Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: GFX100, a 15 fold increase of value compared to an XF IQ350 (per Bernard)  (Read 12670 times)

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: The incomprehensible and absurd overpricing of the Fuji GFX-100
« Reply #40 on: June 26, 2019, 02:36:32 am »

About the cost of the 100MP 44x33 sensor to Fujifilm, I think Edmund is being very optimistic (as usual).

One point is that a few years ago Canon introduced a stepper/scanner that can make sensors up to just over 36x24mm without on-wafer stitching, so the big cost barrier that used to separate APS-C (and Canon’s intermediate “APS-H” format) sensors from 36x24 is now instead between 24x36 and 33x44.

Update; a reference: https://global.canon/en/product/indtech/semicon/fpa6300esw.html
The size limit is 33x42.2; was it wickedly chosen to exclude 33x44, which in turn was perhaps chosen as the biggest 4:3 that can be made on the former largest field size of 26x33mm with a single stitch, avoiding the 2D stitching needed for 53.4x40 sensors? Will one-stitch 42x56 sensors (true 645 full frame) be the next big thing!?

Also, the volume will optimistically be in the tens of thousands, whereas the entry-level 24 MP 24x36 sensors could sell about a million. If R&D costs are a few tens of millions, the cost recovery part of the factory door sensor price could be in the tens of dollars for the 24 MP 24x36 but in the thousands for any new 33x44 (and many thousands for any new 54x40, in an even lower volume market).

For a hint how factors like sales volume effect price, the big price premium for 24x36 cameras with higher pixel counts over those in the higher volume 24MP sector is suggestive. Edmund might suggest that cameras like the Nikon Z7 are only lower volume sellers due to “incomprehensible and absurd overpricing”, but on price-volume, I think he gets it back-to-front.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2019, 03:44:11 am by BJL »
Logged

Christopher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1499
    • http://www.hauser-photoart.com
Re: The incomprehensible and absurd overpricing of the Fuji GFX-100
« Reply #41 on: June 26, 2019, 02:59:08 am »

This is the kind of gross generalization that makes these discussions so ridiculous. It reflects a presumptuousness that you know what is best for every photographer.
However, I do agree that the GFX 100 is NOT overpriced when you compare what you are (probably) getting at the price.

I don’t get your problem.... it’s a fact that nearly all GFX lenses perform better than any current Hasselblad H lenses, which in my opinion aren’t as good as some the modern Phase One lenses. I own most Phase One lenses as good copies and most can’t match any of the GFX lenses especially wide open.

Sure one has to see how they perform on 100Mp vs 50, however, I know that the same weaknesses my phase one lens show on the Iq4150 are there on the IQ3100, just a lot less.

And before you ask again, I have used some H lenses on the GFX and they were not coming close to the native lenses.

So with all due respect, the only part making this discussion so ridiculous is your own comment about how ridiculous it is...
Logged
Christopher Hauser
[email=chris@hauser-p

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: The incomprehensible and absurd overpricing of the Fuji GFX-100
« Reply #42 on: June 26, 2019, 06:33:40 am »

It is my belief - founded on my 40 year old education in IC design, that chips are priced by surface. (The root cause of this is that defects follow a Poisson statistic).

Hence the cost of a 50Mp or a 100MP 44x33 chip do not differ vey significantly.

Which makes me think that the cost to Fuji of a 44x33 chip is well under $1K, and makes the pricing of the GFX100 completely incomprehensible, a more reasonable expectation of pricing would be somewhere north of $5K where we find the other "pro" Nikon and Canon bodies ... and the Hasselblad X1DII.

I think Fuji may have been indulging in a bit of puffery with the overlarge and shiny booster body and noisy launch PR, and we can expect some quick steps downwards as soon as the first wave of impulse buying subsides.

The positioning of the GFX100 in the Fuji line, as a straight jump up from APS-C is very smart. However it becomes less clever when the price differential between APS-C flagship and the crop MF flagship is 4x rather than 2x.

I intend no disrespect to Fuji, nor to the GFX100 which seems an excellent photographic device, but the discussion of pricing has always been a prerogative of the consumer.

Edmund

Your last sentence there explains the resulting flack: nobody likes to think they have paid more than something is worth.

There's no doubt that almost every product has its own band of realities: those willing and able to pay top money for a camera will probably think they have bought a jewel, and that for everyone who complains it's simply sour grapes. Could well be in many cases, but not always.

You later mentiond the Nikon F. It was the first new camera brand upgrade I bought when I went solo. I had an Exakta, also bought new, when I was still an amateur, but exposure to the F and Leica M3 came at my last place of employment. The man who owned the studio used that Leica for just one job: shooting room sets for BBC tv shows made in Glasgow. And he used one lens for those: a 21mm. Everything else for which he used 135 film was on the Nikon.

Later in my own career I could easily have bought into Leica M or even R, but I never did. Leica reflex cameras were always behind the game, especially when it came to viewfinders not showing 100% of the image. As for the M bodies, not much use for my style of work.

And yet, and yet, Leica were more expensive than the better Nikons even though obviously not as advanced in common, ordinary but essential features as mentioned.

It just confirms that high price becomes the top concern of those wanting to buy into prestige. They will never admit to you that pride plays the part that it does. Step into the world of yachts and the game remains the same but at levels that leave the camera companies looking like charities.

In the final analysis, if someone can and wants to overbuy, that's perfectly okay, but it does not imply that person has always made the "logical" choice, but hey, they don't have to, but let them just be honest and admit to their rationale rather than go through infinite convolutions trying to justify expensive wanking.

:-)
« Last Edit: June 26, 2019, 06:37:06 am by Rob C »
Logged

32BT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3095
    • Pictures
Re: The incomprehensible and absurd overpricing of the Fuji GFX-100
« Reply #43 on: June 26, 2019, 06:47:28 am »

Your last sentence there explains the resulting flack: nobody likes to think they have paid more than something is worth.

There's no doubt that almost every product has its own band of realities: those willing and able to pay top money for a camera will probably think they have bought a jewel, and that for everyone who complains it's simply sour grapes. Could well be in many cases, but not always.

You later mentiond the Nikon F. It was the first new camera brand upgrade I bought when I went solo. I had an Exakta, also bought new, when I was still an amateur, but exposure to the F and Leica M3 came at my last place of employment. The man who owned the studio used that Leica for just one job: shooting room sets for BBC tv shows made in Glasgow. And he used one lens for those: a 21mm. Everything else for which he used 135 film was on the Nikon.

Later in my own career I could easily have bought into Leica M or even R, but I never did. Leica reflex cameras were always behind the game, especially when it came to viewfinders not showing 100% of the image. As for the M bodies, not much use for my style of work.

And yet, and yet, Leica were more expensive than the better Nikons even though obviously not as advanced in common, ordinary but essential features as mentioned.

It just confirms that high price becomes the top concern of those wanting to buy into prestige. They will never admit to you that pride plays the part that it does. Step into the world of yachts and the game remains the same but at levels that leave the camera companies looking like charities.

In the final analysis, if someone can and wants to overbuy, that's perfectly okay, but it does not imply that person has always made the "logical" choice, but hey, they don't have to, but let them just be honest and admit to their rationale rather than go through infinite convolutions trying to justify expensive wanking.

:-)

But Rob, I know that you know, but it may merit repeating: back in the days of the film cameras, the choice of film was infinitely more important for your final look, than the choice of camera.

Clearly, that is not the case in this day and age. Your choice of camera as a tool to achieve a certain result including look and aesthetic, or under what circumstances the tool will be used, has become far more relevant today. Your choice of camera locks you in, because it is both expensive and limited. Of course, you get the increased flexibility of post-processing, but that doesn't change the conundrum of the tool itself.

As for expensive wanking: one can always try an upscale escort service... (that is, rent an expensive camera/lens combo, in case anyone misunderstood.)
Logged
Regards,
~ O ~
If you can stomach it: pictures

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: The incomprehensible and absurd overpricing of the Fuji GFX-100
« Reply #44 on: June 26, 2019, 06:59:10 am »

BJL,

 Yes the glass is half full :) The debate about the max stepper size is an old one, and in fact in the past Canon always publicly acknowledged that they had some humongous stepper of their own manufacture, but usually for an old process feature size.

 My feeling is that there are some larger custom steppers floating around, self constructed at Canon, or made to order for some like Sony (maybe by Nikon?), but that this is a non-problem because by now the industry so frequently needs large chips that there are accepted workarounds.

 As regards research costs etc, I had a talk some years ago with the CEO of Aptina, when that company was sill around. I guess he had an understanding of the industry. He told me that basically everything is now driven by cellphones, and the research is done for that purpose and amortized there with hundreds of millions of sensors; in his view its is the innovation made in cellphones that then gets recycled upstream.

 As we are having a tech discussion, I guess I'm allowed to say that sensors are a bit like (maybe even derived from) the RAM I was taught about in school, a type of IC that can be made by a few good designers and very very careful process control. Because the actual design is actually all about the basic cell and some control circuits on the periphery, and a small standout design team of a few people can create good cells in comparatively little time, and I guess when it works it really works (no hard bugs). The process control is where you get your yield, where the real battle is fought.

 I don't think the incremental design cost of a new sensor that iterates an existing cell structure for a tested process is much more than 3 people 3-4 months. Call it 1 million dollars.

 Assume this is about "Sony" sensors, with Sony control logic, from the "Sony" internal cell library (not a Nikon special or such). We've all been there, at least in the hacker movies, right?  You have your cell library, you lay out the core with the sensor cell array, and decide what readouts and control logic to fit where on the edges, and as long as you're careful to stay within the functions with which your colleagues populated the library, I guess you're ok you get your base functionality. Then -I'm guessing- you have to figure out clocking and frame rate issues, and change the layout for better clock distribution  and cleaner signal readouts and noise immunity, and all that analog stuff  (I sure don't understand al those buzzwords but they sound good). I guess the simulator will tell you how well the chip is working, and testing will tell you more, but by the time your team has done this a few times you don't get many surprises - after all this is what your company does for a living! If something isn't working as well as it should, and it's a bottleneck, you try and locate the engineer who designed that cell in the library, and maybe ask for a budget and tune the cell. There are probably regular test wafers run through a running process, so the designers can get fairly quick ground truth  on what they're doing.

 I think that large run-of-the-mill inhouse sensors at Sony are not now any more painful or more expensive to design than any other type of ASIC, at least for their emloyees who do this on a regular basis. The "research cost" is actually derived from the time of the engineers who use the cell library, engineering workstations and simulators, and testing facilities. I believe that the cell library and process are already almost completely determined by the cellphone trade. There is little R&D going on here, just a commercial decision on what products can be economically offered to best capitalise on base development costs that have already been written off.

 In summary as I see it -possibly wrongly- a new large chip is *today* a specs sheet fleshed out by a few months work by a small team. The cost of the chip is basically "just" fab and testing cost.  It didn't use to be that way, before cellphones came along, the camera industry had to pay for basic camera chip R&D in those days, and even worse, camera designers had to deal with a host of analog design issues which couldn't be resolved quickly. Sony's drop-in sensor technology has done away with those days when engineers really needed to engineer.


Edmund

PS. I don't know why the 40Mp cameras are more expensive than the 20MP class, but my feeling is that this is partly because of a lower volume part, partly because a newer process needs to be used, partly because of yield issues involving the CFA and more recent equipment being necessary for the CFA, but above all because of a historical industry mantra that cameras are priced by the Megapixels, just as computers used to be priced by the basic clock rate, and now by the number of cores. A price signal has been adopted because the consumer is willing to accept it. And also companies need a high-priced model made of unobtanium to get consumers to value the midrange, and also to demonstrate and market-test new features - think of the motor drive in film-camera days. This is my feeling, maybe someone in the know will speak.




About the cost of the 100MP 44x33 sensor to Fujifilm, I think Edmund is being very optimistic (as usual).

One point is that a few years ago Canon introduced a stepper/scanner that can make sensors up to just over 36x24mm without on-wafer stitching, so the big cost barrier that used to separate APS-C (and Canon’s intermediate “APS-H” format) sensors from 36x24 is now instead between 24x36 and 33x44.

Update; a reference: https://global.canon/en/product/indtech/semicon/fpa6300esw.html
The size limit is 33x42.2; was it wickedly chosen to exclude 33x44, which in turn was perhaps chosen as the biggest 4:3 that can be made on the former largest field size of 26x33mm with a single stitch, avoiding the 2D stitching needed for 53.4x40 sensors? Will one-stitch 42x56 sensors (true 645 full frame) be the next big thing!?

Also, the volume will optimistically be in the tens of thousands, whereas the entry-level 24 MP 24x36 sensors could sell about a million. If R&D costs are a few tens of millions, the cost recovery part of the factory door sensor price could be in the tens of dollars for the 24 MP 24x36 but in the thousands for any new 33x44 (and many thousands for any new 54x40, in an even lower volume market).

For a hint how factors like sales volume effect price, the big price premium for 24x36 cameras with higher pixel counts over those in the higher volume 24MP sector is suggestive. Edmund might suggest that cameras like the Nikon Z7 are only lower volume sellers due to “incomprehensible and absurd overpricing”, but on price-volume, I think he gets it back-to-front.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2019, 07:45:02 am by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: The incomprehensible and absurd overpricing of the Fuji GFX-100
« Reply #45 on: June 26, 2019, 08:20:43 am »

Rob,

 Yes, people here are strongly defending the high price, and you may well be right about the reasons.

 I'm not surprised you had a Nikon F - for any pro it was a no-brainer, a camera whose workflow could be adapted to deal up to a limit with any photographic problem. Except silent photography :) This is why the Nikon F defined location photography for 40 years.

 Interestingly, a Canon rep told me some time ago that local pros (marriage schools etc) weren't buying the "pro" Canon bodies any more, due to being too poor, and going for prosumer models or even crop-frame instead. While amateurs were getting the stylish and prestigious 1D series "pro" bodies, and the Canon division in charge of prosumers was getting angry about what they viewed as poaching :)

I'm afraid the same will happen to the GFX-100 at this high price, pros won't get a $20K loan to buy the GFX and  lenses, they will just get the Sony A7R3 with the money on their account, and use the savings for their assistant's payroll, and amateur landscape shooters will get the GFX, until they turn to something more shiny and the wonderful Fuji system becomes a footnote in photo history.

My belief is that Fuji's high-pricing the GFX-100 will be counterproductive in the medium term.

Edmund


Your last sentence there explains the resulting flack: nobody likes to think they have paid more than something is worth.

There's no doubt that almost every product has its own band of realities: those willing and able to pay top money for a camera will probably think they have bought a jewel, and that for everyone who complains it's simply sour grapes. Could well be in many cases, but not always.

You later mentiond the Nikon F. It was the first new camera brand upgrade I bought when I went solo. I had an Exakta, also bought new, when I was still an amateur, but exposure to the F and Leica M3 came at my last place of employment. The man who owned the studio used that Leica for just one job: shooting room sets for BBC tv shows made in Glasgow. And he used one lens for those: a 21mm. Everything else for which he used 135 film was on the Nikon.

Later in my own career I could easily have bought into Leica M or even R, but I never did. Leica reflex cameras were always behind the game, especially when it came to viewfinders not showing 100% of the image. As for the M bodies, not much use for my style of work.

And yet, and yet, Leica were more expensive than the better Nikons even though obviously not as advanced in common, ordinary but essential features as mentioned.

It just confirms that high price becomes the top concern of those wanting to buy into prestige. They will never admit to you that pride plays the part that it does. Step into the world of yachts and the game remains the same but at levels that leave the camera companies looking like charities.

In the final analysis, if someone can and wants to overbuy, that's perfectly okay, but it does not imply that person has always made the "logical" choice, but hey, they don't have to, but let them just be honest and admit to their rationale rather than go through infinite convolutions trying to justify expensive wanking.

:-)
« Last Edit: June 26, 2019, 08:31:49 am by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: The incomprehensible and absurd overpricing of the Fuji GFX-100
« Reply #46 on: June 26, 2019, 09:06:15 am »

Rob,

 Yes, people here are strongly defending the high price, and you may well be right about the reasons.

 I'm not surprised you had a Nikon F - for any pro it was a no-brainer, a camera whose workflow could be adapted to deal up to a limit with any photographic problem. Except silent photography :) This is why the Nikon F defined location photography for 40 years.

 Interestingly, a Canon rep told me some time ago that local pros (marriage schools etc) weren't buying the "pro" Canon bodies any more, due to being too poor, and going for prosumer models or even crop-frame instead. While amateurs were getting the stylish and prestigious 1D series "pro" bodies, and the Canon division in charge of prosumers was getting angry about what they viewed as poaching :)

I'm afraid the same will happen to the GFX-100 at this high price, pros won't get a $20K loan to buy the GFX and  lenses, they will just get the Sony A7R3 with the money on their account, and use the savings for their assistant's payroll, and amateur landscape shooters will get the GFX, until they turn to something more shiny and the wonderful Fuji system becomes a footnote in photo history.

My belief is that Fuji's high-pricing the GFX-100 will be counterproductive in the medium term.

Edmund


The thing is, Edmund, that I have no horse in this race, nor dog in any fight: I long retired, and my buying ability gradually reduced to what serves for the little I actually ever do these days. And VAT is no longer recoverable. That being the case, it's relatively easy to be dispassionate and pretty objective about many things photographic.

As Oscar pointed out, film was a different equation. However, even then, all Nikons were not born equal.

The F, the F2 and so forth remained the fllagships of their day, but I also had to get a cheapo FM and FM2 for one thing: a tiny shutter speed higher flash synch. There must have been a good engineering reason why this was the case. A vertically running shutter was one reason. Nikon never did claim them to be as good as the top line; it was funny reading those who thought those FM and FM2 cameras to be as good. Heysoos, they even sounded cheap! And worse, I am certain that those synched shots were never as crisp (always on tripod) as from the top bodies. All in all, it was another reason why if confronted with a need for fill, I'd try to use a reflector instead of the other bodies.

There are advantages and disadvantages with all changes. Leica admits that the ancient cloth shutters always were and remain the more silent. Changes in one direction bring changes in another: nature's equilibrium. Funny how it's all repeats itself in the climate change "discussions"!
« Last Edit: June 26, 2019, 10:10:36 am by Rob C »
Logged

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1465
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: The incomprehensible and absurd overpricing of the Fuji GFX-100
« Reply #47 on: June 26, 2019, 09:23:04 am »

Rob,

 Yes, people here are strongly defending the high price, and you may well be right about the reasons.

 I'm not surprised you had a Nikon F - for any pro it was a no-brainer, a camera whose workflow could be adapted to deal up to a limit with any photographic problem. Except silent photography :) This is why the Nikon F defined location photography for 40 years.

 Interestingly, a Canon rep told me some time ago that local pros (marriage schools etc) weren't buying the "pro" Canon bodies any more, due to being too poor, and going for prosumer models or even crop-frame instead. While amateurs were getting the stylish and prestigious 1D series "pro" bodies, and the Canon division in charge of prosumers was getting angry about what they viewed as poaching :)

I'm afraid the same will happen to the GFX-100 at this high price, pros won't get a $20K loan to buy the GFX and  lenses, they will just get the Sony A7R3 with the money on their account, and use the savings for their assistant's payroll, and amateur landscape shooters will get the GFX, until they turn to something more shiny and the wonderful Fuji system becomes a footnote in photo history.

My belief is that Fuji's high-pricing the GFX-100 will be counterproductive in the medium term.

Edmund

As a working photographer I actually got out of MF after the 80 MP leaf. The Aptus 12R. Nice camera. I had traded the Aptus 7 in on the 12. And the Valeo22 in on the Aptus 7. Leaf had offered a trade in on any back to their Valeo and I had traded in a Kodak Proback 16 MP square CCD. All through this DSLR had been getting more and more capable. Went from a 1,4 MP DCS420 to the 6MP 460 then the DCS 560 then 1DS and 1DS ii.  DSLR chasing MFD further and further up the MP chain. Then the MP thing suddenly became irrelevant.

Going to the Aptus12R was a mistake. Waste of money and time. Within a year clients stopped asking about MP and were suddenly asking for more location work, faster set up and breakdown and the assumption with them seemed to be that the MP war was over and it was enough. Shooting with the Leaf was like peeing yourself while wearing a dark suit. Gave you a nice warm feeling but untilyou pointed it out to someone they just never noticed.

And that takes me to the newest offerings. The new Fuji will never be as fast, convenient and easy to handle as say an A9 or D5. All it has to offer is more pixels, higher IQ. If your USP is blistering IQ above all else then someone will turn up with a 150MP Phase back and eat your lunch. It’s a competition out there. If you need to get a ballet dancer in full flight in a construction site(last months challenge) then the High performance 35mm bodies will eat your lunch. So not the ultimate in quality and not the ultimate in performance. It’s a fence sitter from my point of view. I can’t sell it, partly I suppose because I don’t believe in it. Even in the old days I shot 35 mm or 4X5 so it could be just my attitude.

Now if I was a well heeled first world citizen with time and money to spare the Fuji would be terrific. I wouldn’t care about the price. It would be for me. I can only talk from my business space at the moment. The Fuji offers nothing I can use at almost any price. If it was priced cheaper than the A7Riii I would still buy the Sony. I wouldn’t get a single extra job for those extra MP.
Logged
Commercial photography is 10% inspiration and 90% moving furniture around.

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: The incomprehensible and absurd overpricing of the Fuji GFX-100
« Reply #48 on: June 26, 2019, 09:47:29 am »

Edmund, let’s put aside fantasies about “secret steppers” and look at what Canon has actually said:
- back when Canon made a low resolution stepper with 50x50mm field size, it explicitly said that its 36x24mm sensors needed to be made with stitching and that its roughly 30x20mm “APS-H” sensors were the largest that could be made without stitching. (And why else did Canon bother with that intermediate size in some quite expensive high frame-rate models?)
- Canon now says quite explicitly that its new 33x42.2mm stepper with 120nm feature size (far smaller than in the old 50x50mm models) makes it possible for the first time to make 36x24mm CMOS sensors without stitching (see my link above); a significant advantage for yield and thus cost.
- That new stepper’s field size is a bit too small for 33x44mm sensors, so unless Sony, Fujifilm and Hasselblad are all lying about sensor size, they require stitching.

Glib cynicism about overpricing is popular on the Internet, and difficult to refute, but is particularly unpersuasive when directed at the company that is unrivalled in pushing prices down in the “fuller frame” >36x24 format sector.
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1981
Re: The incomprehensible and absurd overpricing of the Fuji GFX-100
« Reply #49 on: June 26, 2019, 10:52:01 am »

If I may, I believe that some here don't fully realize what is happening in Asia in terms of economic development.

The city of Shanghai alone is likely to eat up a significant chunck of the GFX100 production for months to come.

My guess is that this camera is going to sell in numbers measured in the tens of thousands over the 3 years of its shelves life.

The net benefit for photographers is that this is going to provide Fujifilm with enough cash to continue to develop the G platform.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard the Instax line of film based equipment is what is driving the revenue for Fuji with distant APS-C cameras and hugely distant medium format system. Just take a look at their investors relations.

So to think the luxury ( means low volume ) GFX100 is going to drive revenue at Fuji is very comical.
Logged

hubell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1059
Re: The incomprehensible and absurd overpricing of the Fuji GFX-100
« Reply #50 on: June 26, 2019, 12:10:32 pm »

Bernard the Instax line of film based equipment is what is driving the revenue for Fuji with distant APS-C cameras and hugely distant medium format system. Just take a look at their investors relations.

So to think the luxury ( means low volume ) GFX100 is going to drive revenue at Fuji is very comical.

I hate when reality intrudes.

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: The incomprehensible and absurd overpricing of the Fuji GFX-100
« Reply #51 on: June 26, 2019, 01:05:43 pm »

Chez, I agree: the GFX100 might well become the best-selling 100MP+ camera of all time, but will still contribute a very small part of Fujifilm’s camera revenues and profits. Some people strangely resist the idea that the lower end of the (ILC) camera market is where the revenues and profits are concentrated. (The D3400 in the case of Nikon ILCs)
Logged

32BT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3095
    • Pictures
Re: The incomprehensible and absurd overpricing of the Fuji GFX-100
« Reply #52 on: June 26, 2019, 01:10:42 pm »

Bernard the Instax line of film based equipment is what is driving the revenue for Fuji with distant APS-C cameras and hugely distant medium format system. Just take a look at their investors relations.

So to think the luxury ( means low volume ) GFX100 is going to drive revenue at Fuji is very comical.


to quote the financial report:

Quote
In the Imaging Solutions segment, consolidated revenue amounted to ¥386.9 billion (up 1.0% from the previous fiscal year), due to a solid sales increase in all businesses.

In the electronic imaging field of the optical device and electronic imaging business, sales were strong for FUJIFILM X-T3, which has high-speed, high-precision auto focus function and high video function, and FUJIFILM X-T30, which has a small and light body with high performances, launched in March 2019. FUJIFILM GFX 50R, a medium format mirrorless digital camera, showed strong sales reflecting good reviews on its ultrahigh image quality incorporating a large sensor and its adoption of range finder style. As a result, overall revenue of mirrorless digital cameras increased from the previous fiscal year despite the downward trend in the digital camera market in the fiscal year 2018. The sales of interchangeable lenses also increased accordingly.

Instax isn't even counted in their "optical device and electronic imaging business" as they consider it a printing solution.

Plus, I don't believe Bernard suggested that ALL of Fuji's revenue is driven by GFX sales. That wasn't the point at all.
Logged
Regards,
~ O ~
If you can stomach it: pictures

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13640
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: The incomprehensible and absurd overpricing of the Fuji GFX-100
« Reply #53 on: June 26, 2019, 05:07:53 pm »

I hate when reality intrudes.

You are way smarter than that, please.

Anyone with minimal corporate experience will know that profitability by product range is a very important KPI.

And it seems very likely that the GFX100 will be very successful and will therefore be a major contributor to the success and profitability of Fuji’s MF series of products.

That means decisions to invest more into lenses,...

Cheers,
Bernard

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13640
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: The incomprehensible and absurd overpricing of the Fuji GFX-100
« Reply #54 on: June 26, 2019, 05:52:15 pm »

Plus, I don't believe Bernard suggested that ALL of Fuji's revenue is driven by GFX sales. That wasn't the point at all.

Indeed, I wasn’t. Thank you.

Cheers,
Bernard

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1186
Re: The incomprehensible and absurd overpricing of the Fuji GFX-100
« Reply #55 on: June 26, 2019, 06:20:22 pm »


to quote the financial report:

Instax isn't even counted in their "optical device and electronic imaging business" as they consider it a printing solution.

Plus, I don't believe Bernard suggested that ALL of Fuji's revenue is driven by GFX sales. That wasn't the point at all.

There are 3 business units in Fuji and one of them is the Imaging Solutions which contains electronic imaging, optical devices and photo imaging.

The electronic imaging ( which is the digital camera and lenses ) makes up less than 25% of the revenue for this business unit...the most is made through photo imaging where a big part is from the instant camera. Now from that 25% revenue I venture to think less than 10% comes from Medium format so 2.5% of the revenue for this business unit. Hard to see how Medium format revenue can drive this business unit.
Logged

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1186
Re: The incomprehensible and absurd overpricing of the Fuji GFX-100
« Reply #56 on: June 26, 2019, 06:27:07 pm »

You are way smarter than that, please.

Anyone with minimal corporate experience will know that profitability by product range is a very important KPI.

And it seems very likely that the GFX100 will be very successful and will therefore be a major contributor to the success and profitability of Fuji’s MF series of products.

That means decisions to invest more into lenses,...

Cheers,
Bernard

Possibly...or maybe invest even more in their APS-C line as that brings in even more revenue and I would think profits. Or possibly invest even more in the instax line which from their investors report, they invested a lot of advertising and promotional money in instax this last year.

One thing for certain is that Fuji definitely needs to keep the other parts of the Imaging Solutions business unit going as medium format is just a very small piece of that pie. It would be disastrous if their Instax products started dropping as right now it brings in nearly 2/3 of the revenue for the business unit.
Logged

32BT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3095
    • Pictures
Re: The incomprehensible and absurd overpricing of the Fuji GFX-100
« Reply #57 on: June 26, 2019, 07:46:53 pm »

There are 3 business units in Fuji and one of them is the Imaging Solutions which contains electronic imaging, optical devices and photo imaging.

The electronic imaging ( which is the digital camera and lenses ) makes up less than 25% of the revenue for this business unit...the most is made through photo imaging where a big part is from the instant camera. Now from that 25% revenue I venture to think less than 10% comes from Medium format so 2.5% of the revenue for this business unit. Hard to see how Medium format revenue can drive this business unit.

Nothing of the sort was suggested.

The contention was that sales of the new mf camera will ensure development of the platform.

Nobody denied aps-c sales
Nobody denied instax sales



Logged
Regards,
~ O ~
If you can stomach it: pictures

32BT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3095
    • Pictures
Re: The incomprehensible and absurd overpricing of the Fuji GFX-100
« Reply #58 on: June 26, 2019, 07:57:50 pm »

Possibly...or maybe invest even more in their APS-C line as that brings in even more revenue and I would think profits. Or possibly invest even more in the instax line which from their investors report, they invested a lot of advertising and promotional money in instax this last year.

One thing for certain is that Fuji definitely needs to keep the other parts of the Imaging Solutions business unit going as medium format is just a very small piece of that pie. It would be disastrous if their Instax products started dropping as right now it brings in nearly 2/3 of the revenue for the business unit.

The bu makes a little south of 400 billion yen, they've sold 10million units instax. Thus roughly 1/4, not 2/3. In addition, if that 1/4 revenue eats up the majority of the advertising budget because of celeb deals, I don't see how that can be considered a profitable driver. It's not like the instax cameras are long term product investments for potential customers that also guarantee future lens purchases.

Logged
Regards,
~ O ~
If you can stomach it: pictures

DP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 726
Re: The incomprehensible and absurd overpricing of the Fuji GFX-100
« Reply #59 on: June 26, 2019, 07:58:32 pm »

but there is significant R&D investment here with first ever MF pdaf

there is nothing about PDAF on sensor that is different for MF vs APS-C  ;D ... 

, first ever MF IBIS

looking @ first ever APS-C, 43/m43 or FF IBIS systems that will be peanuts...

, a platform supporting 5fps at 100mp... that has to be accounted for.

20.4mp @ 60 fps from E-M1X is a much bigger feat that 102mp @ 5fps
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10   Go Up