2nd thoughts about the "retro" design look

[noimmunity]

Following the shocking revelation that Fujifilm has discontinued production of one of our favorite films--Neopan 1600 "Presto", the design of the upcoming X100, about which I was very favorably disposed until now, has taken on a different, unwelcome cast.

The retro design, which includes the brand name "Fujifilm" prominently etched on the top plate, comes as a bad joke on film-lovers. The fact that Fujifilm didn't announce the end of NP1600, leaving users in the dark (without a fast film) until it was discovered by accident, just compounds the sense of a company that wants all the glory of film without any of the commitment.

At the very least, Fujifilm ought to give their digital camera division a separate name. Of course retro designs are all the fashion now, and companies like Olympus don't have to bear the burden of responsibility to the film-user community, but Fujifilm's actions in this case just seem inordinately insensitive.

 

[Matus]

Well, yes. To write on a digital camera "film" is a bit strange.

What about:
"Fujidig"
or
"Fujicam"
or
"The-other-Fuji"
or
"Fuji-no-film-at-all"
:angel:

 

[Keith]

Just wait until they give 400 Neopan in 135mm the axe ... people will be burning their X100's in the streets!

In spite of their use of the name 'Fujifilm' I think their committment to film is tenuous at best. Freestyle's sudden innability to procure any more 400 Neopan for their in house generic rebranding is reason for suspicion IMO.

 

[SimonSawSunlight]

hmm. what exactly defines retro-design? I'm reading a lot of outraged comments about this dubious thing lately.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Jon,

You're assuming, of course, that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. Not outstandingly likely in a large corporation such as Fuji.

@Matus: How about "Fuj-it", not necessarily spelled with a 'j'?

@Simon-s-S: Good 'retro' design means that it evokes the positive associations of well-made, functional stuff from the past. The other kind means doing a sickly rip-off of a classic original, and is most clearly seen in the car trade with the 'New Mini' and 'New Beetle', where there is almost no regard for function, especially with the latter.

Cheers,

R.

 

[haempe]

Following the shocking revelation that Fujifilm has discontinued production of one of our favorite films--Neopan 1600 "Presto", the design of the upcoming X100, about which I was very favorably disposed until now, has taken on a different, unwelcome cast.

The retro design, which includes the brand name "Fujifilm" prominently etched on the top plate, comes as a bad joke on film-lovers. The fact that Fujifilm didn't announce the end of NP1600, leaving users in the dark (without a fast film) until it was discovered by accident, just compounds the sense of a company that wants all the glory of film without any of the commitment.

At the very least, Fujifilm ought to give their digital camera division a separate name. Of course retro designs are all the fashion now, and companies like Olympus don't have to bear the burden of responsibility to the film-user community, but Fujifilm's actions in this case just seem inordinately insensitive.

Thanks. Well spoken.
+1

 

[zdav]

I try to look at the positive side of the retro-style hype:

1. people will leave you alone thinking "there's another guy with one of those retro-style camera's, maybe I should get one" instead of being afraid of your chrome beast

2. to me it feels like old camera's are much easier to operate because of the way they work. There are really few things on a camera that I want to control: focus, shutter speed, aperture and maybe ISO (but not as often). How hard can it be to have a dedicated dial for each setting? Untill now only the x1 and x100 seem to get it right imho. So I hope the designers do some real retro design instead of just retro-styling.

 

[SimonSawSunlight]

Dear Jon,

You're assuming, of course, that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. Not outstandingly likely in a large corporation such as Fuji.

@Matus: How about "Fuj-it", not necessarily spelled with a 'j'?

@Simon-s-S: Good 'retro' design means that it evokes the positive associations of well-made, functional stuff from the past. The other kind means doing a sickly rip-off of a classic original, and is most clearly seen in the car trade with the 'New Mini' and 'New Beetle', where there is almost no regard for function, especially with the latter.

Cheers,

R.

good point, that would explain why we do not hear so much whining about the R-D1 design. but I thought that it's hard to judge (in either way) a camera by its design that no one here has even held or used, no?
all I've seen from it so far is a chrome top-plate and a finder in the upper right corner (if you look from the front) and I feel no need to get upset about it in a negative (or positive, while we're at it) way.

 

[Paul T.]

Roger's point about the Beetle is well made; here was a car that aped the look of the original but had none of its minimal, functional appeal - it was a Golf in sheep's clothing. The BMW Mini did have many of the strong points of the original; its wheel-in-each-corner nippiness, compactness and charm, and has continued to sell well.

WIth the X100, the bar to be reached is whether is will match the functionality of a camera from a decade and a half ago, the Konica Hexar. It's by no means certain that it will - but that functionality will decide whether it's a brief novelty item, like the new Beetle, or a new classic like the Mini.

 

[noimmunity]

You're assuming, of course, that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. Not outstandingly likely in a large corporation such as Fuji.

Good point, and one that seems eminently plausible. On the other hand, there is also likely to be some protocol for communication within a large company divided into different divisions.

A good reason, I might, for enthusiasts to draw attention to the incongruity.

In any case, the digital division has to be aware that they are aiming for a value-added product niche. Although they hardly need even tacit approval from the film-user community to achieve this end, they probably do need to avoid directly antagonizing that consumer group lest it negatively affect the image (in this case of a film camera) that supports value-added marketing.

@zdav I admit that in the world today, being "left alone" is often the best for which one can hope, but it's obviously a two-edged sword, with as many risks as benefits.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

I think Canon proved that nostalgia isn't the most direct path to profits when they introduced the EOS line of cameras and abandoned the FD lens mount. While they pissed off lots of owners of extensive FD systems, the result was that Canon become the #1 seller of cameras and owned that space for a long time. While nostalgic may feel all warm and fuzzy to those of us who spend much of our life with these old cameras, the only way to move forward is to break out of their limitations. Leica, for example, has struggled with the limitations of stuffing a really modern, FF digital camera in the M3-like shell that everyone demands they do.

As for me, a dial under the forefinger and thumb that control aperture and shutter speed (or, are programable to control whatever you want them to control) are far more convenient and intuitive than an aperture ring on the lens and a shutter speed dial perched on top of the camera that I have to move my hand to adjust.

I say all of that to say that nostalgia may well sell cameras to old guys like a lot of us, and young guys with more money than sense, but really hasn't been shown to be a successful way forward for a camera company. Nobody, for example, except some of us on RF centric blogs, sees a real future for a company selling digital rangefinders, the clear absence of major players like Canon and Nikon in that market space being a perfect example.

 

[Roger Hicks]

good point, that would explain why we do not hear so much whining about the R-D1 design. but I thought that it's hard to judge (in either way) a camera by its design that no one here has even held or used, no?
all I've seen from it so far is a chrome top-plate and a finder in the upper right corner (if you look from the front) and I feel no need to get upset about it in a negative (or positive, while we're at it) way.

Dear SimonsS,

I have held it (lifted it off the tripod -- amazingly, they hadn't glued it down) and run my fingers over the controls, though I've not exactly 'used' it on account of it wasn't working at the show. It feels like a real camera as well as looking like one. I certainly want one for review as soon as they're available.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think Canon proved that nostalgia isn't the most direct path to profits when they introduced the EOS line of cameras and abandoned the FD lens mount. While they pissed off lots of owners of extensive FD systems, the result was that Canon become the #1 seller of cameras and owned that space for a long time. While nostalgic may feel all warm and fuzzy to those of us who spend much of our life with these old cameras, the only way to move forward is to break out of their limitations. Leica, for example, has struggled with the limitations of stuffing a really modern, FF digital camera in the M3-like shell that everyone demands they do.

As for me, a dial under the forefinger and thumb that control aperture and shutter speed (or, are programable to control whatever you want them to control) are far more convenient and intuitive than an aperture ring on the lens and a shutter speed dial perched on top of the camera that I have to move my hand to adjust.

I say all of that to say that nostalgia may well sell cameras to old guys like a lot of us, and young guys with more money than sense, but really hasn't been shown to be a successful way forward for a camera company. Nobody, for example, except some of us on RF centric blogs, sees a real future for a company selling digital rangefinders, the clear absence of major players like Canon and Nikon in that market space being a perfect example.

Not in large numbers, no. But in small numbers, yes, for the rest of time (well, you know what I mean). It's not just nostalgia. Some people like simple, single-function controls, not multi-function programmable, and many would challenge your perception of what is intuitive.

Consider, for example, the virtual diasppearance of the digital watch in favour of an analogue display. Some people actually prefer a digital readout (my father among them) but most actively dislike them. I am always hesitant about projecting my personal preferences and 'intuitions' onto others.

Cheers,

R.

 

[noimmunity]

I wrote the following message to FUJIFILM, for what it's worth:

Dear Friends,
I just learned through a community of film users who have direct contact with Fujifilm Japan that Fujifilm is discontinuing Neopan "Presto" 1600 film. I am concerned about the way this discontinuation has occurred and the way it reflects at this point in time on the image of the X100 as a camera. A digital camera whose styling is indebted to the look and ergonomics of film cameras, with the name "Fujifilm" on the top plate, is a camera that derives added-value from the association with film and FUJIFILM's historical commitment to the medium. The unannounced discontinuation of a unique film by FUJIFILM, which coincides with the planned release of the X100, may be unintentional, yet it will inevitably produce a negative image among film enthusiasts who have also been looking forward with great anticipation towards the X100.
I hope that the different divisions within FUJIFILM can better communicate with each other to insure the integrity of the brand name, its image, and the trust it maintains with customers. We expect FUJIFILM to give us leading products in BOTH the digital AND film areas.
Regards,
Jon Solomon
Taipei National University of the Arts

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Roger, I'm simply looking at who won when it came down to a showdown between the traditional and the innovative.

Nikon introduced the F4s in 1987, and if traditional could have been the winner, Nikon would have had it. There was that big shutter speed dial on top of the camera, right where it was supposed to be. The F mount remained basically unchanged, maintaining compatibility with every Nikon lens ever made. Aperture control remained on the lens. Even though I switched to Canon, I still believe the F4s was the pinnacle of film camera design.

But Canon introduced the EOS 1. Here was a camera shaped like soap-on-a-rope with no conventional controls and that orphaned every lens Canon had made up until the late 1980's, but was designed from the ground up as a modern, autofocus camera. And Canon took over the camera market.

 

[shyoon]

I don't see the big deal with it. It's just a name.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, I'm simply looking at who won when it came down to a showdown between the traditional and the innovative.

Nikon introduced the F4s in 1987, and if traditional could have been the winner, Nikon would have had it. There was that big shutter speed dial on top of the camera, right where it was supposed to be. The F mount remained basically unchanged, maintaining compatibility with every Nikon lens ever made. Aperture control remained on the lens. Even though I switched to Canon, I still believe the F4s was the pinnacle of film camera design.

But Canon introduced the EOS 1. Here was a camera shaped like soap-on-a-rope with no conventional controls and that orphaned every lens Canon had made up until the late 1980's, but was designed from the ground up as a modern, autofocus camera. And Canon took over the camera market.

Of course you're right -- for a given value of 'won'. All I'm saying is that there's no need for 'winner takes all' -- there's still room for e.g. Leica. But not for Nikon to get into Leica's market, for exactly the reasons you give.

I like 'soap-on-a-rope'; I'll add it to 'half melted plastic ashtray' and 'partially formed turd' as my favourite descriptions of this school of styling.

Cheers,

R.

 

[johannielscom]

...

yet it will inevitably produce a negative image among film enthusiasts who have also been looking forward with great anticipation towards the X100.

...

Response @ Fujifilm: "So what? Apparently the few remaining Neopan users that would also be interested in the X100 feel unhappy. What are the odds?"

While I find the demise of Neopan 1600 saddening (I never shot it and only recently got interested in in faster-than-400 BW film, and now it's discontinued without notice) we have seen a carelessness towards film from Fujifilm before.

I cannot help but think it's due to one of two perceptions: 1)We are Fujifilm and we have never before taken into account the opinions of customers on our line of film products because we did not have to, and we're not going to start now, or 2) We are the new-and-improved Digital Fujifilm Company and film is dying, we are slowly phasing out the film business as we see fit.
Either one of those has at least a bit to do with the company being very big. Not to be helped, I'd say. Smaller business is no option either, it might go bankrupt. Maybe they should be more committed to cohesive and informative press communications, but hey, you can't say it hurts them much while they aren't.

Different approach towards Fujifilm: We are the professional users of your films and if you cannot communicate properly with us, we are considering abandoning your film products and your professional DSLR line because we need certainty in our business. This would only fly if Fujifilm plans to release a successor to the Fujifilm S5, I reckon.

My problem with the retro design is different: I love it and am certainly considering buying an X100. But, if half the planet gets accustomed to the retro design again, what do I have to carry to still be regarded a poor, retarded and harmless streetshooter? A 1998 digital P&S?

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Fujifilm has been quietly exiting the film business for some time. It started with their large format process films several years ago and continues with B&W "consumer" film today. Fuji has been a digital company for some time, much more successfully than Kodak, who doesn't seem to be successful with either digital or film these days.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

I also noticed a few days ago that the last few rolls off film in our local Wal-Mart, which happened to be Fuji, are now gone. You can no longer buy film in our local Wal-Mart. Who would have figured.