“We’ve more than doubled our production compared to the previous model. But on top of that, we are also still increasing production. Now we can produce higher than [15,000 units per month]..." —Fujifilm manager interviewed by PetaPixel at CP+.
One thing that all the complainers about camera shipments need to understand is just how small the camera market really is, at least when looked at from the point of a single model.
The Fujifilm X100VI has been out for just about one year now. Some B&H orders made on the introduction date didn't ship for at least six months "the camera was so popular." But what exactly is popular?
Demand likely runs in the 200,000 to 250,000 cameras a year range for the X100VI, and Fujifilm is still producing under that.
Remember back when the demand for the X100VI was supposedly over one-third the compact camera market? In reality, the numbers I have available say that it turned out to be less than 10%. How much less, I'm not exactly sure, but my sales database suggests no higher than 8%. That's still a pretty hefty chunk of the market considering the US$1600 retail price. It really does show that getting the product (close to) right makes a difference.
I still feel that the Japanese camera makers throw too much spaghetti at the wall in terms of camera models. They're also really stuck on the old Japanese CES model, where you need breadth and depth to a line to achieve mass market sales. I no longer think the camera market works in a true consumer fashion. It's now driven on model function to purpose. That doesn't mean that there can't be a consumer model, it just means that the models that make the most sense to build from a return on investment (ROI) standpoint are actually few, not many. Canon, Fujifilm, Nikon, and Sony all have too many camera models for the market size, in my opinion.
"There's a lot of demand for vintage-looking cameras." —Canon manager interviewed by Phototrend at CP+.
Personally, I'd rephrase this: several vintage looking cameras have produced really nice sales numbers for their creators. But that really boils down to a small handful of Fujifilm and Nikon cameras (I don't really regard the OM-3 as vintage, and it's unclear what its demand level is anyway).
The question is why did those successful models produce their level of sales. In the case of Nikon, it's probably clearest: Nikon has always had legacy support and customers that value that. Nikon also did a little customer manipulation by not making an early Z50 update and instead producing the Zfc using what would be that update. They also prioritized the Zf higher than the Z6III in terms of introduction. That latter manipulation was particularly interesting because suddenly the legacy camera (Zf) had far better autofocus than the so-called modern camera (Z6II). It's not by coincidence that the Zf predated the Z6III by nine months, which effectively boosted the Zf sales numbers. A lot of Fujifilm's customers are former Nikon customers, so the same legacy value notion applies to them, as well.
I'd question just how well received a truly legacy Canon mirrorless design would be. Because Canon so strongly pursues a 50% market share, much of their customer base bought on marketing and price, not some perceived legacy attraction. I'd also be curious as to how exactly Canon sees legacy (or vintage, as they use the term). Do they think that's just a look, or is it something more compelling in the UX, as the Nikon cameras have shown?
"...we don't have any plans to introduce other compact camera concepts." —OMDS manager interviewed by dpreview at CP+.
More interesting is the slug dpreview chose to put on that section of their conversation: "We're not the company to make an enthusiast compact." It's unclear whether that's a quote or an interpretation of the discussion. It seems to me in reading through that article is that there may be mis-assumptions by both parties.
I was particularly intrigued by the "challenging to make profitable" and the bigger-sensor-requires-bigger-body comments Togashi-san made. While those are remarkably clear responses to get from a Japanese manager, you have to remember that culturally, you never say no. Even when it seems like you're saying no.
As one who's long advocated for a Tough m4/3—which was the point of the discussion—you have to remember that the current Tough TG-6 is a ~US$500 product. The product OMDS needs to build is really a US$1500 one. Moreover, I think he's wrong about lens (I'll have much more to say about this when I post my X100VI review). Matching lens to sensor size and doing the same thing over and over (mid-range zoom) is in-the-box thinking. The competition, which includes smartphones, is heavy into out-of-box thinking, and that's part of the reason why the mobile devices keep winning.
The problem I have with OMDS is the same thing I've observed with another Japanese spin-out, Vaio (laptops spun out from Sony): no real technological progress in a market that ultimately demands progress. The difference is that Vaio manages to stay afloat by doing basic iteration in a very large market (190m units annually) versus what OMDS needs to do in a much smaller market (8m units annually). Continuing to try to make a US$500 product in a low volume market is asking for long-term trouble, if you ask me.
"We took plenty of 3-8 mile hikes and I found that I had no desire to carry the added 3.5 lbs of my Z8/24-120 combo. As a result, I used my iPhone 16 Pro Max on those hikes, which yielded some nice shots, but with much less control than I would have had with the Z8." —dpreview forum post, but I've seen this same thing said many times in my email InBox
Put another way: the primary camera I chose to buy is to big and heavy for me to use in situations I get into. Which is one of the reasons why I've said the camera makers were foolish for rushing so fast away from the compact camera market. Yes, getting out of the US$200 total consumer compact market was probably necessary, given how much was being emasculated in those products and how good the smartphones were getting. But failing to realize what your best customer needs is a classic business fail.
Given my age, there's no way I'm carrying my Z9 and big lenses with me on a long hike any more. I also don't want to be limited to what my iPhone can do, even though it does a pretty reasonable job up to a point. So what's the answer? These days, probably a Fujifilm X100VI, Leica D-Lux8, Ricoh GR3, or Sony RX100VI for the large pocket size carry, or perhaps something such as a Nikon Z50II or OMDS E-M10IV with a couple of smallish lenses if I want more flexibility. Sure, we could add in the full frame and MF compacts, or perhaps even something a little bigger in the DSLR-like bodies, but my point has been that the true "casual carry camera for prosumer/pro use" is in short supply, and you might not find what you really want.
Thing is, pretty much every prosumer/pro would buy the "right" compact. Moreover, that compact very well may be the gate opener for the smartphone influencers to move up into dedicated cameras. I think Fujifilm pretty much proved my thesis there with the X100. As I'm primarily a Nikon user, the lack of a similar product makes me wonder if Nikon knows what I need and want. The lack of a Nikon compact camera is one of those things that allows me to sample other maker's products. Sampling leads to switching ;~).
You might note that I didn't include the Nikon Z30 (or Fujifilm X-M5 or other EVF-less mirrorless bodies) in my suggestions. Why? Because the camera makers are letting the bean counters win an argument that they shouldn't. If you're going to make a reasonably sophisticated camera that has to be piloted by the Rear LCD, said display needs to be a bright OLED one, not TFT. Bright because it will be used in sunlight. OLED because in sunlight the user very well may have polarized sunglasses on. I'd additionally argue that 1m dots is probably not enough, too, as trying to make judgements about fine adjustments get masked when there's not enough resolution.
