Clean and attractive
Should Fuji stop emblazoning the word "Fujifilm" on the front of all its digital cameras? Wouldn't "Fuji" do just as nicely?
Changes happen. Pentaxes used to be made by Asahi and were engraved "Asahi Pentax." Contax, as a marque name, was owned by Yashica which was eventually bought by Kyocera, but none of the cameras said "Yashica" or "Kyocera" on the front of the prism. Nikons used to be made by a company called Nippon Kōgaku (Kōgyō Kabushikigaisha, 日本光学工業株式会社, Japan Optical Industries Corporation. The company was renamed Nikon Corporation, after its cameras, in 1988*. —Wikipedia). But Nippon Kōgaku (not to mention "Japan Optical Industries"!) was too long for a top plate.
Mike
(Thanks to David Zivic)
*And the lenses couldn't be called Nikon because Zeiss objected that it was too close to Ikon, Zeiss's premier model name. Hence Nikkor.
Original contents copyright 2019 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Tim Bradshaw: "Almost certainly not: I suspect strongly that 'Fuji' is a word which the company can't assert suitable rights over, which means anyone can label their camera 'Fuji' and there would be nothing that could be done about it."
Franklin Berryman: "It doesn't matter what it says under the tape."
David Goldenberg: "I'm pretty sure that the name Nikkor came before Nikon and the dustup with Zeiss. See here, where it says that the first Nikkor camera lens was an 'Aero-Nikkor' made in 1933. The first Canon camera, the Hansa Canon, in 1936, also had a Nikkor lens. Nippon Kogaku didn't enter the camera business itself until after World War II. I have always presumed that the Nikkor name was meant to follow in the European tradition of giving lenses names, like Tessar, Sonnar, Elmar, etc. Except that Nippon Kogaku used the same name for all of their lenses, rather than using the names to distinguish among designs, or later, by Leitz, maximum aperture."
Grant Cunningham: "In the 1980s, Fuji's corporate name was Fuji Photo; their cameras were labeled Fujica. In the mid-'90s, as the digital revolution came on the horizon, they renamed the company Fujifilm and adorned their cameras with the new corporate logo. Now that we're in the digital era, their cameras are stuck with an incongruous label that would have been more appropriate 35 years ago—and the camera brand they used then would be perfectly at home now, had they only kept it!"
Niko X: "The examples you mention (Kyocera Yashica Contax, Asahi Pentax) are far longer and offer little more than historical/ownership information. 'Fujifilm' has more significance, being a reference to the company's film heritage, which is still relevant today. Isn't its praised color science based on the 'feel' of its emulsions? I say keep 'Fujifilm.'"
George Feucht: "Simple: while Acros exists, call yourself 'Fujifilm.' When you take Acros away from the world, you are not allowed to ever say the word 'film' any more."
Mike replies: There's lots of bitterness out there about that, isn't there?
Kalli: "This makes me think of how Panasonic brands their cameras as Lumix. As much as I like my Panasonic G80, which is a lot, I can't stand the Lumix moniker. I get that Panasonic is a long word and not a particularly sexy brand name, but Lumix just sounds like…like a pretentious brand name.
"That said, part of what annoys me may be how I think the Lumix logo on the not-pentaprism housing on Panasonic cameras doesn't look good. On the GX line of cameras the L is bigger, than on the DSLR-style cameras, which makes the logo look nicer and maybe even fitting for the boxy GX cameras (their DSLR-style cameras hardly distinguish themselves style-wise, but I tend to like the looks of the GX bodies—maybe that says something about which brandname/logo fits each?). Maybe if I'd buy a GX9 I'd start referring to my camera as a Lumix instead of a Panasonic as I do now?"
Mike replies: That reminds me of a good joke from when I was a magazine editor and had to deal with corporations all the time:
A behavioral experiment: ten monkeys are confined in a small room. In the middle of the ceiling is a hook and from the hook hangs a bunch of fresh bananas. Under the bananas in the middle of the room is a stepladder leading right up to the bananas.
No brainer, right? But every time a monkey tries to climb the stepladder to get the bananas, sprinklers in the ceiling douse all the monkeys in the room with ice water, which they hate.
So whenever a monkey tries to climb the stepladder, the rest of the monkeys set upon him, pull him off the ladder, and beat him up. Soon enough, none of them tries to climb the stepladder any more.
Then one day, one of the original ten monkeys is removed from the room and replaced with a new monkey. The new guy sizes up the situation, wonders why no one has done the obvious and gone to get the bananas, and begins to climb up the stepladder. At which point all the other monkeys set upon him, pull him off the ladder, and beat him up. After two or three tries, he, too, no longer attempts to climb the ladder.
Then another of the original monkeys is replaced by a second new guy, and the same thing happens to him. Only this time, the first new guy joins in with all the other monkeys and helps to beat the new guy up. Except he doesn't know why he does this. All he knows is that everyone else does it and it seems to be the accepted thing to do. So he goes along.
This process is repeated until all ten of the original monkeys have been replaced.
Now, none of the monkeys in the room has ever been doused with ice water. But whenever a new guy comes along and tries to climb the stepladder, everyone else beats him up. None of them know the reason for this behavior. It's just the way things are done, and the way it's always been.
And that explains corporate culture.
So I'd guess the reason why Panasonic doggedly sticks with "Lumix" is that whenever someone suggests doing something else, he's pulled off the stepladder and gets beaten up.
Richard Parkin (partial comment): "The brand story I’ve always liked is that giant Sharp electronics brand takes its name from the pencil they made 100 years ago."
If Fuji where a company like Sony, they might. By “like Sony” I mean a brand that has explored almost any single kind of camera design that ever existed (traditional DSLR, DSLR style mirrorless, rangefinder style mirrorless, ultra poquet, the unique R1 and its top mounted acreen, etc).
But Fuji is after the traditional buttons and dials market, so no, they won’t erase “film” and they definitely shouldn’t!
Posted by: Gaspar Heurtley | Wednesday, 08 May 2019 at 12:46 PM
once upon a time in germany:
https://www.destoutz.ch/nikkor_f_6518160.html
Posted by: hugh crawford | Wednesday, 08 May 2019 at 01:09 PM
I think the FUJIFILM is a "tip o' the hat" to the retro styling of the Fujifilm X series cameras. Many times I had received a compliment on the camera (a lot more so than when I had a Nikon) followed by "What type of film do you shoot". I think that the wording of FUJIFILM has something to do with that.
Posted by: Khürt Williams | Wednesday, 08 May 2019 at 01:25 PM
Maybe FujiInstax would be more appropriate. Sometime soon Instax will be Fuji's only remaining film.
Posted by: c.d.embrey | Wednesday, 08 May 2019 at 01:27 PM
Oh, and let us not forget Honeywell Pentax and when Canons were labeled Bell & Howell. Anyway, Fujifilm is already shortened from Fuji Photo Film.
The interesting random photo connected fact of the day is Fujifilm's position against cosmetic retouching in post processing
https://www.fujifilm.com/products/skincare/history/
Posted by: hugh crawford | Wednesday, 08 May 2019 at 01:27 PM
I have long-wished for Fuji to resurrect the totally groovy name FUJICA
Posted by: Max Cottrell | Wednesday, 08 May 2019 at 02:44 PM
I went a slight step further with a Sharpie and blacked out all nomenclature on my X-T1.
Posted by: Stan B. | Wednesday, 08 May 2019 at 03:30 PM
On the plus side, Fujifilm is one of the very few companies left that still makes (or at least sells) film. On the negative side, this is the company that's closing out film stocks on a quarterly basis. Stopping sales of the completely unique Acros 100 (the only film ever made, to my knowledge, with no reciprocity failure up to around 2 minutes) was a crime. So in my grumpy moments I refer to them as FujiNOTfilm...
Fuji on the cameras works for me, though!
Posted by: Chris | Wednesday, 08 May 2019 at 03:42 PM
Might be a trademark issue. Since "Fuji" is a famous mountain, they can't trademark that name. But maybe they could trademark it for use on cameras, I don't know (IANAL, as they say). Just my off-the-top-of-the-head surmising.
Posted by: Phil | Wednesday, 08 May 2019 at 04:08 PM
Perhaps Fuji should consider reverting to their old camera brand, Fujica.
Fuji's film cameras used to go by the brand name of Fujica, beginning in the 1940's running through the late 1980's.
Posted by: kurt congdon | Wednesday, 08 May 2019 at 04:11 PM
I agree with the previous commenters: revert to Fujica, like
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Fujica_ST901
Even Leitz-Wetzlar started calling themselves Leica in recent years. Maybe Schneider-Kreuznach should change their name to "Schneida"?
Posted by: Alun J. Carr | Wednesday, 08 May 2019 at 05:50 PM
I don't buy the "Zeiss objected to Nikon" story as the origin of the Nikkor name. First of all, I long ago read a very different explanation, from Nikon I think. Sadly, I can't recall any of the details, nor exactly where I read it--perhaps the "book" they produced in the early 1908s called The Eyes of Nikon. (Not to be confused with a more-recent product bearing the same title).
The second reason I can't accept the Zeiss origin story is that most (all?) of the Japanese film-camera makers had names for their lens lines that differed from the names of their camera lines:
Nikon --> Nikkor
Minolta --> Rokkor
Pentax --> Takumkar
Olympus --> Zuiko
and so on.
-gkf-
Posted by: GKFroehlich | Wednesday, 08 May 2019 at 07:10 PM
We tend to think our beloved MILC cameras are the core business of photo equipment companies, but that is not true. In Fujifilm and Olympus' cases it is even less so than with other brands.
Actually, Fujifilm would be nowhere without film. Instant film is keeping Fujifilm profitable, and they still produce lots of 120 and 135 film, either OEM or under their own brand, so it would be absurd for them to drop the "film" part.
So let's stop playing around with Photoshop, shall we?
Posted by: Manuel | Wednesday, 08 May 2019 at 07:24 PM
We'd lose the typographical flourish linking "FUJI" and "FILM", which would be sad.
Posted by: Frank Doring | Wednesday, 08 May 2019 at 07:31 PM
Well if they can't call it MOUNTFUJI, maybe FUJIMOUNT, to remind people what type of lens to buy. However this could be confusing - should non-Fuji made Fujimount lenses be called Fujinons?
Posted by: Lynn | Wednesday, 08 May 2019 at 08:45 PM
I have a Fujica ST605n, a bit ratty but perfectly useable. It even came with a functioning meter with two good S76 batteries....for $20. A better bargain than any digital it is paired with an exceptionally clean Vivitar 35mm f2.8 so old the serial number does not indicate the lens maker. (Although it looks like something Mamiya would have put out for their TL or DTL series.)
Yikes, I'm getting really old.
Posted by: john robison | Wednesday, 08 May 2019 at 11:44 PM
Fujifilm sounds nice to me. ( thanks for the link, Hugh. I need some kind of product to get rid of the sun spots in my hands ).
Posted by: David Lee | Thursday, 09 May 2019 at 01:19 AM
Fujifilm Instax cameras are very popular right now. Sure, they do not use film, but they use printing paper, does that count as far as tradition goes? My daughter loves it, she goes around snapping with the big camera, rather than with the smartphone. That's a positive aspect:)
Posted by: Paulo Bizarro | Thursday, 09 May 2019 at 04:28 AM
I see what you've done there.
However, if you google Fuji, you get a volcano.
Posted by: Matt | Thursday, 09 May 2019 at 05:46 AM
For the Japanese Fuji is the synonym of their holy volcano. (Mount Fuji, not Fuji mount). Claiming the same word with no additions for a product would be blasphemy. You wouldn't brand a camera company as Pope or Koran either.
Also it is confusing. There are hundreds of Japanese companies that have names with Fuji in it. So you can never claim the name Fuji for your brand only without any addition that distinguishes it from the others.
Posted by: s.wolters | Thursday, 09 May 2019 at 06:31 AM
Maybe their cameras don't look modern enough to *not* have 'film' in the name! ;)
And their actual film cameras *don't* have 'film' on the front: just Instax.
Posted by: Arg | Thursday, 09 May 2019 at 09:54 AM
I don’t know of any camera related Pope brands but there’s https://thepopebrand.com/ for example. It’s a fairly common surname in English.
The brand story I’ve always liked is that giant Sharp electronic brand takes its name from the pencil they made 100 years ago.
Posted by: Richard Parkin | Thursday, 09 May 2019 at 12:27 PM
Leave at least one legacy brand name alone.
I just about threw up when Boeing, right after acquiring McDonnell Douglas, started calling the Douglas DC-3 the "Boeing C-47."
Enough with the retconning, already.
Posted by: Maggie Osterberg | Monday, 13 May 2019 at 12:38 PM
Well Fujifilm still makes lots of color neg film, color reversal film, and has had a huge splash with its Instax products which taught a zillion young people that not all has to be shot with your phone. And the decades of R&D they put into the film products make their way into the very pleasing Film Simulations in the digital cams. So, probably worth keeping the "...film" for a while.
Posted by: Michael Bulbenko | Monday, 13 May 2019 at 03:01 PM