Nikon buys Red?

[IronFilm]

On 3/8/2024 at 1:22 PM, KnightsFan said:

 

1. Red's tech moves to Nikon's mirrorless cameras. Redcode perhaps, accessory compatibility e.g. their new EVF, the global shutter sensors.

2. Nikon's tech moves to Red. Z mount, autofocus, or even simple things like LCD screens, mirrorless-size EVFs. And the other huge category: lenses. Perhaps some of Nikon's excellent optics will find their way into cinema housings, either in PL or Z mount.

Hopefully both of these happen. 

Z6mk2 gets a RedCode firmware update, and Nikon mirrorless does things like taking TC more seriously. Meanwhile RED cinema cameras get better pricing / LCD screens / weatherproofing / Z Mount / EVFs / etc 

23 hours ago, ntblowz said:

I really welcome a Red Powered Nikon FX3/FX30 competitor with Redcode, I would chuck out my FX3/FX30 in a beat!

Yes please! But especially "a Nikon FX6" (or FX60???)

22 hours ago, mercer said:

Exactly. I don't even know what to think. I wasn't planning any upgrade anytime soon, so I can wait to see how things pan out, but how Canon responds will definitely sway me one way or the other.

Hell, this was so out of left field, that for all I know, Canon could announce they bought Arriflex next week.

ARRI lights with Canon branding! 😅

19 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

A loyal customer base and a foothold in Hollywood is a pretty significant reason to purchase RED if a company is looking break into that market. 

With this purchase Nikon leap frogs Canon when it comes to cinema cameras. Not a lot of Hollywood blockbusters filming on Canon cinema cameras, but some of the biggest ones are filmed on RED.

True, but RED is very much playing second fiddle to ARRI. They're waaaay behind these days. 

Heck, RED is playing second fiddle to even Sony in the cinema market!

19 hours ago, MrSMW said:

There is one thing in this acquisition of RED that I am sure of and that is all future Nikon cameras will remain black. Even if they have any kind of badging that reads RED.

Hmmm... don't count on that, don't now assume anything ever about Nikon!

How sure can you really be that Nikon won't make non-black cameras, perhaps even a RED colored camera:

 

[MrSMW]

7 hours ago, IronFilm said:

So this is exciting news for me! It has been very underappreciated the massive contributions Nikon has made to filmmaking

...and photography, though most appreciate the latter.

There's been quite a bit of negativity and still is out there in some quarters, re. Nikon as a brand.

Fair enough, in the earlier days of mirrorless, they were not quite the co-leading player as they were with Canon in the former DSLR days.

When I started shooting weddings 20+ years ago, it was Nikon or Canon with Canon taking around 2/3rds of the sales.

Today it's; Nikon, Canon, Sony, Fuji and Panasonic with Sony being the biggest based on pure sales and probably also on image/marketing with the younger end of the market.

Nikon along with Panasonic, seems to have developed a slightly fuddy duddy image which I think is a bit undeserved and I think it's because they haven't approached their marketing in quite the same way as say Sony or even Fuji.

Fuji obviously went down the nostalgic route with some of their designs and film sim approach and Sony the 'YouTube Gen' and Canon seems to bob along based on legacy as does Leica.

But not so old Panny Boy and Nikon have suffered I think by being less active than some others despite having some exceptional products.

The S1H and S5ii, my own personal weapons of choice in the hybrid video arena are amongst the best available.

Nikon produced the Z6ii which is right up there still in its class, the Z8, the Z9 and most recently the Zf, all exceptional top of their class acts. 

RED for me as a brand though, is a bit mixed... I think it is a bit of it's time... As someone said above, a few years back it was all RED MEGA GODZILLA XXX and had a certain appeal to a certain market, but that's not any kind of widespread appeal or dare I say, very mature.

So I think a toned down, more youthful, more left field, side brand, could be good for Nikon on one side of this acquisition and on the other side, whatever the tech is that they can utilise.

It should be interesting for sure.

But if they are going to make any camera with a red body, they need to make sure it's a matte red, not a gloss one.

 

[IronFilm]

30 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

...and photography, though most appreciate the latter.

There's been quite a bit of negativity and still is out there in some quarters, re. Nikon as a brand.

At least Nikon gets recognized as part of the "Canikon duopoly" (although in the mature mirrorless era, Sony has broken that duopoly). 

But I agree, it seems Nikon got seen as the forgotten poorer stepchild in that duopoly. 

Even though Nikon has produced so very many ground breaking / top tier stills cameras themselves, such as the Nikon D700 / D3 / D800 / D750 / D500 / etc 

 

30 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

RED for me as a brand though, is a bit mixed... I think it is a bit of it's time... As someone said above, a few years back it was all RED MEGA GODZILLA XXX and had a certain appeal to a certain market, but that's not any kind of widespread appeal or dare I say, very mature.

So I think a toned down, more youthful, more left field, side brand, could be good for Nikon on one side of this acquisition and on the other side, whatever the tech is that they can utilise.

It should be interesting for sure.

Good point. Nikon has got a bit of an old fuddy duddy branding of stereotype cameraman photographers. So maybe a little bit of the bold brash youthful branding of RED mixed in could be "a good thing"? 

[John Matthews]

I've always been bothered by both of these companies. Nikon has always been a company with great valued products and colors, but since the 80s, it's been on a downward trend in terms of quality and often spewing arrogant remarks. That might only be in the USA division though.

I've never used Red product and probably never will, but they seem more interested in user agreements than pleasing users. Also, they have horrible PR. Again, extremely arrogant.

So, arrogance meets arrogance. I hope they can make something positive and useful of this.

 

[kye]

24 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Good point. Nikon has got a bit of an old fuddy duddy branding of stereotype cameraman photographers. So maybe a little bit of the bold brash youthful branding of RED mixed in could be "a good thing"? 

I've stopped trying to understand the younger generations in terms of tastes etc..  The other day we went out to a nearby community event and my daughter (20) came, and was rocking one of these:

I couldn't find anything online about it other than online stores and Reddit comments telling people "you're in the wrong place - you have a digital camera".

[JulioD]

No way is Nikon making a Burano type camera.  
 

Nothing will change at either company.  
 

A few years from now RED fold from stagnation or gets bought back by the owners and re-launches.  
 

[BTM_Pix]

8 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Why?

Aiding and abetting the biggest sporting fraud of all time.

 

[IronFilm]

57 minutes ago, JulioD said:

No way is Nikon making a Burano type camera.  

RED will probably make a competitor to BURANO, even if only tangentially so. (such as an updated RED V-RAPTOR)

And RED is now part of Nikon, thus it would be Nikon making it. 

18 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Aiding and abetting the biggest sporting fraud of all time.

 

What does that have to do with RED??? (I can't watch that video due to copyright) 

[BTM_Pix]

16 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

What does that have to do with RED??? (I can't watch that video due to copyright) 

Not RED per se but it’s founder Jannard’s role in suppressing the truth about Armstrong’s doping.

The documentary tells the whole story so if you have a VPN it’s worth watching if region blocked.

A summary of it is here

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-02/sponsor-turned-blind-eye-to-lance-armstrongs-doping/5564074

“Turning a blind eye” is doing some heavy lifting there.

 

[John Matthews]

1 hour ago, JulioD said:

No way is Nikon making a Burano type camera.  
 

Nothing will change at either company.  
 

A few years from now RED fold from stagnation or gets bought back by the owners and re-launches.  
 

Exactly. Nikon has shown over and over again that their management gets cocky and stupid; then, they end up promoting some guy who knows what they're doing and turn the ship around making some awesome products, only to return to the previous situation cocky leadership and 5+ years of stagnant products. Red survives on lawsuits and ULA's. The now ex-owners are in a "cash-in" situation where they can buy it back at a later date when Nikon fails.

Yes, Nikon came out with some great products recently, for sure, but who thinks they truly know what they're doing at a business, financial, and cultural level? The jury is still very much out on their turn-around. Give it another 5-10 years and we'll see.

[IronFilm]

30 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Not RED per se but it’s founder Jannard’s role in suppressing the truth about Armstrong’s doping.

The documentary tells the whole story so if you have a VPN it’s worth watching if region blocked.

A summary of it is here

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-02/sponsor-turned-blind-eye-to-lance-armstrongs-doping/5564074

“Turning a blind eye” is doing some heavy lifting there.

As a hard core fan of cycling racing for many years, I'm quite lukewarm over this, don't really care. If you somehow believe Lance Armstrong doesn't deserve the wins, then who does? 2nd place? No. 3rd place? No. 2nd place? No. 4th place? No. 5th place? No. 6th place? No. etc etc etc 

It indisputable that USA Postal during that era was the king at the sport of cycling (well, at least the #1 when it came to TdF wins, which to the casual external viewer is all that seems to matter. Even though the sport of cycling is so so so much more). Just like Red Bull is right now for F1. 

 

[IronFilm]

@Dave Maze (David Altizer) just posted about the Nikon purchase of RED:

 

[mercer]

Deleted for joke in poor taste. 

[D Verco]

On 3/8/2024 at 1:14 PM, mercer said:

Doesn't Nikon license their AF from Sony when they purchase their sensors? If that's the case, will future Red cameras have Sony sensors if they have AF?

Lol what. Only some of Nikon's sensors are Sony designed. Others like the z9 are designed by Nikon and then manufactured by Sony. 

[MrSMW]

4 hours ago, kye said:

I couldn't find anything online about it other than online stores and Reddit comments telling people "you're in the wrong place - you have a digital camera".

It's some dark web youth shit and you my friend are not allowed to that party.

Nor am I 🤔🤪

 

[BTM_Pix]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

As a hard core fan of cycling racing for many years, I'm quite lukewarm over this, don't really care.

I’m not sure as a hardcore fan of any sport how you could be lukewarm about systematic cheating as, well, it doesn’t seem very, erm, “sporting”.

From my personal point of view as a pro sports photographer covering Tour de France in that era though I’m far from lukewarm about having sat in press conferences being lied to  by him and watching him ridicule and soil the reputation of David Walsh and Paul Kimmage.

Or Emma O’Reilly.

I’m also sore that in Armstrong’s case, unlike all the other ones I’ve covered, that I get zero residuals from my “winner of stage x” or “winner of TdF x”  images 🙂

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

 If you somehow believe Lance Armstrong doesn't deserve the wins, then who does? 2nd place? No. 3rd place? No. 2nd place? No. 4th place? No. 5th place? No. 6th place? No. etc etc etc 

I might be being old fashioned here but I’d give it to the highest placed cyclist that wasn’t using PEDs.

I have some sympathy with the “well they were all at it” aspect so, fine, let everyone do it and have a special event.

Just don’t call it sport when it’s only being used by some of the field.

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

 

[BTM_Pix]

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

It indisputable that USA Postal during that era was the king at the sport of cycling (well, at least the #1 when it came to TdF wins, which to the casual external viewer is all that seems to matter. Even though the sport of cycling is so so so much more).

It is indisputable that they were the leading systematic doping team.

As for their other successes in the other Grand Tours or Classics then, again, it was all whilst cheating.

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Just like Red Bull is right now for F1. 

If Red Bull’s domination was achieved through cheating (that marginal financial doping issue aside)then you might have a point.

 

 

[IronFilm]

59 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

I’m not sure as a hardcore fan of any sport how you could be lukewarm about systematic cheating as, well, it doesn’t seem very, erm, “sporting”.

What high profile professional sport does not have drug taking?

The only reason cycling gets so much flack is because they're a hell of a lot more transparently open about it & the media actually talks about it.

Which it would be good if other sports & the media did this too! Had more open transparency and discussion. (for instance, have you ever heard of Mohamed Katir? Or the Chinese female distance runners of the 1990s?) 

56 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

It is indisputable that they were the leading systematic doping team.

Which is what the sport of cycling is. 

(especially in that era) 

1 hour ago, BTM_Pix said:

I might be being old fashioned here but I’d give it to the highest placed cyclist that wasn’t using PEDs.

You're proving my point here. You can't give out all the wins to anybody else but Lance Armstrong, thus it is utterly farcical to remove it from him when you've got no remotely good options whatsoever to replace him with. 

[BTM_Pix]

2 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

What high profile professional sport does not have drug taking?

 

Likely none.

The issue at hand is being lukewarm about when someone is caught.

That just doesn’t chime with me personally in terms of being sport.

6 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

The only reason cycling gets so much flack is because they're a hell of a lot more transparently open about it & the media actually talks about it.

Transparency?

Armstrong colluded with the UCI to cover up his positive tests FFS.

7 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

[BTM_Pix]

9 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Which is what the sport of cycling is. 

(especially in that era) 

Not 100% of riders.

15 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

You're proving my point here. You can't give out all the wins to anybody else but Lance Armstrong, thus it is utterly farcical to remove it from him when you've got no remotely good options whatsoever to replace him with. 

No, you’re trying to prove your own point that 100% of riders were using.

Floyd Landis’ TdF title in 2006 went to Oscar Periero just as Alberto Contador’s went to Andy Schleck in 2010 so that proves the point that they only had to go one place down to find a rider that they could give it to.

I’d venture that the Armstrong “asterix” years are more to do with UCI/ASO complicity and/or legal issues that are still ongoing.

Anyway, enough of cycling, I’ve derailed this thread enough so will politely withdraw from the sport vs spectacle conundrum.