[Kunzite]

Last numbers shown by Fuji were for the X100, of few years ago, which then (when was more demand for cameras in general) sold in ~ 100,000 units worldwide within first year or so.

It would be interesting to see numbers for the GR.

Hmm... 5,000 units/month initial production volume (I wonder if they increased that), 2 years of "steady, never decreased" sales...

---

Last edited by Kunzite; 03-15-2015 at 01:57 AM. Reason: missed a zero - thanks, Uluru

[kadajawi]

One may presume that based only on appeal to certain audiences on forums such as DPR (western based).
But that does not translate in sales numbers. In reality, it is only a form of wishful thinking.
Most likely in the west, both Q and X cameras sell equally bad.

Last numbers shown by Fuji were for the X100, of few years ago, which then (when was more demand for cameras in general) sold in ~ 100,000 units worldwide within first year or so.

It would be interesting to see numbers for the GR.

I don't have any numbers, but I spoke to a Fujitsu rep in Singapore. He said that they are doing quite well, it's often a second body for pro's. Bigger name photographers apparently like them, and while I was there some older gentleman came, looking at the cameras. He told me he was shooting Leica next to more modern bodies (IIRC FF Canon), but was going to buy a Fuji for his Leica lenses. A digital Leica is out of budget.

Canon recently said they are looking into improved video functionality as news photographers request it... they have to shoot both with one camera. And Olympus has enlisted the help of professional DoPs to improve their cameras.

[Kunzite]

Singapore is not the "outside of Japan".

[kadajawi]

It is one part of it. And until they all release world wide numbers it is hard to tell what sells. I do think it is fair to assume that Fujis do better than the Q outside of Japan.

[Kunzite]

Sorry, but the entire Asia had about 38% of the mirrorless shipments, in 2014 - and you only have a vague statement about Singapore. You're making a giant leap of faith here, assuming Singapore is representative not only for the entire non-Japanese Asia, but for the Europe and Americas as well.

[Clavius]

I think mirrorless only makes sense if you want to get really small; like the Q system....

Mirrorless makes a lot of sense when you want to pack a lot of punch in a small package and pay an equally small price for it. Pentax used to cator to just that need, now it's a different brand.

[Pål Jensen]

Mirrorless makes a lot of sense when you want to pack a lot of punch in a small package and pay an equally small price for it. Pentax used to cator to just that need, now it's a different brand.

As far as interchangeable lens cameras are concerned they were an SLR only company. Mirrorless was around in the film days too. Pentax didn't make them. They still make small (D)SLR's and small lenses.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

Mirrorless makes a lot of sense when you want to pack a lot of punch in a small package and pay an equally small price for it.

What? Have you seen the size and price of "professional" mirrorless camera lenses these days?

Edit: I recently sold my OM-1 with 12-50mm f2.8 lens. The camera body was too small and fiddly, and the menus were horrible. The lens, though not gigantic, was oversized for the body. And let's face it, the micro four-thirds sensor is just too darn small. I have kept a GX7 with some small, cheap zooms when portability is my primary concern - but that's not often. Small, cheap zooms can be had for DSLRs, too.

[Zygonyx]

Interesting user's return.
I draw the same conclusion re. "me-too" mirrorless compacity : no more than 20mm gain as far as lens length is concerned, but often less if not longer than SLR classical lenses.
Plus you globally loose in ergonomy what you "save" in body thickness.
So, basically only a marginal size/weight optimisation for an average bigger price mark-up.
Smoke and mirror...

[Pål Jensen]

...not to mention no optical viewfinder...

[monochrome]

Being so heavily dependent on the Japanese market does not sound like a comfortable place to be. If that changes then so too will the cameras, at least to a degree.

Well it might be more comfortable than being dependent on the west to sell your excess production of dSLR's.

[mecrox]

Well it might be more comfortable than being dependent on the west to sell your excess production of dSLR's.

We can ask Ricoh that when they have 20-40 per cent of the photography market, perhaps

[clackers]

Mirrorless makes a lot of sense when you want to ... pay an equally small price for it.

That's a myth, Clavius. :-)

Neither they nor their lenses offer price advantages, despite not having to account for a mirror in the design.

[Zygonyx]

...not to mention no optical viewfinder...

Leica and Fuji X-Pro1 do have... with the limitations of telemeter and quite a signifiant impact on size.

[Uluru]

Leica and Fuji X-Pro1 do have... with the limitations of telemeter and quite a signifiant impact on size.

I think X-Pro2, or whatever will be called, will not have an OVF. Fuji was developing its X System as it went on, improvising without any fixed plan. X100 was popular, a test of retro design, then the X-Pro1 came based on it. But back then, 4x zooms for Fuji were not there.
Optical VF in non-SLR designs is difficult, limited for a lens or two of a shorter focal length, and whatever OVF X-Pro1 had, will most likely be abandoned in X-Pro2.