Google Photos or Flickr and send them links. They can see dozens or hundreds of photos and not have to download emails with large attachments for a few pictures.

They basically don't send me any pictures via any method. My Dad used to email pictures years ago, but he finds it challenging to shrink them down to emailable size.
5 Days Ago - 1 Like   #43
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,788
QuoteOriginally posted by beholder3 Quote
If you take a snapshot camera like the Nikon D500, the estimation is that they sold 33,000 units in one full year (the first one when sales are highest).
Fujifilm sold 3,500,000 instax film cameras in the last half year, expect roundabout 7,000,000 film cameras in one full year.

That is like 212 instax customers per one D500 customer.

And it is still 2 instax customers per one Sony-whatever-digital-camera customer (including all cheap mass market compacts).


And Fujifilm is making twice as much money on film cameras and film than their ILC stuff including lenses. 57 billions of yen per quarter.
This might have something to do with the Instax being alone in it's market segment while the Nikon D500 is just one product in a very large market segment.
5 Days Ago   #44
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,968
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
This might have something to do with the Instax being alone in it's market segment while the Nikon D500 is just one product in a very large market segment.
I do agree that Fuji probably owns the market to 95%, but there is two current Polaroid models and one Leica as well.
Plus the refurbished old Polaroid market.
5 Days Ago   #45
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,788
QuoteOriginally posted by beholder3 Quote
I do agree that Fuji probably owns the market to 95%, but there is two current Polaroid models and one Leica as well.
Plus the refurbished old Polaroid market.
OK, and what market share in digital SLR cameras is owned by the D500? What you are doing is comparing a camera that has a dominant market share in it's niche with just another camera in it's niche.
I am surprised by the sales numbers the Instax is generating.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
billion, cameras, customer, customers, d500, film, fujifilm, fun, image, indoors, instax, lot, medium format, memory, moment, people, photo industry, photographer, photographs, photography, photos, post, print, sales, stories, time, usd
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SLR sales versus digital beholder3 Photographic Industry and Professionals 18 05-15-2018 11:20 AM
Takumar 500mm versus SMC varient versus DFA 150-450 clickclick Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 04-12-2018 02:44 PM
Analog Film versus Digital Photography Gerard_Dirks Pentax Film SLR Discussion 66 11-17-2017 05:02 AM
Question about film versus digital sharpness mtansley Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 20 03-29-2012 10:01 PM
1.4x TC + 55-300 versus 1.7x TC + 55-300 versus 55-300mm + cropping. Pentaxor Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 09-05-2009 02:41 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:13 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top