Fuji GFX Camera FujiFILM GFX is going after Full Frame & smaller camera users

[Pao Dolina]

In future I would not be surprised that FujiFILM GFX medium format bodies will hit these price points occupied by full frame bodies

$4k

- 2016 Canon EOS-1D X Mark II
- 2021 Fujifilm GFX 50S II ($3.5k summer promo price)

$3.9k

- 2020 Canon EOS R5

$3.7k

- 2019 Panasonic Lumix DC-S1R

$3.5k

- 2019 Panasonic Lumix DC-S1H
- 2020 Sony a7S III

$3k

- 2020 Nikon Z7 II
- 2021 Sony a7R IVA

$2.5k

- 2019 Panasonic Lumix DC-S1
- 2020 Canon EOS R6
- 2021 Sony a7 IV
- 2022 Fujifilm X-H2S (Highest-end X-mount body & may serve as the bottom price for GFX bodies)

$1.5k

- 2015 Canon EOS 5DS R (Cheapest 50+ megapixel body was $3.9k in 2015)

Going after Phase One, Hassleblad & Leica medium format customers are secondary concern as the core medium format market is roughly 6000 units per year – worldwide, for all pre-2013 brands. Its that small because typical medium format bodies goes for more than $10k & lenses more than $3.3k

To frame the FujiFILM G system we need to look at the other players...

Leica S medium format system started in 2008.

- $20k for the single 2020 Leica S3 body
- $5k-12.5k price range for 16 lenses with the last lens, Leica Summicron-S 100 mm f/2 ASPH being released in 2014

FujiFILM G system started in 2017 & has these price points

- $3.5-10k for 3 body SKUs with the last body, Fujifilm GFX 50S II being released 53 weeks ago
- $1k-3.3k price range for 15 lenses with the last two lenses, being released later this year

FujiFILM G medium format systems value proposition is as follows

- medium format image sensor
- in a dSLR form factor
- at a dSLR physical dimension & weight
- R3 & R5 price points
- RF L lens price range

This is more damaging to current Canon, Sony & Nikon customers than those of Leica, Hassleblad or any other medium format brand.

An indicator of this would be FujiFILMs marketing tagline is More than Full Frame. If youre a medium format user prior to 2017 the tagline is something to shrug over. But if youre a long time full frame or smaller user then its a big deal.

APS-C & smaller image sensors are losing ground to smartphones so brands are moving to full frame.

Pentax failed in their executions probably due to resource reasons as they did not go further beyond the 2014 Pentax 645Z & 2015 HD Pentax-D FA645 35mm F3.5 AL [IF]. Ive read an article that they had problems fulfilling demand for the $8.5k body that now retails at $5k. I remember feeling surprised by it being the cheapest medium format body at the time.

New lowest price is $3.5k 2021 FujiFILM GFX 50S II body-only during the summer promo price.

The $10k 2019 Fujifilm GFX 100 is the oldest SKU with its successor, the 2021 Fujifilm GFX 100S costing $6k. It has the same 100+ megapixel 0.79x crop image sensor.

If I was making that transition to MILC then FujiFILM looks very interesting from a value proposition.

Its weakness for my use case would be its lack of autofocus designed for birds, wildlife or sports.

To frame this in 2015 the cheapest way to get native 50+ megapixel was the $3.9k EOS 5Ds R. That was a big deal to many professionals whose clients contractually require 50+ megapixel files.

 

[Jerome Marot]

Analyzing these market by body price is quite limiting in my opinion. Medium format had a quite different target than full frame 24x36.

I would say that APS-C and full-frame 24x36 had mainly amateurs as a business target. They also had a niche target of professional photographers (and lately: videographers), but this niche is dwindling and mainly served to convince amateurs who wanted to upgrade that full-frame 24x36 was what "the pro" used.

(OK: I am exaggerating a little bit: top line full frame 24x36 were the only camera with an AF usable for professional sports photography...)

Medium format was always for the real professional who made a living shooting catalogues (where the tethering function is essential: Phocus and Capture 1), fashion (Hasselblad had a really cool AF function which would work for a model holding a pause) and architecture (think Hasselblad HTS or using a P1 digital back on a technical camera). Phase One also lately identified a market in document reproduction and made goo money on museum contracts. Hasselblad is still present in aerial photography where resolution is counted in flight time.

 

[Pao Dolina]

Analyzing these market by body price is quite limiting in my opinion. Medium format had a quite different target than full frame 24x36.

I would say that APS-C and full-frame 24x36 had mainly amateurs as a business target. They also had a niche target of professional photographers (and lately: videographers), but this niche is dwindling and mainly served to convince amateurs who wanted to upgrade that full-frame 24x36 was what "the pro" used.

(OK: I am exaggerating a little bit: top line full frame 24x36 were the only camera with an AF usable for professional sports photography...)

Medium format was always for the real professional who made a living shooting catalogues (where the tethering function is essential: Phocus and Capture 1), fashion (Hasselblad had a really cool AF function which would work for a model holding a pause) and architecture (think Hasselblad HTS or using a P1 digital back on a technical camera). Phase One also lately identified a market in document reproduction and made goo money on museum contracts. Hasselblad is still present in aerial photography where resolution is counted in flight time.

Jerome,

Thank you for your thoughts.

Per Leica the market for pre-2013 Medium Format brands is just 6000 bodies per year largely because of price points. So at more than $10k for bodies & more than $3.3k for lenses does not surprise me that they sell that little.

If 0.79x medium format was priced like a 1.6x APS-C body & lens then you'll start seeing 2-3 millions bodies being sold annually.

FujiFILM's not attempting to convert current medium format users but trying to get Canon/Sony/Nikon shooters who understand that full frame is better than APS-C.

Ergo FujiFILM's medium format that costs like an R3, R5 & RF L lenses is better than full frame.

FujiFILM's expanding the market rather than eating into Phase One, Hassleblad or Leica's lunch.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Jerome,

Thank you for your thoughts.

Per Leica the market for pre-2013 Medium Format brands is just 6000 bodies per year largely because of price points. So at more than $10k for bodies & more than $3.3k for lenses does not surprise me that they sell that little.

If 0.79x medium format was priced like a 1.6x APS-C body & lens then you'll start seeing 2-3 millions bodies being sold annually.

FujiFILM's not attempting to convert current medium format users but trying to get Canon/Sony/Nikon shooters who understand that full frame is better than APS-C.

Ergo FujiFILM's medium format that costs like an R3, R5 & RF L lenses is better than full frame.

FujiFILM's expanding the market rather than eating into Phase One, Hassleblad or Leica's lunch.

That’s good news! I don’t want the other firms hurt. We need to see a broadening of capabilities.

Right now miniaturization in cell phones and 48 MP cameras in IPhone 14 Pro Max means that Pro cameras have to be offering a Professional advantage in dynamic range and tonality differentiation. That what MF can do!

Asher

 

[Pao Dolina]

That’s good news! I don’t want the other firms hurt. We need to see a broadening of capabilities.

Right now miniaturization in cell phones and 48 MP cameras in IPhone 14 Pro Max means that Pro cameras have to be offering a Professional advantage in dynamic range and tonality differentiation. That what MF can do!

Asher

Sales of

- >$10k medium format cameras from Phase One, Hassleblad, Leica, etc
- $6-7k double grip full frame flagship cameras like the Canon 1-Series & 3-Series and Nikon D6 & Z9
- $3-4k single grip full frame professional cameras like Canon 5-Series
- $2.5k prosumer full frame bodies like the Canon 6-Series

And other cameras with APS-C and larger image sensors ~$1k or more are largely unscathed by iPhones and Androids.

Below are CIPA's annual worldwide global shipment # of all digital still cameras.

I am displaying key years

- 1999 & 2000: 1st time they released global shipping # for all digital still cameras. In terms of units shipped they reflect 2021 actual shipments and 2022 forecasted shipments
- 2003: 1st time they broke down # of how many Total SLR vs point & shoots
- 2021 & 2022: Last two years with even more break downs of SLR vs point & shoots vs Mirorless

​

Year	1999 Kodak DC20	2000	2003 Canon EOS 10D	2021	2022 forecast
Total Cameras	5,088,207	10,342,084	43,407,956	8,361,521	7,850,000
Point & Shoot	-	-	42,562,628	3,013,250	2,560,000
Total SLR & Mirrorless	-	-	845,328	5,348,271	5,290,000
SLR	-	-	845,328	2,241,772	-
Mirrorless	-	-	-	3,106,499	-
% of Point & Shoots	-	-	98.05%	36.04%	32.61%
% of SLR & Mirrorless	-	-	1.95%	63.96%	67.39%
Worldwide population	6.034 billion	6.114 billion	6.194 billion	7.9 billion	8 billion
% of worldwide population relative to cameras shipped that year	0.0843%	0.1692%	0.7008%	0.1058%	0.0981%

In terms of units shipped we are between year 1999 & 2000 but in terms of value of units shipped it is mostly SLR & Mirrorless bodies.

As Canon & Nikon are transitioning out of dSLRs then the future should be based on mirrorless bodies selling for ~$1k or more.

 

[Jerome Marot]

Per Leica the market for pre-2013 Medium Format brands is just 6000 bodies per year largely because of price points. So at more than $10k for bodies & more than $3.3k for lenses does not surprise me that they sell that little.

If 0.79x medium format was priced like a 1.6x APS-C body & lens then you'll start seeing 2-3 millions bodies being sold annually.

Maybe, but this is not how it works. If you are Leica, you have the capability to manufacture a few thousands cameras a year. Increasing production would imply investments you won't get and finding and training highly skilled personal which you cannot find on the labour market of Wetzlar. So you can't manufacture 2 millions bodies and your best bet to increase profits is to manufacture cameras with the highest margins - expensive medium format.

If you see some market for cameras which sell by hundred of thousands, you partner with a manufacturer with that capacity (Panasonic, which already makes the electronics in your cameras) and add your label on some of their P&S.

If you are Hasseblad, you have exactly the same problem in Gothenburg. You may partner with Sony and produce things called Lunar, but that failed (rightly so, the cameras were incredibly ugly, I have seen them in local shops). Suddenly, you decide to manufacture a comparatively inexpensive and well designed medium format but the cost of development are stretching your capacities and you get bough (twice, if I recall correctly). When that camera is a success (but still well below a million pieces), you find that production cannot meet demand and wait times increase beyond reason on both the new X line and the old H line, which is still a large part of your market.

 

[Pao Dolina]

Maybe, but this is not how it works. If you are Leica, you have the capability to manufacture a few thousands cameras a year. Increasing production would imply investments you won't get and finding and training highly skilled personal which you cannot find on the labour market of Wetzlar. So you can't manufacture 2 millions bodies and your best bet to increase profits is to manufacture cameras with the highest margins - expensive medium format.

If you see some market for cameras which sell by hundred of thousands, you partner with a manufacturer with that capacity (Panasonic, which already makes the electronics in your cameras) and add your label on some of their P&S.

If you are Hasseblad, you have exactly the same problem in Gothenburg. You may partner with Sony and produce things called Lunar, but that failed (rightly so, the cameras were incredibly ugly, I have seen them in local shops). Suddenly, you decide to manufacture a comparatively inexpensive and well designed medium format but the cost of development are stretching your capacities and you get bough (twice, if I recall correctly). When that camera is a success (but still well below a million pieces), you find that production cannot meet demand and wait times increase beyond reason on both the new X line and the old H line, which is still a large part of your market.

For clarification I created this thread specifically for MF body, lenses and accessories only. Their collaboration with Sony, smartphones, etc is not covered in this thread.

I only mention FF & APS-C as it relates to their price points and the annual ~5.3 million units shipped globally.

I am also not attacking or criticizing the business models or practices of any MF brand as they're highly successful in their endeavors as reflective on how often they refresh & add their bodies & lenses.

I am not talking about YoY growth of single digits within Phase One, Hassleblad or Leica price points of >$10k MF bodies & >$3.3k MF lenses

I am speaking of contrasting demand for items at MF price points and FF/APS-C price brackets.

FujiFILM is the 1st MF brand I know that priced their MF products at par with Canon/Nikon/Sony FF products. To push this further on what customers they want they went the extra mile of making their MF bodies & lenses the same physical dimension and weight of their FF counterparts.

FujiFILM did this because it is a waste of their time & resources to duke it out over roughly 6000 annual units from entrenched MF competitors.

For FF prices the the annual demand for bodies are conservatively 2-3 million out of ~5.3 million worldwide.

To my understanding you are implying that what limits Phase One, Hassleblad or Leica from increasing shipments of less than 10,000 units at their MF price points into the millions of units annually is

- highly skilled labor
- capital input

That isn't the case. It's demand.

Not enough people can afford their goods.

What is revolutionary for FF & APS-C users is that MF is now within the budget of high-end FF buyers.

FujiFILM has little to no illusions into getting more than a curious number of switchers from any established MF brand but they are counting on Canon/Nikon/Sony users to make the move to MF through them.

Phase One, Hassleblad or Leica have priced themselves out of the market FujiFILM is expanding.

The danger here is that younger photogs moving up from FF to MF may never replace the current Phase One, Hassleblad or Leica users.

 

[Deleted member 55]

“$4k

- 2016 Canon EOS-1D X Mark II”

This is incorrect it was $6K!

Fuji‘s sales dropped so they reduced the price!

Most Pro’s shoot 24x36!

Only a few very high end Pro’s & rich amateur’s shoot MF!

I don’t consider any Fuji still camera to be a Pro quality offering!

(after using there 50 & 100 MP UNITS!)

 

[Pao Dolina]

“$4k

- 2016 Canon EOS-1D X Mark II”

This is incorrect it was $6K!

Fuji‘s sales dropped so they reduced the price!

Most Pro’s shoot 24x36!

Only a few very high end Pro’s & rich amateur’s shoot MF!

I don’t consider any Fuji still camera to be a Pro quality offering!

(after using there 50 & 100 MP UNITS!)

For the past weeks the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II has been selling for $4k

Fuji's MF has been in existence for 5 years with only 15 lenses. No big surprise not that many pros are using it today.

Not to mention the lack of leaf shutter & global shutter will make any MF user not think twice with the Fuji.

The Fuji MF is designed for and priced for Canon/Sony/Nikon FF users who were educated that bigger than APS-C is better. So what is bigger than FF?

 

[Jerome Marot]

For clarification I created this thread specifically for MF body, lenses and accessories only. Their collaboration with Sony, smartphones, etc is not covered in this thread.

I feel that it is important to include these aspects to understand the marketing policies of these manufacturers.

To my understanding you are implying that what limits Phase One, Hassleblad or Leica from increasing shipments of less than 10,000 units at their MF price points into the millions of units annually is

- highly skilled labor
- capital input

That isn't the case. It's demand.

I don't agree, but since neither of us has access to internal info from Hasselblad, Fuji or Phase One to prove one or the other, I will leave the discussion at that.

 

[Pao Dolina]

I feel that it is important to include these aspects to understand the marketing policies of these manufacturers.



I don't agree, but since neither of us has access to internal info from Hasselblad, Fuji or Phase One to prove one or the other, I will leave the discussion at that.

I am impressed with your rhetorical skill. I will need to apply it when I want to gracefully exit a discussion.

 

[Deleted member 55]

For the past weeks the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II has been selling for $4k

Fuji's MF has been in existence for 5 years with only 15 lenses. No big surprise not that many pros are using it today.

Not to mention the lack of leaf shutter & global shutter will make any MF user not think twice with the Fuji.

The Fuji MF is designed for and priced for Canon/Sony/Nikon FF users who were educated that bigger than APS-C is better. So what is bigger than FF?

Now is not 2016!

It is not the current body!

The mkIII is the current body.

Closing out a previous dose not count!

 

[Pao Dolina]

Now is not 2016!

It is not the current body!

The mkIII is the current body.

Closing out a previous dose not count!

Will,

I added the year model of each body SKU so we know how recent was the release.

I excluded the 2020 Canon EOS-1D X Mark III you mentioned as it is $6.5k.

This costs more than the $4k 2021 Fujifilm GFX 50S II, the cheapest MF body.

All the full frame body SKUs I listed are in-stock on https://www.bhphotovideo.com/

I listed the SKUs that are priced between $2.5k-4k as the $2.5k 2022 Fujifilm X-H2S is the most expensive X-mount body.

Fuji MF is designed to primarily attract Canon/Sony/Nikon FF users so knowing the price range of these FF bodies will give us an idea how low Fuji MF can go.

I will not be surprised that before 2030 Fuji will release a $2.5k MF body.

A sale a few days ago had the FUJIFILM GFX 50S II + 35-70mm Lens Kit going for US$3,811.78 = ₱216,585.40: FujiFilm PH 12% VAT inc via Lazada PH. Excluding the $1k + 12% VAT lens would have lowered the body price to $2,700.

 

[Jerome Marot]

I am impressed with your rhetorical skill.

Really? I feel flattered.

 

[Asher Kelman]

“$4k

- 2016 Canon EOS-1D X Mark II”

This is incorrect it was $6K!

Fuji‘s sales dropped so they reduced the price!

Most Pro’s shoot 24x36!

Only a few very high end Pro’s & rich amateur’s shoot MF!

I don’t consider any Fuji still camera to be a Pro quality offering!

(after using there 50 & 100 MP UNITS!)

Will,

Your views are based on limited use. Have you done any pro projects with any GFX?

No!

The Pro market for GFX is likely landscape and studio, neither of which require the fabulous AF of the leaders, Sony and Nikon and Canon.

These excel at action, sports, bird and news photography. Different occupations with different needs.

For Fuji, they offer wider and usable dynamic range, greater light capture and far superior lenses to match their higher resolution!

A pitcher’s catch or a shot police suspect doesn’t need a highly detailed tone perfect shot! But it does need speed of AF.

The GFX is never used for that!

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

I am impressed with your rhetorical skill. I will need to apply it when I want to gracefully exit a discussion.

Watch Jérôme,

He is skilled at being succinct.

He does that, not just as a smart exit, but also as a stunning rebuttal, which can leave you gob-stoppered and book-marking his references!

Friend with such insightful skills fill in some of our own blemishes and short comings.

Asher

 

[Pao Dolina]

A pitcher’s catch or a shot police suspect doesn’t need a highly detailed tone perfect shot! But it does need speed of AF.

The GFX is never used for that!

Asher

To add, with any system or tech in its first 5 or 10 year of innovations may make them limited to X, Y or Z use case.

Into the 2030s & 2040s I can see possible bigger changes to allow it to force a price & tech paradigm shift.

Benefiting from the R&D funding from ~50% of all 1.4 billion smartphones shipped would allow Sony, the supplier of the MF image sensor part to Fuji & other brands, to create MF sensors with the same capabilities of FF bodies like the 2021 Canon EOS R3, 2021 Sony a1 and 2021 Nikon Z9 today.

One day into the future this would allow Fuji MF to be priced low enough to take over the FF market and FF to be also priced low enough take over the APS-C & smaller market.

Making APS-C & smaller bodies a footnote of a bygone era.

The cheapest FF & APS-C bodies right now from these respective year of release & their current price points

FF

- $900 2014 Sony a7 II
- $1k 2019 Canon EOS RP
- $1.3k 2020 Nikon Z5

APS-C

- $380 2018 Canon EOS Rebel T100
- $650 2014 Sony a6000
- $650 2018 Nikon D3500

My first dSLR the 2003 Canon EOS 10D with a APS-C image sensor had a MSRP of $2,000 when it was first released & a street price of $1,500 nearing 2004. Fast forward nearly 2 decades later and FF is now $900.

Also, I add citations & references to aid in discussion as many are not inclined to verify personal belief with scholarly sources.

I was hesitant to open what I discovered in my purchasing study on the Fuji MF until you showed your wonderful sunset. I implore you, pls share with us the image at a resolution of at least 2,000 pixels on the longest size. It does your artistry a disservice by sharing such a small image of it.

 

[Asher Kelman]

For sure I will share larger pictures. I look forward to Nestlé or Jaguar stealing a large image so I can get a hefty payment for them having to license it!