What Nikon gets right

[Andrew Reid]

4 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Yes this is a definite thing. 

Maybe less so for the younger brigade but Nikon is a camera company. 

Canon is a camera company.

Olympus, Pentax, Leica, Fuji are or were camera companies.

OK they made other stuff but folks know or knew them as camera companies.

Sony and Panasonic = giant electronics companies. Who just happen to make cameras more recently.

Sony has arguably become a camera brand but Panasonic LUMIX has a bit of an identity crisis and I do think it’s because it says exactly that on the box, Panasonic LUMIX.

It should have been LUMIX and just LUMIX from the start.

It keeps circling back to the same broad topic; branding and marketing.

Sony and Panasonic without the film heritage but there right from the start with digicams.

Sony always put the Sony logo on the body.

Panasonic didn't do this, and I suggest it's Lumix that's the problem not Panasonic. "Lumix" doesn't have the worldwide brand recognition of "Sony".

The problem is Panasonic doesn't have the brand appeal of Sony or Nikon either. They were never quite there in Hifi, Walkmans, game consoles, and so on... Panasonic are bigger in white goods and appliances, like LG, where Sony has always put the emphasis on consumer electronics and gadgets.

I'd rate the camera companies brands in order of camera-ness like this...

1. Leica, they're as synonymous as it gets. Panasonic should buy the brand.

2. Canon, for they are the most popular

3. Nikon, for being second only to Canon in terms of success

4. Sony, for pioneering the digital market from the late 90s onward - but no SLR or film heritage unless you count the Minolta buy-out.

5. Fujifilm. Arguably should be higher but their film-era SLRs were rubbish and they didn't catch the mainstream wave of DSLR says with the niche S5 Pro and so on. They were known not as a camera company but for film. Nice digicams aside, Fujifilm are only a recent success story in digital. What saved them was getting into mirrorless with the X100 and X-Pro in early 2010s.

Then I rate the dead brands highly...

Kodak RIP

Olympus RIP

Minolta RIP

Contax RIP

Lumix RIP (only joking)

And then in no particular order there's a lot of variation between what's an active brand (Lumix) and what's camera-ness (Pentax). Obviously Pentax is a high-cameraness brand, you will hardly think of microwaves with them. But today they are almost anonymous on the market, from a top 5 brand to basically nowhere and nobody can decide if it should be called Rioch or not.

Sigma. Very high lens-ness, not so much cameras, still a niche.

OM System. Feels like a Temu Olympus

Panasonic / Lumix on their cherished 5% market share doing admirably but never seem to be capable of troubling the top 5 despite great specs, pioneering models and a loyal bunch of customers.

Did I forget anyone?

[BTM_Pix]

3 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Did I forget anyone?

Hasselblad.

I think something will come from DJI that will make them more relevant video wise.

They might also be eyeing the fixed lens market (not to mention the eye watering prices X-Pans fetch) and thinking they could have a slice of that.

Let’s not forget that DJI are also L Mount alliance members so a an L mount full frame or APS-C (as no one is doing one) Hasselblad could also make a splash.

Although Leica would probably lose their minds over that possibility so maybe it is contractually forbidden to do anything other than DJI branded.

[MrSMW]

11 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

1. Leica, they're as synonymous as it gets. Panasonic should buy the brand.

That is probably the single best thing they could ever have done or ever could do.

No one cares who engineered the thing or where they got the bits from.

Everyone cares about the badge. Even people who say they do not care about the badge, they do.

[Django]

Can't say I agree. As a Leica user, I absolutely care about manufacturing, build quality, country of origin etc. 

Call me a purist but that's what I pay for not the badge, in fact my Leica MP has no badge/red dot.

I'll go even further and say the only real Leica's to me are the M, Q & SL series. 

As for Panasonic, they have a strong and long legacy both in audiophile world via Technics (started in 1965) and broadcast/video/cinema with the various ENG/camcorders & Varicam products. Video cameras like the DVX100 were cult among indie docs, film and music videos and game changers as they introduced 24p alongside 3CCD sensors in affordable packages.

Sony also has heavy legacy in video/film with DVCAM in the 90s and CineAlta the first digital cinema cams used by Lucas in the Star Wars prequels.

So while both Panny & Sony don't have CaNikons & Fuji photography background, they actually precede them in the video/cinema world hence the head start they got on that side in mirrorless.

Nikon up until basically Z9 was seriously lagging in the mirrorless video market. There were even bad speculation about their financial health and future viability. They made a surprise U-turn with Z9/Z8/Z6iii and the shock acquisition of RED. Still very curious about what RED will mean. Nikon didn't have a cine line to protect, now they do so will RED tech trickle down to the Z line or will it be more of a Z-mount ecosystem?

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, Django said:

Can't say I agree

Which is fair enough and your argument holds water, but there is another scenario and that is if Panny were to acquire Leica, there could be a 2 tier structure which might be:

Tier 1 which is your pricier and photo-centric if not 100% photo only M's, and then,

Tier 2 which might be your less pricey, but still premium hybrid and video gear.

What exactly would this achieve for Leica?

Absolutely nothing other than continued existence. In this hypothetical scenario, they have just been bought out!

But Panasonic LUMIX or now Leica as they are known, have a stronger place in the marketplace due to brand.

I think Nikon NEED to do it with Red and have a 2 tier structure that is:

RED Nikon for their video-centric offerings and 

Nikon RED for their hybrid and photo.

In both of these hypothetical scenarios, there would also have to be parts pricing and tech differences, but it's what I would do in their shoes and that is not try to cover al bases or be a jack of all trades, but cover your niche and cover it exceptionally well.

[eatstoomuchjam]

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Sony, for pioneering the digital market from the late 90s onward - but no SLR or film heritage unless you count the Minolta buy-out.

Darnit, you beat me to my pedantic correction.

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Fujifilm. Arguably should be higher but their film-era SLRs were rubbish and they didn't catch the mainstream wave of DSLR says with the niche S5 Pro and so on. They were known not as a camera company but for film

You're talking in terms of standard 35mm, right?  Because Fuji's medium format gear was/is fantastic - and xpan, which they made with Hasselblad (and sold on their own as the TX1/TX2) is legendary.

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Kodak RIP

Why rate Kodak highly?  Post-1950, did they ever even make a camera worth owning?

 

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Did I forget anyone?

DJI.  Mentioning a second time since BTM_Pix doesn't consider them relevant video-wise, but I'd say that for drone photography/videography, they're nearly the only brand these days.

[BTM_Pix]

21 minutes ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

Mentioning a second time since BTM_Pix doesn't consider them relevant video-wise

What?

I said no such thing.

It is precisely DJI’s video relevance that makes Hasselblad with their internals such a potentially serious competitor in the high end hybrid market.

 

[Andrew Reid]

A good summary of what makes the Z8 such a good allrounder. Still cheaper than a used Sony a1 but an even better camera in some ways.

https://www.zachnicholz.com/blog/nikon-z8-review

[Andrew Reid]

2 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Hasselblad.

I think something will come from DJI that will make them more relevant video wise.

They might also be eyeing the fixed lens market (not to mention the eye watering prices X-Pans fetch) and thinking they could have a slice of that.

Let’s not forget that DJI are also L Mount alliance members so a an L mount full frame or APS-C (as no one is doing one) Hasselblad could also make a splash.

Although Leica would probably lose their minds over that possibility so maybe it is contractually forbidden to do anything other than DJI branded.

I knew I'd forgotten someone.

Hasselblad should expand the line-up, the current choice of two cameras is a bit naff.

X-Pan digital would sell like Russian oil to Trump.

DJI are perfectly placed to do a hybrid mirrorless camera as well.

[BTM_Pix]

2 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Hasselblad.

I think something will come from DJI that will make them more relevant video wise.

For clarity, the “them” in this sentence is still referring to Hasselblad.

So, something from their parent company DJI (ie the incorporation of their video tech) will make Hasselblad more relevant.

Although it has to be said that a mirrorless camera from DJI might cause far more of a splash with a far bigger modern audience who’ve been using their drones, action cameras and gimbals than would a cost reduced Hasselblad with comprehensive video features.

Those of us of a certain age might well choke on our pipes and unexpectedly fill our incontinence pants in excitement at such a Hasselblad but we are literally a dying breed so it might well appear under the DJI guise if it happens.

[Django]

30 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

Which is fair enough and your argument holds water, but there is another scenario and that is if Panny were to acquire Leica, there could be a 2 tier structure which might be:

Tier 1 which is your pricier and photo-centric if not 100% photo only M's, and then,

Tier 2 which might be your less pricey, but still premium hybrid and video gear.

What exactly would this achieve for Leica?

Absolutely nothing other than continued existence. In this hypothetical scenario, they have just been bought out!

But Panasonic LUMIX or now Leica as they are known, have a stronger place in the marketplace due to brand.

I think Nikon NEED to do it with Red and have a 2 tier structure that is:

RED Nikon for their video-centric offerings and 

Nikon RED for their hybrid and photo.

In both of these hypothetical scenarios, there would also have to be parts pricing and tech differences, but it's what I would do in their shoes and that is not try to cover al bases or be a jack of all trades, but cover your niche and cover it exceptionally well.

Why would Leica need to sell out though? They are doing fine financially. The Xiaomi partnership allows a strong revenue stream with a foot in the lucrative smartphone business. They already have the top tier M/SL/Q lines and lenses and the second tier rebranded Panasonic stuff for consumers. Plus the L-mount alliance. That a pretty healthy strategy for a boutique company.

Hasselblad was in a much harder position hence the DJI buy out. And while that has indeed saved the company from going tits up, many users feel its diluted the brand who's shifted focus and hasn't really innovated much since. That's why I'm not usually keen on buy-outs from big tech companies unless the only left option.

The Nikon/RED thing is interesting considering there was a legal feud right before that happened. If you can't beat them, join them type of situation. Will see if Z9 follow-up (ZX) will indeed have global shutter and R3D code. Its going to be interesting because they now also have to protect the RED cine line..

[MrSMW]

43 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Those of us of a certain age might well choke on our pipes and unexpectedly fill our incontinence pants in excitement at such a Hasselblad but we are literally a dying breed so it might well appear under the DJI guise if it happens.

I will certainly look at it. Through my bifocals. After refilling my pipe and changing my pants, naturally, decorum and all that. One does not go on-line without upholding certain standards.

I will be surprised if there isn't one, although it could just be a load of wishful speculating chatter?

[BTM_Pix]

2 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

I will be surprised if there isn't one, although it could just be a load of wishful speculating chatter?

Well, Hasselblad have been taking the opposite path and removing video altogether in recent cameras rather than enhancing it.

I suppose it depends now on whether they are getting spanked by the GFX and if so whether they have to add it back in to regain ground or go completely the opposite way and go for full on differentiation  and keep video out for good.

 

[MrSMW]

3 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Well, Hasselblad have been taking the opposite path and removing video altogether in recent cameras rather than enhancing it.

And possibly the right thing for them as a hybrid at that level might just be too niche?

Like might be able to pull it off, but their product is considerably less.

Fujis cheaper still...

4 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

I suppose it depends now on whether they are getting spanked by the GFX and if so whether they have to add it back in to regain ground or go completely the opposite way and go for full on differentiation  and keep video out for good.

There is an argument that the FF market is already saturated so maybe they should not try and compete in that arena, but then MF is 'sexy' over FF which most want over APSC which most want over 4/3.

But how would they add video to their megabucks stills camera and bring the price down without massively dumbing it all down?

Or maybe in their niche market (really shared only with Leica) for a 'luxury hybrid' to fly?

Not literally fly. That is parent company DJI's job.

[BTM_Pix]

5 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

But how would they add video to their megabucks stills camera and bring the price down without massively dumbing it all down?

By selling multiple times more of them?

Doubtful that they would achieve those levels though with even a 30-40% price reduction.

The only thing that stops me buying a 907x isn’t the price but more my wife finding out about it.

[eatstoomuchjam]

1 hour ago, BTM_Pix said:

For clarity, the “them” in this sentence is still referring to Hasselblad.

Sorry for the misunderstanding!  

1 hour ago, BTM_Pix said:

Although it has to be said that a mirrorless camera from DJI might cause far more of a splash with a far bigger modern audience who’ve been using their drones, action cameras and gimbals than would a cost reduced Hasselblad with comprehensive video features.

As I mentioned in an S1R II thread, anybody who has used Ronin 4D has been practically begging for this.  Just take the R4D body, rip off the gimbal and put on a fixed lens mount.  Which... almost seems to be what the Lumix is.  The timing is suspicious too, with it coming almost exactly 1 year after the DJI announcement (maybe the latter had a 1 year exclusive thing with Sony to buy the sensor?).

Although something that might prevent them from pursuing that could very well be that a lot of the big players have been willing to collaborate with them on gimbals vs competing - so if DJI decide to compete with them on cameras, some of that good will may be lost and we'll start seeing gimbals from Sony, Canon, etc.

[BTM_Pix]

12 minutes ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

Sorry for the misunderstanding!  

My fault so need to apologise

when I read it back it looked exactly like you’d interpreted it !

I guess the Jazz English must be catching.

[Andrew Reid]

Hasselblad would do well for high-end stills focused stuff and DJI for the Sony-type mirrorless stuff.

The X1D would have been a no-brainer now it is almost under £2k used but the slow electronic shutter and lack of lens adapters means it is still a mega expensive proposition with the native lenses.

The moment DJI bring out a nice full frame mirrorless camera in the a7 mould with Hasselblad colour profiles, that's it for Hasselblad in the sub-£5k market so may as well focus on the expensive Leica-end.

Although again going back to the brand recognition and marketing angle of this topic... DJI would do well to keep DJI off all their non-Drone, non-Gimbal cameras and use a Hasselblad badge instead whether it costs $1k or $6k.

Also the Oneplus / Oppo tie-in is quite nifty so keep that going.

[MrSMW]

33 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

The X1D would have been a no-brainer now it is almost under £2k used but the slow electronic shutter and lack of lens adapters means it is still a mega expensive proposition with the native lenses.

From all I have read, makes great pics but it's a painful experience and you can go get a coffee, allow it to cool and then drink it, between switching it on and it then being ready.

The next one wasn't much better and even the most recent model gets a but of chatter about the user experience being less than it might be.

Which really just goes to show just how much time and money you need in developing a camera.

I still want one, but it would have to be the latest model and maybe in a few more years, maybe as my 'swan song' final camera before I collect my pension. 

38 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

DJI would do well to keep DJI off all their non-Drone, non-Gimbal cameras and use a Hasselblad badge instead whether it costs $1k or $6k

For the more expensive stuff at least, for sure. 

OM-System vs OLYMPUS

Might have been more to it than simply wishing to stamp their own brand...quite literally, on their kit, but utter madness to otherwise throw away brand heritage.

But then there is hilarious levels of brand re-use such as MG on a Chinese electric car brand.

The cars are 'OK' by all reports, but if they think for one second they are tapping into the swinging 60's string backed leather driving brigade, ha! It makes zero sense using this heritage badge. None!

[ND64]

So CinedD published their new lab test and in imatest there is not a noticeable difference between Z9/Z8 and R5ii

5 stop under with NR shows different color cast

But AF striping noise is visible in Canon image, even after NR