[Winder]

Latest sales data shows Canon maintains big market share lead in Japan for the year | Canon Rumors

You have to give Fuji credit. Just a few short years ago they didn't even have a ILC to sell. No lenses and no bodies. Today they are almost tied with Olympus for 6% of the Japanese market.


Year-over-year sales growth/decline leaderboard:

1. Fujifilm +19.4%
2. Canon -1.3%
3. Sony -6.6%
4. Olympus -13.8%
5. Nikon -15.0%

[BigMackCam]

They've done well, for sure. How are they doing globally, out of curiosity? My impression is quite well... but not at these levels. That's only my perception though...

[clackers]

I had a look at where 'Canon Rumours' got any numbers from.

They're from BCN, as described in the past, they're a small index of unrepresentative shops in Japan - this data is practically worthless!

[Winder]

They've done well, for sure. How are they doing globally, out of curiosity? My impression is quite well... but not at these levels. That's only my perception though...

Not as well as a lot of people think. The love of full frame dominates North America and Europe. I think this is what has been a driver for the GFX line. Western markets love the big cameras. A major criticism (in the West) of Sony is that the cameras are too small. Panasonic S-1 cameras are large and I think this might be the reason. I used the Panasonic S1R for a brief period of time and I really expected to like the camera, but I can't say that I did. I think the bigger body of the Panasonic will sell pretty well in the West once they get some lenses. I will rent the GFX-100 and the 110mm F/2 at some point. Probably after Fuji releases firmware 2.0. Buying a camera with firmware v. 1.0 is almost like being a beta tester.


What Does Fujifilm Have to Do to Compete in the West | Fstoppers

---

Last edited by Winder; 06-16-2019 at 06:40 PM.

[biz-engineer]

I will rent the GFX-100 and the 110mm F/2 at some point. Probably after Fuji releases firmware 2.0. Buying a camera with firmware v. 1.0 is almost like being a beta tester.

It's an ideal combination for shooting kids. The big advantage is that you can shoot horizontally, crop vertical and still have a lot of pixels.
I think I'll also buy the GFX100. Having a 100Mpixels camera set you part of the big boys, out of the crowds down below.
You mean, you will rent the GFX100 with firmware 1.0 and buy it with firmware 2.0 ?

[Mistral75]

They've done well, for sure. How are they doing globally, out of curiosity? My impression is quite well... but not at these levels. That's only my perception though...

Global figures (FY2018 sales of digital still cameras and lenses unless stated otherwise):

• Canon (including camcorders): ¥565.6bn
• Sony (including video cameras): ¥421.5bn
• Nikon: ¥296,2bn
• Fujifilm: ¥90,6bn
• Olympus: ¥43,1bn
• Ricoh Imaging: ¥18,3bn

Fujifilm are twice as big as Olympus and Nikon are three times as big as Fujifilm (as far as digital still cameras and lenses are concerned).

[Jonathan Mac]

I'm not surprised at all at how well Fujifilm are doing. It's several years since they stole the crown of "best APS-C camera system" from Pentax. I think it shows what can be done when the company policy is that they will absolutely not go to FF for an extra edge and will build the best possible system around APS-C.

I'd love to see Pentax make a good attempt at fighting back to re-take the crown but they show no sign of doing so.

[Rondec]

Fuji has a bunch of Instax money that they have used to produce a decent lens line up. That said, they have painted themselves in a corner by choosing a mount that is not full frame compatible. They'll probably be fine because they have a nice APS-C set up and have done a lot of advertising about how their quality matches full frame with a smaller set up. At the same time, they felt pressure to release something with a larger sensor.

They ended up releasing a medium format camera as "super full frame" which I guess is Fuji speak for "We aren't going to release a full frame camera, but this is a little close." The problem is that doesn't really answer the reasons that people are going with full frame. The cost of a 50r with a 32-64 f4 lens is 5800 on B and H. And the rest of the lenses in their line up are quite pricey as well. So cost is very much higher than even mid level full frame and the performance is going to be nowhere near what even a K-1 with a 24-70 would offer -- you get 3 fps for 13 RAW files and relatively poor auto focus. It is fine for medium format. Medium format shooters don't even expect auto focus, are fine paying huge amounts for gear and that's fine. Just don't try to sell the rest of us on the fact that this is some sort of full frame substitute, because it isn't.

[Fries]

I'd love to see Pentax make a good attempt at fighting back to re-take the crown but they show no sign of doing so.

In my opinion that is maybe a little to harsh. They did release the DA*11-18.😉 A clear sign they haven't forgotten the APC format.

[Coiseam]

I'm not surprised at all at how well Fujifilm are doing. It's several years since they stole the crown of "best APS-C camera system" from Pentax.

"The best APS-C system" - personally I prefer Pentax colours and Pentax lenses rendering much more (about colours - may be if DxO make some wizardry with their PhotoLab for Fuji support, I will change my mind). But folks usually consider AF and video abilities. So nothing irrational about Fuji popularity.

I think it shows what can be done when the company policy is that they will absolutely not go to FF for an extra edge and will build the best possible system around APS-C.

Very smart move, FF market is now a dogfight.

---------- Post added 06-17-19 at 04:17 AM ----------

The problem is that doesn't really answer the reasons that people are going with full frame. The cost of a 50r with a 32-64 f4 lens is 5800 on B and H. And the rest of the lenses in their line up are quite pricey as well. So cost is very much higher than even mid level full frame and the performance is going to be nowhere near what even a K-1 with a 24-70 would offer -- you get 3 fps for 13 RAW files and relatively poor auto focus.

Mutatis mutandis that's also true if we compare, for example, Fuji's new X-T30 with K-1 (on a place of 50R). The former's price is lower, the latter can't boast high frame rate, deep buffer and great AF

[Rondec]

"The best APS-C system" - personally I prefer Pentax colours and Pentax lenses rendering much more (about colours - may be if DxO make some wizardry with their PhotoLab for Fuji support, I will change my mind). But folks usually consider AF and video abilities. So nothing irrational about Fuji popularity.

Very smart move, FF market is now a dogfight.

---------- Post added 06-17-19 at 04:17 AM ----------


Mutatis mutandis that's also true if we compare, for example, Fuji's new X-T30 with K-1 (on a place of 50R). The former's price is lower, the latter can't boast high frame rate, deep buffer and great AF

A bit different situation, not? It is more as though Pentax discontinued all of their APS-C cameras, indicated that they would release no more APS-C cameras and doubled down on the K-1 specs by releasing a 50 megapixel, 3.5 fps camera for 3000 dollars and called it "super APS-C." The issue isn't that there is a reason to have bigger sensors (clearly some need them for various reasons) the issue is whether you support a variety of sensor sizes at various costs.

Fuji has chosen to skip full frame even though it is a sensor size that offers quite a good value for money from other brands and instead has offered a much more expensive (larger) sensor size as their solution.

[Coiseam]

A bit different situation, not? It is more as though Pentax discontinued all of their APS-C cameras, indicated that they would release no more APS-C cameras and doubled down on the K-1 specs by releasing a 50 megapixel, 3.5 fps camera for 3000 dollars and called it "super APS-C." The issue isn't that there is a reason to have bigger sensors (clearly some need them for various reasons) the issue is whether you support a variety of sensor sizes at various costs.

Fuji has chosen to skip full frame even though it is a sensor size that offers quite a good value for money from other brands and instead has offered a much more expensive (larger) sensor size as their solution.

Perhaps Fuji's "Super FF" has to indicate it's all-aroundness. I will not be surprised if their new MF GFX 100 has much better AF and video capabilities than current Pentax FF offering (and a cosmic price, though).

I myself see Fuji to be pretty honest:

• they started with a crop mount system, they continue to develop it (Canon M and Sony crop-E users are not that happy I guess);
• they told they didn't feel like making a FF system - they don't have one;
• instead they develop a crop-MF system, native lenses are available.

As far as I can understand, Fuji crops are for these searching for compactness and overall speed, MFs are for these searching for superb image quality. While Pentax crops and FF don't differ much in terms of size and speed.

[Rondec]

Perhaps Fuji's "Super FF" has to indicate it's all-aroundness. I will not be surprised if their new MF GFX 100 has much better AF and video capabilities than current Pentax FF offering (and a cosmic price, though).

I myself see Fuji to be pretty honest:

• they started with a crop mount system, they continue to develop it (Canon M and Sony crop-E users are not that happy I guess);
• they told they didn't feel like making a FF system - they don't have one;
• instead they develop a crop-MF system, native lenses are available.

As far as I can understand, Fuji crops are for these searching for compactness and overall speed, MFs are for these searching for superb image quality. While Pentax crops and FF don't differ much in terms of size and speed.

Maybe so, but this is a company who had Zack Arias do a hit video job on full frame cameras with the video "Crop or Crap?" I won't link to it, but basically he argued that there was much less difference between APS-C and full frame than between APS-C and something like large format (which isn't even available in digital).

I don't really care. Fuji has a group of dedicated followers who love their ethos. It isn't really my thing, but I just see them as attempting to spin all their actions in glowing terms. X Trans isn't actually a whole better than standard Bayer Array, medium format isn't a full frame replacement, and APS-C isn't as good as full frame, even though they have implied that all of those things are true.

[Winder]

They ended up releasing a medium format camera as "super full frame" which I guess is Fuji speak for "We aren't going to release a full frame camera, but this is a little close." The problem is that doesn't really answer the reasons that people are going with full frame. The cost of a 50r with a 32-64 f4 lens is 5800 on B and H. And the rest of the lenses in their line up are quite pricey as well. So cost is very much higher than even mid level full frame and the performance is going to be nowhere near what even a K-1 with a 24-70 would offer -- you get 3 fps for 13 RAW files and relatively poor auto focus. It is fine for medium format. Medium format shooters don't even expect auto focus, are fine paying huge amounts for gear and that's fine. Just don't try to sell the rest of us on the fact that this is some sort of full frame substitute, because it isn't.

This is why Pentax users sound so bitter. Did you have the same criticism when Pentax released the 645D/Z? Same size sensor. Pentax had the same marketing strategy. APS-C for the masses and the 645 line for the professionals.


You are comparing the cost of the 50r and lenses to the K-1??? Why not compare it to the 645Z and lenses?


I don't think Fuji is trying to sell the GFX line as a FF substitute. They are selling it as a low-cost option to Phase One and Hassy. When you compare the GFX line to other cameras with the same size sensor it compares really well.

[Rondec]

This is why Pentax users sound so bitter. Did you have the same criticism when Pentax released the 645D/Z? Same size sensor. Pentax had the same marketing strategy. APS-C for the masses and the 645 line for the professionals.


You are comparing the cost of the 50r and lenses to the K-1??? Why not compare it to the 645Z and lenses?


I don't think Fuji is trying to sell the GFX line as a FF substitute. They are selling it as a low-cost option to Phase One and Hassy. When you compare the GFX line to other cameras with the same size sensor it compares really well.

I think there were plenty of people who were bitter about Pentax not releasing a full frame camera when they released the 645D (which was the first medium format digital from Pentax). The issue obviously has to do with full frame and APS-C sharing a mount, at least with Pentax, and the cost of medium format (which is really high). If you own a bunch of full frame K mount lenses, a new 645D or Z does nothing for you, a K-1 does.

But you know all this as you've been on the forum for a long time and should be able to recall every thread turning into a "Pentax needs full frame, yesterday!" angst fest, just like it is now about Pentax needing an MILC.

I am not interested in digital medium format purely due to cost. None of these camera change that. The only reason I compare full frame cameras to Fuji's "entry level" medium format is that they have begged that comparison with calling it "super full frame" which as far as I can recall, Pentax has never done (even when they didn't have a full frame camera).