Fujifilm

Brian C. Miller · Jun 6, 2012

Poisson Du Jour said:
<*gasp!*> Talk about setting the cat among the pigeons. LOL! The two references to Hasselblad and Leica surely two of the most hallowed names on the planet (oh wait, there's Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus...) are likely to cause tremors and hissy fits (probably of haut denials, claim and counterclaim).

Isn't it interesting that in the digital era that the individuality of cameras is label-deep? Not even skin deep! I know that Fujifilm is making Hasselblad's digital line, but I have no idea what else they're doing. I doubt that they'll buy either Leica or Olympus now. Digital cameras are just crazy. An OEM doesn't make a sensor anymore, so the manufacturer has to scramble to come out with a new version of their camera. With film, we just toss in a different roll. The camera is never obsolete, and the sensor is $5. With digital, the whole camera is obsolete a year down the road.

Such is the path the populace has chosen.

pentaxuser · Jun 6, 2012

perkeleellinen said:
From memory, wasn't the issue to do with static and the backing paper? Might explain why it doesn't affect 35mm. But that implies that Acros is also affected. Perhaps that film was re-jigged after the global banning of that acid but before Japan signed up to ban it nationally.

Steve you see the problem I have. Whatever is speculated as to the cause of the demise of Neopan 120 it seems to raise more questions than answers. If for instance Fuji Neopan 35mm had to be reconfigured to meet the national/international ban then having done that why can't it be woven into 120 film? Why is the emulsion for 35mm and 120 the same for Ilford and Kodak and the same for Fuji Acros but not for Neopan 400?

Or was it simply that despite the mourning that occurred on APUG there just wasn't enough users to justify continuing 120 after whatever was done to make 35mm Neopan 400 meet the new requirements

Maybe all the Fuji range had to be reconfigured to meet the ban but it caused a review of the profits of all lines and those that failed to generate a profit were simply dropped i.e. it was economics not chemistry.

With hindsight it's a pity that Fuji chose to make an emulsion with a chemical that Ilford,Kodak, Foma, Rollei etc either chose not to use or were simply lucky enough not to avoid

pentaxuser

Sal Santamaura · Jun 7, 2012

pentaxuser said:
...the cause of the demise of Neopan 120...Why is the emulsion for 35mm and 120 the same for Ilford and Kodak and the same for Fuji Acros but not for Neopan 400?...

Who knows whether there's really any difference between the Neopan 400 emulsions? Fuji doesn't communicate anything effectively, even when it might actually want to communicate. Perhaps Fuji had one or more thick-base acetate Neopan 400 master rolls from which it's still finishing 35mm product and, when that's gone, there will be no more. [sarcastically insert emoticon for sunny optimism here]

pentaxuser · Jun 7, 2012

Well a google search told me that Neopan 400 120 had the offending chemical but as I suspected would be the case answered none of my other questions as to whether other Fuji films were affected and if not why not, etc.

However google gave a link to a forum in which eventually someone quoted a reply that he after much effort, received from Fuji. It made no mention of the said chemical but did say that it was a question of economics pure and simple which is the one explanation that does fit all the facts.

Clearly despite the love that afficionados of N400 120 expressed for this film there just wasn't enough of them to make it viable.

pentaxuser

epp · Jun 9, 2012

The fact that Fujifilm actually came out with a brand new medium-format camera taking 120 film, should speak volumes about the future of film.

RattyMouse · Jun 9, 2012

epp said:
The fact that Fujifilm actually came out with a brand new medium-format camera taking 120 film, should speak volumes about the future of film.

Does it really?

epp · Jun 10, 2012

It has to, it's the first new film camera released in a while from them.

If Fujifilm saw no future in film, why would they have released the camera?

koja · Jun 10, 2012

Pardon my ignorance - which camera?

epp · Jun 10, 2012

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/professional_photography/film/gf670/index.html

GF670

RattyMouse · Jun 10, 2012

epp said:
It has to, it's the first new film camera released in a while from them.

If Fujifilm saw no future in film, why would they have released the camera?

Well, the camera was made for only one production run. 10,000 I've read. That was a few years ago and it is still available. Meaning that there was not much demand for it even 2-3 years later.

Supposed to be a great camera.

epp · Jun 10, 2012

RattyMouse said:
Well, the camera was made for only one production run. 10,000 I've read. That was a few years ago and it is still available. Meaning that there was not much demand for it even 2-3 years later.

Supposed to be a great camera.

I did not know it was released that long ago. One vendor online is selling it for $1,600 USD. Definitely an expensive camera.

RattyMouse · Jun 10, 2012

epp said:
I did not know it was released that long ago. One vendor online is selling it for $1,600 USD. Definitely an expensive camera.

Yeah, very expensive. With film sales drying up, Fujifilm should have sold this camera as a loss leader, in order to generate more film sales. $1000 would have sold a lot more GF670's.

Brian C. Miller · Jun 11, 2012

RattyMouse said:
Yeah, very expensive. With film sales drying up, Fujifilm should have sold this camera as a loss leader, in order to generate more film sales. $1000 would have sold a lot more GF670's.

Which uses more film? A Holga or a Fujifilm camera? Anyways, it's not like there's a problem buying used MF cameras. My Pentax 645 used to cost, what, over $1500? And now it's $100 or so from KEH. This weekend I bought over $500 worth of film. Do you think it was for a Fujifilm or Kodak camera? LF color ain't cheap.

andrew.roos · Jun 11, 2012

RattyMouse said:
Well, the camera was made for only one production run. 10,000 I've read. That was a few years ago and it is still available. Meaning that there was not much demand for it even 2-3 years later.

Supposed to be a great camera.

Except the subsequent release of a second model, the GF670W, suggests it wasn't a total failure. I don't understand the pricing of the W version but it seems to be mainly aimed at their home market.

RattyMouse · Jun 11, 2012

andrew.roos said:
Except the subsequent release of a second model, the GF670W, suggests it wasn't a total failure. I don't understand the pricing of the W version but it seems to be mainly aimed at their home market.

Yes, the pricing of the GF670W is absolutely insane. Here in China you can buy one, easily as it sits on the shelf month after month, for $3700. It doesnt even look that expensive, with the lens clearly just bolted onto the GF670 body. What is up with that price?

Kokoro · Jun 11, 2012

high demand, high price.
Low volume, high price.
(i think thats how it goes)

not selling well imo is down to the fact that there are a lot cheaper alternatives around rather than that there is any lack of demand for the camera.

all i am sure about is that I definately want one. No way to afford one though.

IloveTLRs · Jun 11, 2012

When they discontinued Neopan SS, that was the final straw for me. I still buy their small paper and print developer sometimes (they're cheap over here) but nothing else.

Personally I consider the company name ironic.

Tony-S · Jul 16, 2012

I'm just glad I have 32 rolls of Neopan 400/120 in my freezer.

Diapositivo · Jul 17, 2012

I remember when Fujifilm was simply Fuji (Fuji Photo or what). 135 cameras were called Fujica. MF cameras were called Fuji. Films were called Fujifilm.

It was probably the success of Velvia and the new "value" of the Fujifilm brand in the photographic milieu which suggested to rebrand the entire firm Fujifilm.

Fujifilm recently launched a new compact 35mm for the Japanese market, the Natura Classica, which is supposed to be used especially with a new film, Fujifilm Natura 1600. This leads me to believe that Fujifilm still works on film and how to enhance film sales.

Tony-S · Jul 17, 2012

It sounds like if I ever travel to Japan I should buy a lot of Fuji film while I'm there.

RattyMouse · Jul 17, 2012

Diapositivo said:
I remember when Fujifilm was simply Fuji (Fuji Photo or what). 135 cameras were called Fujica. MF cameras were called Fuji. Films were called Fujifilm.

It was probably the success of Velvia and the new "value" of the Fujifilm brand in the photographic milieu which suggested to rebrand the entire firm Fujifilm.

Fujifilm recently launched a new compact 35mm for the Japanese market, the Natura Classica, which is supposed to be used especially with a new film, Fujifilm Natura 1600. This leads me to believe that Fujifilm still works on film and how to enhance film sales.

Fujifilm also sells a new medium format camera. Actually two, the GF670 and GF670W. Fujifilm is still carrying the torch for film, something Kodak should have been doing years ago instead of dreaming of a world with Kodak printers.

benjiboy · Jul 18, 2012

Ektagraphic said:
Fuji isn't exactly keeping the torch burning with color negative films....

Where have you been?, Fuji make a very fine range of professional colour negative films NPS 160NS pro and 400H pro etc.

jayvo86 · Jul 18, 2012

Tony-S said:
It sounds like if I ever travel to Japan I should buy a lot of Fuji film while I'm there.

Save money and buy from BH.

Tony-S · Jul 18, 2012

jayvo86 said:
Save money and buy from BH.

But if I correctly understand what some are saying, there are different film formulations sold in Japan that are not available in other countries.

jayvo86 · Jul 18, 2012

There are films you can get here that you can't easily get other places. (Natura 1600)

However, I've found the standard stuff to be the same here as in the states. And honestly, The stuff more exclusive to Japan hasn't been worth writing home about.

I buy all my film from the states. (Unless for small quick buys.)

Fujifilm

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency