The New York Times says: “700,000 X-series cameras sold”

Share

 photo asd_zps42060f87.jpg

image courtesy: New York Times

Now we have a first real number about the X-series sales. The New York Times says in an article here (Fujifilm Finds Niche With Old-Style Cameras That Mask a High-Tech Core) that Fujifilm “has sold more than 700,000 X-series cameras since the first model, the X100, was introduced in 2011“. We also know from Fujifilm itself that the X100 has been sold 130,000 times.

Thom Hogan commented these numbers and said here “It’s a low number, lower than I expected (I recently wrote that I thought they had hit at least 1m units). It shows just how tough the camera market really is.”

Did you expect stronger sales? Feel free to drop a comment.

Share
  • Fujimoon

    Any news about the 10-24mm ?

    • patrick

      Not until now. I couldn’t give confirmation from trusted sources about the release date. So let’s hope this specific new source turns out to be right

  • I would have expected higher sales but I can understand why. For 98% of the population a smartphone is enough camera – even for motorsport from outside the fences as I saw the other week. For the enthusiast it is expensive to replace a DSLR kit which is doing the job especially as the article says the technology has matured.

    I use my Fuji for news except sport and other active events. I could have done with the 10-24 when I was at a classic car show last week. 18mm not quite wide enough and 14mm would have been too wide most of the time. What I really want is a 16-70mm, say f4, as alternative top my go everywhere Canon 24-105mm f4 on full frame.

  • Thom Hogan comments on that artiticle over at sansmirror. Nice read.

  • Alexander Barus

    Hopefully Fujinon 10-24 will come up with 72 mm filter thread as its brochure’s promised. I have already invested few filters and step up rings to match 72 mm for 10-24 lens soon.

  • Sgoldswo

    I thought the Thom Hogan piece drew the wrong conclusions and was a bit of daft scaremongering. Let’s actually put this into perspective:

    1. The X-Pro1 was a sales disaster for Fujifilm. It did not sell. I loved the camera myself, but there’s a reason why there’s a steady supply of discounted bodies available direct from fujifilm. Much of the failure to sell cameras can be attributed to that one model.

    2. The X-E1, which I believe was a concept that had been discarded in favour of the XP1 was rushed into production and sold well, really well.

    3. Fuji only got around to releasing cheaper mirrorless cameras this year. Companies like olympus, nikon, panasonic and Sony have years of inventory of older, cheaper cameras to inflate sales numbers.

    That’s about it. I wouldn’t be surprised if the X-e2 was a smash hit too. I’m actually preferring it to my e-m1 a bit…

    • lorenzaccio

      Whatever.
      If we talk about numbers, and not opinions, 700.000 is not a great achievement. On this matter Thom is dead right.
      I really hope future sales of the excellent ex1 will boost the system, but the general perception is that the system is quite an expensive one (though it worth it).
      Personally, I am waiting for the 10-24 (release and reviews) for deciding where to put my money (in this system or somewhere else)

    • “Fuji only got around to releasing cheaper mirrorless cameras this year. Companies like olympus, nikon, panasonic and Sony have years of inventory of older, cheaper cameras to inflate sales numbers.”
      I agree with the second part but the frist part is actually not exactly right. The x10 and x20 are not premium priced cameras and they contribute to the number of 700k. I agree on the X Pro flop even though it is the one X camera that appeal to me.
      It is obvious that Fuji needs to move a certain amount of cameras to capitalize on economic of scale and to achieve a reasonably good negotiation position towards its suppliers ( Sony sensors , glass manufactures etc.) and to break even financially. If I’m not mistaken only 3 camera manufactures are profitable at the moment.

      The X Pro line is the brand shaper for Fuji. I believe they will carry on with it even though it will not earn them money.

      • sgoldswo

        Thom actively excludes an assumed 300k of non-mirrorless sales (I think it could be less, but whatever) which includes the X10, X20 etc in reaching his conclusions about the mirrorless range. Therefore my response to his piece implicitly does consider their existence.

    • ronin

      I thought he had a good reasonable analysis, and where he made assumptions or interpretations he spelled that out.

      He could of course be off base, but what about his speculation was “daft scaremongering” leading to the wrong conclusions?

      As far as low end X models, Fuji, too, is remaindering out the XF1 at fire sale prices.

      • sgoldswo

        His conclusion (that Fujifilm hasn’t sold many cameras) isn’t born out by his comparators (Olympus and Sony). Simple as that – the rest of the post can be disregarded on that basis.

        • Adrian

          How is his conclusion not justified? Furthermore, how can the rest of the post be disregarded, even if your first statement was true? It’s a fact that Fuji did not invent the mirrorless market etc.

          • sgoldswo

            Because you can’t compare a nascent ILC business with only one or two models to ones with many models that have been established for much longer…?

    • IloveSven

      Would you be kind enough to explain to me why you like the X-E2 better than the E-M1…and how do they compare on tracking and at high ISO…3200 and higher…I am not a fan of Thom Hogan…but 700,000 units is not a whole lot…it’s not bad though.

    • Sky

      “Thom Hogan piece drew the wrong conclusions” – not really a news. Not the first time nor last when it happens. He is like Ken Rockwell during his early days, when people still believed him and he wasn’t as much of a hypocrite as he is now.
      But give him some time. 3-4 years and TH will reach the same level of BS posting.

      • Niko03

        You obviously don’t know much about Thom Hogan. Rockwell’s a hack. I was reading both their sites 10 years ago. I never look at Rockwell’s anymore, for a long time. But I’ll consistently check Thom’s.

        Thom Hogan has been on the Internet for over a decade, understands the tech industry since he’s worked in it , and has a very good understanding of the camera industry. He’s been a pro photographer for a long time as well as a writer. He even worked with the late great Galen Rowell. I’ve been checking his site for over 10 years and he’s been the same the whole time – Careful analysis of photographic tools and insightful views of the camera industry. He’s careful to state when something is his opinion and not afraid to express it. He tests gear and uses it. I always check for a review by him on any gear I purchase since from what I’ve seen over the years his opinion is unbiased and pretty consistent. He’s a Nikon user, but not a fanboy, he’ll be the first to level criticism where it’s warranted.

        I’m not a fanboy, but I have a lot of respect for the guy.

  • I’d say wait for it! I know many enthusiasts with DSLRs who are looking at the X-System but just didn’t make the jump to mirrorless yet. Sooner or later they will jump.
    With each new generation of bodies the mirrorless systems get more mature and attractive and the edge a DSLR has decreases with DSLRs basically staying where they are, except for sensor performance, which increases for both.

    • ronin

      It’s not nascent if the X line is going on 3 years old. The only numbers given in the article were for the X line. The X line includes non-interchangeable lens models, such as XF1, X10, X20…

      The article discussed the X line, Hogan commented on the X line, you are switching the discussion to only interchangeable lens models. Maybe you can contact the NYT and tell them to change their story.

      And why can’t you compare the marketshare of one consumer manufacturer with that of another, and note that the former is shipping less product and has lower sales in a fast shrinking market?

      That kind of business analysis is done every day, all day long.

      Your main objection seems to be, that’s not fair, Fuji deserves to be selling more product.

      • ronin

        (Sorry Dirk, my post was a response to sgoldwo’s analysis, and I messed up the reply)

  • Steve

    “Fujifilm still makes film, but it now accounts for less than 1 percent of the company’s sales. The entire imaging solutions division, which includes the company’s cameras, generates a mere 13 percent of revenue. Most revenue comes from businesses like pharmaceuticals, medical equipment and office machines, in which Fujifilm has a partnership with Xerox.”

    Thom Hogan isn’t an accountant or an economist and probably doesn’t have an MBA. He’s a mediocre photographer with a website. What constitutes a profit for any individual product?

    One might also consider why Fuji is making these cameras? Perhaps the people who make these types of decisions for multi-billion dollar international corporations have their reasons. Maybe not all of them are about just money because they can afford to do that.

    Why did Warner’s finance Stanley Kubrick for years with no questions asked about the content of his films? His films did make money just not at the same level as films of other films. Profit is a relative term.

    The imaging division is only 13% of revenue. If that 13% is profitable what’s the problem.

    • lorenzaccio

      It doesn’t work this way.
      This “13%” is not profitable at all. This is not tragic, as the rest of the company is profitable.
      Still, everybody is hoping that all the money invested in this segment of the market will eventually pay back and gain enough market share for Fuji’s imaging division.
      Fact is: in the USA both Olympus and Fuji imaging would have been shut down. In Japan it does not work this way, luckily. No Kubrik to be seen, here

    • ronin

      I don’t understand calling someone else’s credentials into question for giving a simple analysis that any reasonable person can perform, and then in turn giving an analysis of one’s own without producing one’s own credentials.

      • nwcs

        Exactly, and Thom Hogan’s credentials are pretty well known and respected. Not to mention a long body of work with which one can evaluate reasonableness. Not like most snap analyses on anonymous web sites by self-proclaimed experts.

  • Per K

    In the days of the roman empire, the emperor killed the person that told bad news…….. “If you don´t like the message – kill the messenger” still thrives at rumor/fan sites! :-)
    Thom probably has a MBA or similar – I do – and from his writings I can see he knows about business economy. Still you do not need to be an economic scientist to understand that 700k on a 100 million market is pretty modest. It does not take much intelligence to understand that over time costs, not only for production and distribution but also for research and development, means a high per camera cost. Fuji still looses money on the camera business. It means to just survive over time, sales must increase a lot.
    Dear fanboys: This does not make the X-system less great! It just means too few has yet discovered that – or feel they have better alternatives.
    All in all “mirrorless” is a very limited sucess in comparison with the competition. My GUESS is typically enthusiasts go for mirrorless cameras. The have knowledge, experience and are interested in (trying) new products.

    • lorenzaccio

      I agree in everything you wrote, bar the Roman Empire aspect. If that had been true, the Empire would not have survived for 500 years after the first emperor (Augustus) acquired the title.
      True, there were some silly guys (à la Nero), but apparently we are all victims of a hostile campaign organized by their successors to legitimize their usurpation of the throne…
      However, long life to the X system ;)

  • The Imaging segment being not profitable for Fuji is not as bad “news” as some might think. It certainly does not mean the products will be discontinued soon. Probably not even later.
    Large companies always have less profitable segments. And they need them.
    Of course they don’t need them to be non-profitable but they can’t just shut down all non-profitable investments. They need to make profit overall and have a diverse line-up to be flexible for market changes.
    So usually they have a couple of good running “cash cows” and use the revenue to fund R&D of other stuff to keep their technology up with the competitors.
    Nobody can predict where the camera business will be in 10 years. If the market moves to mirrorless, Fuji might make lots of profit. If it moves to Cellphones, maybe not. But maybe it goes back to instant film, who knows. ;) Anyway, if the camera business gets into a more profitable area at some point, Fuji wants to be there and not start from scratch again.

    • ronin

      Fuji once had a thriving 35mm line. Gone. Then it had a very thriving medium format line. Gone. I don’t expect corporate to keep them around forever if they’re hemoragghing cash.

  • TD

    Sales mean very few. Apple is selling way less phones than Samsung is, plus they are dependent on them for the production, but they make a really great margin on every product they sell.
    One should wonder what is the margin Fuji is making on a X-Pro 1 (low sales apparently) or an X-E1/2 (strong sales).
    Not to mention the X series is probably a long term investment for Fuji, they’d probably anticipate low profit for the first few years ?

    • ronin

      more like, no profit

  • David H Dennis

    Thom Hogan has always struck me as someone pretty astute, who tells it like it is.

    It’s worth noting that he strongly endorses the XE2 in his holiday buying guide – it’s not his absolute top pick, but it’s one of three bodies he recommend it “without reservation”. The XA1 got his top recommendation for the price point.

    http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/mirrorless-for-the-holidays.html

    Interestingly enough, he has always thought of mirrorless as the technology of the future. In fact, he thinks a future D5 will be mirrorless thanks to the compelling ability of mirrorless technology to shoot at extremely high frame rates, and the lower cost of a mirrorless solution with its fewer and simpler moving parts. I personally doubt this since D3/4/5 are pretty conservative and like what they have, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Nikon eventually introduces a premium mirrorless camera with the features Thom describes.

    The problem with Thom’s pro mirrorless point of view is that for some reason mirrorless camera prices have stayed stubbornly high. For example, I can get a D7100 outfit, which seems like a lot more camera with far more flexibility, for just $50 than the price of an XE2. His argument that mirrorless cameras are easier to manufacturer and mass produce doesn’t seem to be holding water, at least not yet. And yet Fuji is not alone here; the Nikon 1 V2 is very close in price to the D7100 and yet has a smaller sensor and the system is much less comprehensive. The new Olympus camera that many are raving about is about double the cost of the D7100 body and has a smaller sensor.

    So why am I on this forum? Because I tried an XE1 and fell in love with the little guy. What I really like is the outstanding premium quality feel of every component. Everything is made beautifully, the mechanics run super-smooth and the lenses are not enormous, but very high quality. Compared to that, the D7100 and its kit lens feel plasticky and just, well, not very special at all. So I see real value in Fuji, but people who just look at specifications are definitely going for the D7100, with its larger number of megapixels and stronger zoom range.

    I think that’s why Fuji has not been more successful in the marketplace. It’s an uphill battle to sell an XE2 when the D7100 kit is slightly more expensive, offers more features and access to a massive set of lenses.

    • lorenzaccio

      Nice analysis.
      I would add the “legacy lenses” aspect. If I have two-three lenses of a given mount, one of which may even be quite nice / expensive, buying into a different system requires that system to offer me much more than my previous one.
      I am a Nikonian, looking for a smaller system. But let’s face it: the XE2 is too expensive, and the XE1 apparently does not focus as fast as it should.
      Now, considering that the medium zoom range (28-80mm equivalent circa) is already covered by many cameras I have, I am looking for a smaller system with a very good a wide-angle zoom and/or a very good tele zoom. X system does not have the wide-angle yet, while the tele apparently focuses a bit slowly on the camera I would buy (and a tele that focuses slowly is of little use in 50% of the situations, admittingly). I like the primes of the system, but in general I tend to use zooms more than primes (I seldom use my macro and 35 1.8 with the Nikon).
      If at least a part of the amateur crowd thinks the way I do, Fuji’s battle is not only uphill, but also short on ammo…

      • Caerolle

        The great thing about the established systems is not only that you already have stuff, but the stuff you can get if you want. Say, you decide you want to take up birding. You have a lot of options with the 7100. Not so much the Fuji, unless you want to use adapters. Maybe someday the Fuji X-system will be there, but I worry that since most people seem to come to it for size/weight advantages, the longer focal lengths are not going to be developed. Or probably real speedlights, or anything else that is not small.

        • DTB

          I agree. They need to focus now on releasing some short and longer, fast telephoto lenses. After the 10-24mm and the 56mm, they pretty much have the ultrawide and standard focal lengths covered. I would love a 100 mm 1:1 macro too, though adapting my EF 100 mm f/2.8L IS is fine for now.

      • David H Dennis

        I do think this explains why mirrorless has not gained market share in the USA. It has done well in Japan, because they tend to be obsessed with miniaturization over there, but the value of mirrorless to most people doesn’t look great.

        However, you are seeking to downsize for a reason, just like me. I own a D4, and although I love the camera and its beautiful (but horrendously expensive) pro lenses, it is extraordinarily large and heavy. The Fuji looks like a way to get a smaller and lighter camera without the huge sacrifices you would expect. Image quality is very similar until you get to extremely high ISOs.

        So we have to understand that packing a lot into a tiny package, as Fuji has done, is expensive. And constructing the body and lenses out of premium materials instead of cheap plastic is expensive, too. So the lenses are actually a little more expensive overall than the cheap DX Nikkors. I’ve played with those relatively inexpensive lenses, like the 70-300 VR for $600-odd, and I just find them unattractive and cheap feeling. So I fled to the 70-200 VR and I love that lens but even on sale it was $2,100. Pricey!

        Compared to that, the 55-200 Fuji lens looks fairly priced to me. It seems to have considerably higher build quality than the 70-300 Nikon and it’s not too much more expensive. It’s roughly equivalent in quality to the 70-200 f/4, which costs $1,400, and it has a wider zoom range as a nice bonus.

        If they could give us an 80-400 equivalent I’d be really happy. The 80-400 is still not that great on build quality, but has great autofocus and costs a breathtaking $2,600. Ouch! I think Fuji could engineer a similar lens for considerably less – or at least that’s what I’m hoping for.

        Remember, Fuji has real incentives to increase the lens lineup, because they want us to buy them. Furthermore, they have been impressively responsive to customer input. About a week before the XE2 was introduced, I was shooting the breeze in my favorite camera store about Fuji. “You know,” I said, “I’d really like them to add the higher quality LCD and WiFi from the XM1 and put it on the XE1. Then I think I’d really love to buy.” A week or so, that was exactly what they did.

        Thom Hogan is always complaining about Nikon’s complete inability to listen to customers. Fuji does. That’s admirable and yet another reason for me to support their system.

        David

        • ronin

          Fuji listening to customers is an internet meme. Fuji foisted unacceptably slow focusing cameras that nobody asked for. Nobody asked for a real challenge in finding raw converters.

          How much per unit does more expensive body parts- metal rather than plastic- cost? I don’t know, I’m just asking. $50?

        • lorenzaccio

          In fact, David, the primary reason I am in this forum is because there is no such a thing as a decent tele-zoom for apsc Nikons.
          All the zooms you mentioned are FF zooms, and they are large and expensive as you may expect from an FF lens.
          Yes, Fuji’s zoom (and a couple of primes) are the reason why I am interested in this system. But at the same time the system is not fully mature, yet. As I said, the XE1 is known as not focusing fast, which spoils the possible tele usage (not the wide-angle, though, but the zoom is not here yet).
          And, still, the XE2 is expensive. Metal, yes, nice camera, yes, but it is more expensive than a Nikon D7100: I can’t possibly justify this price, also considering that I would have to re-buy all the lenses I have for my Nikon (some of which, like the 105 2.8 macro, not having a real equivalent in the X system). In fact, not having a mirror box etc. etc., the XE1 should be quite less expensive to produce than the D7100.
          It’s more or less the same with the other companies. Sony and Olympus are pricing their cameras quite high. But beyond a given price level I seriously start to wonder if buying again and again the same expensive lenses (plus the cameras) for the sake of having half a kilo less in my backpack makes real sense…

      • I think you’re over-stating a slow focus issue on the xe1 —-it’s NOT slow. It’s not DSLR blazing fast but more than adequate for most non-sporting / action work. And if you still want to buy into that rhetoric, just get the xe2…. The internet is abuzz with reports of how fast it is.

        • lorenzaccio

          It could be that I am overstating (or exaggerating) XE1’s issues with focus speed. I guess I have to try it extensively before being sure about it. Problem is that I can’t try it anymore, because it is not anymore in the biggest cameras stores in Japan (where you can try every camera you like), as it was substituted with the newest XE2 model, which for me it’s too expensive.
          I’ll see if I can find one floating around among ppl I know…

    • DTB

      I agree. Selling an em 1 for a few hundred dollars less than a Canon 6d is overpriced in my opinion, as you get better image quality and perhaps performance out of 6d – the sensor is twice the size.

      Aside from image quality (perhaps comparable to the 6d’s) and size, I like my X-Pro 1 far more than a DSLR because of the aperture ring on lenses, the exposure compensation and shutter speed dials, the histogram viewable in the EVF/OVF, and the more accurate AF. Being able to view the tonal range in the histogram before you shoot is one of the biggest advantages over a DSLR, in my opinion.

      That said, to attract a larger share of the market, Fuji needs to gain a better reputation for performance. The X-Pro 1 didn’t sell well because it was overpriced, had very weak AF performance, and insufficient raw support for the first year of sales. Now that Fuji has improved its AF performance to a reasonable level and raw support is sufficient, the camera is too old to generate a high level of sales. The X-E1 was released with better performance, but still not great. So, hopefully the cameras Fuji will release in 2014 will not only have exceptional image quality for APS-C and nice designs, but will also have excellent performance. if they can improve the AF performance significantly, they should be able to sell far more cameras, as the image quality (at least using Capture One), is exceptional for a 1.5 crop sensor.

      While I have no problem with the AF in the X-Pro 1, apparently many due. Irrespective of whether the problem has more to due with the users, they need fast, accurate AF to sell more cameras.

  • tino

    While I agree 700k is a lowish number, keep in mind that

    First Fuji has been in this low volume high end niche for decades, they have a business model that’s used to it. They used to sell Fujica fixed lens high end P&S and medium format “Point and shoot”. I am sure they were sold in much lower volume.

    I doubt the S3 Pro S5 Pro series sold more than the X series either.

    Secondly Fuji make a lot more money in lens sales in the like of NEX and micro 4/3. Majority of the NEX and m43 body were sold and used with the kit lens, which is like the SLR land. Fuji lens are much more expensive and have higher margin. Even if Fuji sell average of 2 lens per X mount body, they still have very high revenue of lens sales.

    What I am trying to say is, I have confidence Fuji will see use us X-users through to the promise land, the X100 FF. Thats what I want. I don’t even care or want Fuji add more lens to the current XF mount lineup.

  • Aleste

    Meh… I wouldn’t take this so seriously. It’s still a niche market, for those of us with fine taste in cameras but not a deep pocket. And how many Leicas have been sold in the last 2-3 years? I doubt no more than 5000.

  • Caerolle

    So, does anyone else see the comments from professional photographers who use Fuji as generally saying, “When I want to do serious photography, I use my dSLR, when I want to do stuff just for fun, I pick up the Fuji.”?

    I just wonder how this plays to people who might consider getting a mirrorless instead of a dSLR, or trying a mirrorless if they have a dSLR.

    • I see a great many pro photographers saying just the opposite – they are ditching DSLRs for fuji.

      Personally I think both can co-exist. Certainly mirrorless is as good today as top DSLRs were 4 or 5 years ago so no reason a good photographer can’t earn a living with MILC systems.

      One CLEAR advantage remains with DSLRs though and that’s battery life.

  • MrGecko

    Just read the 10K and you will see the 700K needs to be in context.For Fuji, it is not that bad. The 10K is color coded and covers things like “shorter product life cycles” and the “20% reduction in digital imaging expenses” yada yada yada. The 13% of business is mentioned several times. All facts and no opinion. http://doc.morningstar.com/companydoc.aspx?doccategory=equity&mode=normalview&companyid=0C000007S8&display=PINX:FUJIY&clientid=dotcom&key=9bc0dc0ff19106fc###

  • Mel

    I agree with Thom Hogan’s comments about the XE1 and probably the XE2. Even though I have an X-Pro1, the XE2 probably would have suited me just as well, I just saw the X-Pro1 first.
    Lets face it, a lot of photographers knew that Fuji made great DSLRs, but I only knew one person that owned one, so I’m not entirely sure the X-Pro1 should be considered a failure considering the impact Fuji has had in less than two years with the X-Series. The boffs at Fuji would have factored in that their flagship product would sell in fewer numbers than their mid range models, much in the same way that Nikon and Canon understand that they’ll sell far more mid range DSLRs than high end D4s and the misguided Df . . . I’d have happily chewed an arm off to get a retro style Digital SP or an S2, but not that ugly thing.
    Also, the X-Pro1 and the XE1 brought to the market an alternative to the established and dominant MFT mirrorless sector and in a very short time scale became a serious competitor and the one to watch for both style and content.
    The fact that some models may have undersold or otherwise is secondary to the fact that Fuji released the first serious range of APS-C mirrorless cameras whilst at the same time introducing an entirely new and alternative image processor, the elimination of AA filters, leading onto other manufacturers following in their wake, and a concise and comprehensive series of superb lenses and firmware updates, even for discontinued models.
    To have achieved so much in less than 2 years, in a market place that is both ambivalent yet, at the same time, fiercely brand loyal, smack bang in the middle of a world recession is, I think, quite unprecedented.
    I don’t see anything less than a long and bright future for the X-System, even in a shrinking market place and against “me-too” competition.
    Mirrorless may be the future, I don’t know, I see no reason to shed my Nikon D800 and stick solely to my X-Pro1, they each have a role to play in my work that makes both the better option depending on my needs from them.
    If we really want to talk about recent failures we’d be better off discussing the lack lustre success of the Canon EOS M or the Nikon 1 series. I’m fairly sure both of those have spectacularly under-performed, whilst bringing little in the way of innovation or inspiration.
    I look forward to the future, Fuji seem determined to develop the X-Series and have, unlike MFT, left themselves a big arena to grow into with their R&D work on new imaging technology, Full Frame and, hopefully one day, a range of glass that will equal, if not surpass, that which is available to MFT, so that one day I can have a Fuji equivalent of a full frame, 25mm F0.95 . . . even though I know there will be a lot of very bright people telling me that I’ll never have that because of flange distances or some unfathomable widget related issue . . . one can still dream.

    • ronin

      Depending whose numbers you read, the Nikon 1 series dominates mirrorless, and the sales numbers are “in line with expectations.” It’s internet lore to consider it a failure, but evidence is never provided.

      • Mel

        I can’t seem to find any consistency over the success or failure of the Nikon 1 Series, the suggestions for either are plies apart. I can only gauge my comment on discussions with camera store owners and the fact that I’ve only ever seen one in the flesh. Never seen an EOS M but was told that one could be ordered if I wanted one. Seen loads of NEX, even the outrageous Hassleblad version, the Samsungs and loads of MFTs. So I guess I gauge success or failure on visibility. But I do find it hard to believe that Nikon 1 outsells 3 to 1 all other competitors, unless Europe is riddled with them . . . which it may well be, I don’t go there much.

        • lorenzaccio

          Here in Japan you see a lot of Nikon 1 around.
          And for Japanese makers Japan in the first market, in all senses

    • Great comment Mel.

  • blanddragon

    As a Pro DSLR user I have been on the fence regarding Fuji’s X100(S) and XPro. Would really like to pull the trigger but I have thousands of $$$$s invested in DSLR’s. I love the concept of a small camera that gives those DSLR’s a run for their money but selling a less capable camera to a 1D Mk IV, 5D Mk III (me) or D800 user is not going to happen. I’m afraid this is more like a toy, for me at this point. I mentioned that I was looking at these to a client and they flat out told me they would not be interested in my images if I was not using ‘professional’ gear. Now this is bunk in my view, the Fuji line is being used by tons of pro and semi-pro folks, but clients are convinced that if there’s not N or C on the camera it’s not for them. My clients are my air supply, ignorant or not. YMMV

    • Mel

      I can understand the uneducated mistrust of some clients. Also it depends on what type of work you produce on a daily basis. Fortunately I had no major problems convincing some of my clients, especially as part of one catalogue shoot was in a busy, and dimly lit coffee house. The results were all they were interested in. Like I say, I see no reason to give up one system for another. Some shoots are better on my D800, others better on my Fuji. Why not try renting one for your next shoot. I’ve always found that the clients stop giving advice on what you, the professional, should use once they get the final shots in front of them. Sooner or later everything changes, sometimes for the better.

    • Mel is right bland … You really should rent one for a couple weeks and then decide whether it’s a toy or something more significant. Also, you don’t say whether you shoot for fun or on vacation, but many agree the x-system is perfect for fast and light.

      Someone as vested in pro DSLR gear obviously has a reason for retaining it…I love my d600 and nikkors, but it doesn’t mean that’s all there is. RW Boyer says it’s also about how the gear makes you feel when using it, and for me I feel differently using the nikon and fuji. Both are enjoyable.

  • peevee

    I bet the bulk of sales was made by x10, xf1 etc.

    • Markus

      What? The cameras in the most fiercely over-crowded market?

      • Sky

        The one with highest sale numbers.

  • Jun

    I wish they get rid of the Macro mode button and the camera can take macro photos without going through that button. I love my X100. But that is one of the reasons I don’t want to but X yet.

  • Sky

    That means that Fuji got… on average somewhere between 5 and 10% of Pentax DSLR sales per year.

    Rather VERY underwhelming result. Nothing to praise, really.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The Fujirumors website, Fujirumors.com, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps: http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/partners/
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/analyticsjs/cookie-usage?csw=1#cookiesSet Addthis cookies: http://www.addthis.com/privacy.
Disqus cookies: https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466235-use-of-cookies.
Vimeo cookies: http://vimeo.com/privacy.
Youtube cookies: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/171780?hl=en-GB

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.

Close