[Alex645]

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.
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.

First, I wouldn't call the Nikon D500 a snapshot camera. It retails for about $1900 for the body only. If the retailer makes 20% on the sale, that means the Nikon sells it to them for about $1500. I have no idea what the cost of making that camera is, but let's assume it's about half that, or $750. So Nikon makes $750/unit x 33,000 units or nearly 25 million/year on this one model. This does not include batteries, flash units, lenses, etc, that is sold at point-of-sale, but also over many years.

Fujifilm has about 3 models of Instax ranging from $60-$200, with the mid range model at $120. If the retailer makes 20% on the sale, that means Fujifilm sells it to them for about $96. If Fujifilm's mark up is 100%, like with the math on the DSLR, then they make $48/unit. I don't think you can assume that the first half of this year sales will be the same as the last half of last year sales, due to the holidays. So perhaps 5 million in one year. 5 million x $48 = $240 million. So tens times the D500.

But how many models does Nikon make? At B&H, for example, currently 17 DSLRs, 2 mirrorless, and 8 point-and-shoot. What is the profit on the sale of all those models and the peripheral sales of lenses and accessories? Yes, Fujifilm sells more than the Instax, but I'm just saying it's a bit more complicated. And what is 57 billion yen per quarter? That comes out to over 2 billion USD per year. Are you saying that is their net profit on Instax?

[BigMackCam]

I've often thought of getting my elderly uncle an Instax for Christmas. He always had a Polaroid when I was a kid. But he's on very limited Social Security income and it would be hard for him to spend almost $1 a shot.

And if you assume that not every shot taken will be a good one, the cost of "keepers" rises considerably

[aurele]

And if you assume that not every shot taken will be a good one, the cost of "keepers" rises considerably

indeed, but you take less pictures too.

Instant photos are like an object : the picture in itself isn't fully all it's about. You like the physical object as a reminder of moments.

With digital picture, you can snap a lot, and you look at it more about aestheticism, than the object (if you ever print it, btw).

[BigMackCam]

indeed, but you take less pictures too.

Sure But the same is true when using any film camera, right?

Instant photos are like an object : the picture in itself isn't fully all it's about. You like the physical object as a reminder of moments.

I'll admit, there's a certain something to an instant photo as an object, as you suggest. I just find the quality of the photos to be extremely niche in their appeal (but that's a personal opinion, of course). The picture may not be the only important aspect, but it has to hold some value - and if the quality is really poor (as is often the case with these instant film cameras) it's a non-keeper, even if the photo as an object feels nice in the hand

With digital picture, you can snap a lot, and you look at it more about aestheticism, than the object (if you ever print it, btw).

You don't have to snap a lot with digital. Many have got into the habit of taking many shots of the same thing, even continuous multiple frames to get that one perfect shot (me too - guilty as charged ). But we can switch off the LCD preview, slow ourselves down and work just as one might with a film camera. In fact, it's a fun exercise (I'm sure you've tried it yourself ).

Before I got into digital photography properly, I spent a little time playing with compact film cameras (the good, bad and ugly), some of which ventured into what's now firmly described as the "Lomography" camp. I had a great time with the Lomo LC-A, and even more so with the Vivitar Ultra Wide & Slim (which has a lovely lens), both of which produced nice photos - especially the Vivitar. In fact, I still have a couple of unused Ultra Wide & Slims in my storage boxes. I'm a lot more inclined to grab one of those and load a roll of ISO 400 135 film than I am to fork out on film packs for my Instax 210.

But, again, I do agree that the instant photo as a physical artefact has something about it. For me personally, it's not enough to offset the negative aspects of image quality... But I can understand why some folks like it

EDIT: Development costs of film are ridiculous in my area these days, but the "per photo" costs still work out much cheaper than Instax film, even with the price of the film roll included. Basic prints are somewhat larger than Instax, and most developers will provide low or medium resolution JPEG scans for a small additional cost, or larger JPEG scans for a bit extra. A few places even offer TIFF files

My apologies to the OP - I've strayed off course from the thread's primary focus

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 12-05-2018 at 03:19 PM.

[beholder3]

And what is 57 billion yen per quarter? That comes out to over 2 billion USD per year. Are you saying that is their net profit on Instax?

57 billion yen is their revenue per quarter on Instax incl film.
Remember that is sales to retailers and wholesalers, not based on consumer prices.
I am dead sure the percentage margin per item on Instax is substantially higher than on any electronics devices they sell.
Just think about development costs...
My guess is that with 4-8 Instaxes they make the same absolute profit as with one D500 level ILC.

[clickclick]

the instant photo as a physical artefact has something about it

I think also part of the instant appeal is tied to when/where. This is somewhat of a distant observation as I reflect on years past, but it strikes me that part of the instant appeal is the setting - it's apt to be social and handed around - the guy at the party walking around - snap - hands a picture to the couple he just took the picture of, and bounds off to the next, drink and smile in hand, or something like that.

[BigMackCam]

I think also part of the instant appeal is tied to when/where. This is somewhat of a distant observation as I reflect on years past, but it strikes me that part of the instant appeal is the setting - it's apt to be social and handed around - the guy at the party walking around - snap - hands a picture to the couple he just took the picture of, and bounds off to the next, drink and smile in hand, or something like that.

Absolutely. For that, instant film can't be beat... Instagram is the modern equivalent, of course, but for all it gains, it loses something too. And a single, unique instant film artefact can be quite special, if all other factors combine to produce an acceptable image

[clickclick]

produce an acceptable image

And you nailed it right there - we (photo nuts) can get pretty biased in what we consider acceptable, but for most people, that level of scrutiny is lost on them. It's their friends, the event, and the memory, and the instant delivers.

[Rondec]

Absolutely. For that, instant film can't be beat... Instagram is the modern equivalent, of course, but for all it gains, it loses something too. And a single, unique instant film artefact can be quite special, if all other factors combine to produce an acceptable image

It is much akin to smart phone photography, the difference being that you have a photo of some quality to give someone else at the end of it. With your smart phone you have something more ephemeral.

That said, I do wonder what people do with these photos. Stick them on their refrigerator, as someone said earlier in this thread? Throw them in a shoe box? Scrapbook them? The quality is such that I can't imagine doing anything but throwing them away after awhile. It seems like something that is more about the novelty of the idea than anything else.

[beholder3]

I think underlying is the fact that here we compare physical things with virtual things.


Probably quite a lot of people do value the existence of physical photos as items to trigger memories of good moments.

On Fuji:
If they achieve sales of 57.1 billions of yen in 3 months on 3.5/2=1.75 millions of cameras, that means factory price (total of cameras and films) average per Instax camera unit is $288. Not bad.
Especially if you compare it to the average factory price (industry wide) of mirrorless ILC camera this year according to CIPA: $376 (excluding lenses). For DSLR it is $288 as well.


I believe the manufacturing and R&D costs per unit of Instax camera is only a fraction of what you have on the all-electronics toy side, so probably the absolute margins are quite comparable.

[clickclick]

Probably quite a lot of people do value the existence of physical photos as items to trigger memories of good moments.

Most certainly. Think of those sad interviews with folks after disasters who have lost everything, and one of the most heard phrases is something along the lines of, "lost all my photos."

[ThorSanchez]

And you nailed it right there - we (photo nuts) can get pretty biased in what we consider acceptable, but for most people, that level of scrutiny is lost on them. It's their friends, the event, and the memory, and the instant delivers.

Right. For polaroids and photobooth pictures and the like it's exactly like a Facebook post with friends at some random event. The quality threshold is "can you tell who most of the people in the photo are?" That's literally it.

It is much akin to smart phone photography, the difference being that you have a photo of some quality to give someone else at the end of it. With your smart phone you have something more ephemeral.

That said, I do wonder what people do with these photos. Stick them on their refrigerator, as someone said earlier in this thread? Throw them in a shoe box? Scrapbook them? The quality is such that I can't imagine doing anything but throwing them away after awhile. It seems like something that is more about the novelty of the idea than anything else.

I have several strips of four pictures of my wife and me at weddings, Christmas parties, etc, from photo booths. I know one is on the fridge, terribly faded except for the part under the magnet holding it on. Another in a box in my office. I'm sure they'll both end up in the trash because they'll fade away.

As I get older I get less and less attached to stuff. I used to have small collections of beer bottles, baseball cards, etc. The beer bottles didn't make it to age 30. The baseball cards are in a box in the garage, drug out every five years to show the kids. When I go on vacation I don't buy any souvenirs - it's all digital pictures. Some of them get printed, or put in photo books. But that's how I remember the moments of my life, and they don't clutter up my house. My prints from the pre-digital era (for me, the 1990s) are in some photo albums that I look at rarely. The digital photos from point-and-shoots from the early 2000s are looked at a lot more often.

[Rondec]

Right. For polaroids and photobooth pictures and the like it's exactly like a Facebook post with friends at some random event. The quality threshold is "can you tell who most of the people in the photo are?" That's literally it.



I have several strips of four pictures of my wife and me at weddings, Christmas parties, etc, from photo booths. I know one is on the fridge, terribly faded except for the part under the magnet holding it on. Another in a box in my office. I'm sure they'll both end up in the trash because they'll fade away.

As I get older I get less and less attached to stuff. I used to have small collections of beer bottles, baseball cards, etc. The beer bottles didn't make it to age 30. The baseball cards are in a box in the garage, drug out every five years to show the kids. When I go on vacation I don't buy any souvenirs - it's all digital pictures. Some of them get printed, or put in photo books. But that's how I remember the moments of my life, and they don't clutter up my house. My prints from the pre-digital era (for me, the 1990s) are in some photo albums that I look at rarely. The digital photos from point-and-shoots from the early 2000s are looked at a lot more often.

I do scrapbook a lot of family photos. I have four kids and they are at the age where they love to look at photos and read little stories about things from a few years before. To me, the photographs by themselves aren't enough and so there needs to be accompanying journaling that helps fill in the events.

My landscape photos (which I enjoy taking) are the ones that are relegated to hard drives and only occasional ones get printed and framed.

Regardless, I wouldn't use Instax photos for any of those purposes as they aren't decent enough quality to be useful and I don't really think the inks and paper are archival enough to hold up for any length of time -- even in a photo book.

[ThorSanchez]

First, I wouldn't call the Nikon D500 a snapshot camera.

If you don't have a $50k Hasselblad are you really even taking photographs? It's like cars. My Aston Martin DB9 is reasonably adequate for getting groceries or going to the post office. But for real driving I have to take the Bugatti or the Koenigsegg.



---------- Post added 12-06-18 at 09:07 AM ----------

I do scrapbook a lot of family photos. I have four kids and they are at the age where they love to look at photos and read little stories about things from a few years before. To me, the photographs by themselves aren't enough and so there needs to be accompanying journaling that helps fill in the events.

I need to do better about the stories. We do a family photo book every year, will be working on that this weekend. Over time I've gotten lighter and lighter on the descriptions and heavier on making sure the photographic quality is good. In 20 or 30 years I'd bet the importance to the family will be opposite of that.

My Dad has hundreds of old photos from the last century and in a lot of them we'll never know who the people in them were, much less what they were doing.

[MrB1]

If you don't have a $50k Hasselblad are you really even taking photographs? It's like cars. My Aston Martin DB9 is reasonably adequate for getting groceries or going to the post office. But for real driving I have to take the Bugatti or the Koenigsegg.

Apart from the entertainment value, this thread seems like comparing sales of bags of crisps (chips) with sales of multi-course restaurant dinners.

Philip