Would you buy the new Fuji Range Finder?

[jd callow]

There is overlap if portability and being able to shoot hand held are your main concerns. I would think the Fuji is going to be 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of the Mamiya 7 and is even lighter and therefore an even better street, travel anywhere shooter. This assumes that the 80mm is all you'll need.

 

[ReallyBigCameras]

Actually, there was a 6x7 folder (or 2, really) for a brief time - the Japenese-made Plaubel Makina 67 and later 670. Supposedly extremely good optics, but some design deficiencies relating to the use of scissor struts with the wiring harness close/on them.

Ah yes, I forgot about those. I was thinking more along the lines of a classic clamshell folder like the Bessas and Ikontas. I actually bought a Plaubel Makina 67 once, but had to return it due to a bad wiring harness (at the time, you could still get the wiring harness replaced, but it was a very expensive repair and likely to end up having problems again in the future if you actually used the camera). While compact, the Makinas were rather heavy, but the 55mm and 80mm Nikkor lenses were indeed excellent.

I'm hoping this new Fuji 6x7 folder will be smaller, lighter, less expensive and more reliable than the collapsible strut design of the Plaubel Makinas. In a backpacking camera, I also like the way the clamshell design protects the lens when the cameras is being schlepped around the backcountry in my backpack. I tried a Bessa II for a while. It was a nice camera, with a good classic lens (Color Heliar), but it was on the delicate side and I didn't care for the 6x9 format (personal preference). I also tried a Perkeo II. It was a little more robust than the Bessa II, and very compact, but again the square format just wasn't my cup of tea.

It would be nice to see a modern camera based on these classic designs with a great multicoated lens and some modern niceties (like built in metering) in the 6x7 format I desire.

Kerry

 

[photobum]

I have and use the Plaubel-Makina 67. My meter works but you can't get batteries anyway. Another weak spot is the release, it works on a cable. So it's not to smooth. The threaded part for attaching a cable release is soft brass and not very deep and on the side of the camera. Mine is near stripped and only works "sometimes". The 80mm Nikkor lens is sharp enough to cut your eyeball. The camera is heavy.

If I could replace it with a lightweight Fuji using modern batteries, a proper release and the typical sharp Fuji lens I would buy one in a heartbeat. 6X7 folders rock.

 

[david b]

So far, 117 people have responded to the poll.

100 said they will buy it
17 said they won't.

Hopefully Fuji will see this as a good sign.

 

[keithwms]

Yep, we now have 100 buyers. At say $1000 each, that is a $100,000 order. Fuji-san... onegaishimasu

 

[Andy K]

Unless Fuji want to sell the camera as a loss leader, $100,000 won't even cover tooling costs.

 

[jd callow]

Andy,
I could be wrong but I suspect the market for this camera will extend beyond this forum.

 

[Andy K]

I hope so John, because I would love this camera as a take anywhere mf. I was just pointing out one of the practicalities.

 

[david b]

I am sure Fuji expecting to see their film sales rise a little with the sale of this camera.

Also, I am sure the mark up on a matching flash and case is pretty high too.

 

[Andy K]

A case? Why would you want to hide it?

 

[IloveTLRs]

I think there are quite a few Japanese folks who would buy one, too. There are some people here who really go for the retro look, and even if they didn't use it, they might like to walk around with one. Stupid perhaps, but the camera would sell.

I can't vote no because obviously I want one. I can't vote yes because I don't have the ¥¥¥ and I've got 2 folders already. I have a Minolta Semi-P (perhaps one of the only people in the world using one) and an Agfa Billy-Record. Actually I have the 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7 & 6x9 bases covered already, so buying this camera would just be releasing GAS. Bellows make me slightly nervous, as does a plastic body. I'm not a big fan of plastic, hence I buy mostly 1950s & 60s cameras.

 

[ReallyBigCameras]

Unless Fuji want to sell the camera as a loss leader, $100,000 won't even cover tooling costs.

Define "tooling costs". That used to mean fixtures for stamping out metal parts - and yes those used to be rather costly and high volume production was necessary to recover the cost of this custom tooling. With more modern materials, that can also mean molds for parts made of polymers and other high impact plastics.

These days, depending on the manufacturing technique chosen, "tooling costs" could be as little as $0.00. For example, many current metal large format cameras are made on CNC milling machines. There is no fixed tooling. There is a set-up charge for the operator to program the machine and load the the raw materials, but then the machine can run unattended, often for hours at a time. What you pay for is machine time and materials. There are no "tooling costs" in this case.

There are also soft molds that are much cheaper to produce than the traditional hard molds. These are perfect for small production runs as the softer material the mold is constructed from isn't as durable, and therefore can't be used for high volume manufacturing like the traditional hard tooled molds.

The real up front cost on a new design like this is NRE (non-recoverable engineering costs). Since Fuji seems to have built a prototype, assuming the production version will be very similar, they've already paid for these NRE costs. At this point, actually productizing the thing would be the best way to recoup the investment in time and yen that went into producing the prototype.

Kerry

 

[keithwms]

Well yeah, if these 100 potential users only represent, say, 1/10th of the market in the first production run, and each user buys 50-100 rolls of 120 film per year... this would seem to stack up well with the kind of business that cosina is doing on the bessas. I would imagine that cosina would jump on this contract, in fact. Do we have any spies there?

Anyway I agree with the basic point that most of the pre-market cost probably goes into building a successful prototype and researching a viable market for it.

 

[JBrunner]

If a Japanese company can pull it off, don't forget the huge market in China. I am staggered by the amount of film enthusiasts there, if the little bit that I have seen is truly a representation.

 

[notmatt]

Unless Fuji want to sell the camera as a loss leader, $100,000 won't even cover tooling costs.

Good observations on "tooling cost" in modern manufacturing above, but even so, if I recall correctly, I think when Nikon did the S3-2000 they lost about $1k on each camera.

I think it's a little too simplistic to consider it purely in terms of profit, loss, film consumption, and so forth. There are a lot of reasons to take a small loss on an item like this, particularly when they already have the requisite design and engineering already done. You just have to make sure it's a small loss for a short time, and not an on-going one.

If you can get other positives out of it, so much the better, and I'm having a hard time thinking of what could be a better marketing position in the film niche than showing off a new medium-format folder. Certainly takes the shine off of what Kodak's been contributing recently (not that they needed much help, with the discontinuations they've also been doing).

 

[david b]

when I receive the camera, I will most like be receiving 100 rolls of film along with it.

 

[Thanasis]

I just got something else instead

I voted no but only because I just bit the bullet and bought an almost new Hasselblad 501C/M with an 80mm CFE lens and A12 back...

The new Fuji MF looks nice though....

 

[Andrey]

Why would you think it is going to be a loss?

It's a plastic box with a lens in front of it. There are watches selling for 10 bucks each. You have bikes for 100 bucks each.

Surely, those are mass produced items I'm giving examples of. But a 6 element lens for a company like fuji is going to cost very little. Possibly a planar variant of some sort is less than 40 bucks to manufacture. The box is another 40.

It's all overpriced beyond reason.

 

[notmatt]

But a 6 element lens for a company like fuji is going to cost very little. Possibly a planar variant of some sort is less than 40 bucks to manufacture. The box is another 40.

$40, eh? I suppose it helps that all the work at Fuji is done by magical elves who don't need salaries, and they get their materials from a kindly giant who they pay in magic beans.

 

[Andrey]

$40, eh? I suppose it helps that all the work at Fuji is done by magical elves who don't need salaries, and they get their materials from a kindly giant who they pay in magic beans.

Materials for the optical glass?

How much would 50 grams worth of materials for optical glass cost?

I've done enough inorganic chemistry to know that it's reasonable. In terms of salaries, how many manhours does one need to assemble a lens?

On a conveyor, I'd guess less than 30 minutes total. Possibly less than 10. The average japanese salary is thrity three million yen, that's 15 bucks on hour. Let's assume complete hand assembly of 30 minutes and TWICE the average salary (either of the figures is extreme inefficiency for japanese assembly lines, a TV needs 2 manhours to be produced)

That's 15 bucks in labour per rangefinder.

 

[Andy K]

Define "tooling costs". That used to mean fixtures for stamping out metal parts - and yes those used to be rather costly and high volume production was necessary to recover the cost of this custom tooling. With more modern materials, that can also mean molds for parts made of polymers and other high impact plastics.

First you have to design the camera, designers don't work for free. Then you have to design the tooling, again tool designers don't work for free. Then you have to make the tooling, toolmakers don't work for free. Then you have to source materials, materials are not free.
Also prototypes are not usually made on a production line, they are made in companies' research and design centres as 'one offs'. Even with modern CNC technologies, there is still a lot of cost.
I worked in Ford's Dunton Research and Engineering Centre in the late 70s and early 80s as a draftsman and design engineer. I have used this process from beginning to end. I can assure you 'tooling costs' for a new product, especially one as complex as a camera, are not minimal.


Andrey, This looks to be a high grade folder, possibly on an aluminium chassis, who knows what the top and bottom plates are made of, brass, titanium? I very much doubt it'll be a 'plastic box'.

 

[Alex Bishop-Thorpe]

I'd buy one. I don't own another medium format folder, but given a reasonable price I'd buy this. Considering I'm already considering shelling out $1000+ on Cosina Voigtlander gear in 35mm, I'd consider anything around, but preferably below the $1000 point.
I like the design, and it seems to fill the niche in my gear for a portable camera larger than 35mm.

 

[Fintan]

I think it's a little too simplistic to consider it purely in terms of profit, loss, film consumption, and so forth. There are a lot of reasons to take a small loss on an item like this, particularly when they already have the requisite design and engineering already done. You just have to make sure it's a small loss for a short time, and not an on-going one.

I'd completely agree with this, while I'm not going to buy one, I will be very impressed with a company like Fujifilm for taking this design to market and giving 120 film a shot in the arm.

 

[ReallyBigCameras]

First you have to design the camera, designers don't work for free.

But those aren't tooling costs. That's the NRE (non-recoverable engineering) I referred to in my original post. Tooling costs are separate from design costs. Tooling costs are the costs needed to make any dedicated, custom-made tooling (molds, fixtures, etc.) necessary to produce parts in high volumes. Unless Fuji plans to proceed with volume production I'd be surprised if they have spent anything on dedicated tooling at this point.

Then you have to design the tooling, again tool designers don't work for free.

Again, NRE, not tooling cost.

Then you have to make the tooling, toolmakers don't work for free.

Depends on the manufacturing methods you use. As I stated in my original post, if the parts are made on CNC milling machines there is no tooling. But, there are set-up costs and machine time. But those are paid for on an as-needed/as-used basis. They aren't up front "sunk" costs like hard tooling would be.

For example, look at the Canham all-metal large format cameras and his 6x17 roll film back. Other than the off-the-shelf hardware (nuts, bolts, washers, gear tracks, etc.), all the metal parts are made on CNC milling machines in small production runs. There is no tooling and, therefore, no tooling costs. In the quantities he manufacturers, it would make absolutely no economic sense to pay >$100K for the fixed tooling needed to stamp out thousands of parts. So, his tooling costs are $0.00. He only pays the CNC costs (set-up charges and machine time) on an as-needed/as-used basis for each small production run of his cameras. Since there is no tooling, these aren't tooling costs, they are production costs. He does not spend a huge amount of money up front to build tooling that would then be amortized over the cost of producing several thousand units. He only spends the money on a per part basis at the time of actual production.

Then you have to source materials, materials are not free.

But those are material costs, not tooling costs. Again the materials would be purchased on an as-needed/as-used basis. Until/unless they go into mass production, their material costs are very little (just enough aluminum, plastic, etc. needed to build a handful of prototypes.

Also prototypes are not usually made on a production line, they are made in companies' research and design centres as 'one offs'. Even with modern CNC technologies, there is still a lot of cost.

I agree 100%, but those costs are NOT tooling costs. The vast majority of those cost are the NRE costs of doing the design work. How much Fuji has sunk into the design and construction of these prototypes would depend on whether or not the prototypes are functional or not. If they are just non-functional "looks-like" models, the costs would probably be in the $25 - $50K range. If they are functional prototypes that use existing parts from other Fuji products (the rangefinder mechanism from their previous 6x7 camera, the meter and lens cells from previous or existing products, etc.) the cost of designing and producing the prototypes would still be in excess of $100K. If the prototypes are fully-functional, and they designed and built everything from scratch, the costs would be far in excess of $100K.

But again these aren't tooling costs. They are NRE costs. They have already been paid for whether Fuji goes into production or not.

I worked in Ford's Dunton Research and Engineering Centre in the late 70s and early 80s as a draftsman and design engineer. I have used this process from beginning to end. I can assure you 'tooling costs' for a new product, especially one as complex as a camera, are not minimal.

And I have worked in an engineering lab at a major high tech company for the last 19 years. We have made countless prototypes for everything from new package types for advanced microprocessors to cell phones to hand held PCs. The cost of building those prototypes in some cases have been vast ($8 million to build 8 functional prototypes), but they aren't tooling costs. they are engineering costs. Since we build the prototypes in very small quantities (usually 10-50 units depending on the project), we NEVER pay for hard tooling at the prototype phase. The prototypes are literally built by hand. Tooling costs, if there are any, aren't paid until the design moves from prototype into mass production.

The difference here is you are lumping ALL the costs (design costs, materials costs, etc.) together and referring to them as tooling costs. They are not. These are separate budget items and they are paid for at different times. Assuming the prototypes are functional, the vast majority of what Fuji has spent to produce these prototypes is design costs (i.e. NRE). Those are sunk costs and have already been paid. If there are any actual tooling costs, the amount will depend on the materials and production methods, they won't be paid until/unless Fuji goes into production.

I'm not arguing that Fuji hasn't spent a lot of money to build these prototypes. They have. However, what they've spent to date are not tooling costs they are non-recoverable engineering costs that have already been paid. At this point, all they have to show for that investment is a handful of prototypes and a whole lot of "buzz" surrounding a new medium format film camera that may, or may not, become an actual product. Hey, they got us talking about it, didn't they? It is also being actively discussed in several other online forums and photography blogs and will no doubt be mentioned in several print magazines and e-zines when they do their PMA wrap-up articles. I hope the buzz these prototypes has generated will encourage Fuji to proceed and spend the money needed to produce any custom tooling that would be required to get this concept from the prototype stage into full-scale production.

Kerry

 

[Andy K]

Tomatoes tomaytoes. You call it NRE, I call it tooling.