Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Nikon to Acquire US Cinema Camera Manufacturer RED.com, LLC

It will be interesting to see how new cameras from everybody unfold. I own "lots of cameras" from "lots of manufacturers" for different reasons.

I'm in a major market, the major market, plus I work in others as well. All I can say is Canon is MIA in specific areas out here. And I love their cameras, but they aren't what I'd use for many projects, otherwise I would. Canon does have new stuff coming and that will be nice, but they have some work ahead of them to get back into the production camera game.

Nikon knows RED is engrained into production cameras. There is tremendous brand strength and industry penetration. And REDCODE RAW is the best actual RAW format by a notable distance. I can see them at a minimum staying in this realm just on a shear marketing level. Somewhat similar to why it's of value to Sony to have something like the Venice line of cameras.

There will certainly be changes. But I'm standing by not much happening for a long while. A year to see anything notable probably, more like 3 years. Jarred also stating he's not retiring is good news to me as well. But who knows if that's 3, 5, 10 years or whatever. I need to stress, Jarred doesn't need to work, he's one of those who loves working.

But! What will be interesting is to see more capable Nikon and RED cameras at various pricing tiers. And I think this opens up a few doors at tiers that aren't currently explored by either company as well.
 
As a Nikon user who was a bit curious about what Red users felt about the acquisition, I wanted to add a certain Nikon perspective to the discussion. I have no crystal ball to know exactly the future, but some seem to know already everything here. LOL

First thing first Nikon won't get rid of the Red name and cameras for a lot of time. What many people who barely followed the photographic/hybrid camera market know, while talking as experts. Is that Nikon has tried, and tried to enter the video market for a long time. The 2018 z6-z7 were the first full frame cameras to offer 10 bit video, even if at the time it was external. The Z6 was the first mirrorless to offer Raw video even if it was again external at the time. Since the z9 two years ago, they have the best photo/video hybrid camera by far (with the z8). And even with this they didn't move the needle a lot in the video world. So my best guess is that after having knocked at the door, for a decade, they decided to just kick the door open in the video/cinema world. With the likes of the z9/z8 many people were saying, why didn't Nikon produce a cinema line of cameras. Would it have worked??? While with buying RED, they already get an established player in this market.

This is why, I don't see them getting rid of the name or stripping the company, they are not some Banks trying to sell a company asset for profit etc. RED will be at worst a badge of honor to say to everyone, inside this Nikon their is some kind of red tech, as someone driving a Mercedes or Ferrari can say they descend from the F1 team, at least in terms of philosophy. Or in the US the Chevrolet engine in the Indy cars. At least for video, because some seems to talk about Nikon as a dying photo company tech wise and market wise. Their has been a big missteps by Nikon, like entering the mirrorless market too late. But they took one step back to move two step up with the Z9 and then z8. They have been the most innovative and aggressive lately, always updating their cameras with latest autofocus and other features.

What I see for RED is that Nikon will inject at least some money for it to continue to advance, if it is not profitable nowadays. As Nikon doesn't even need Red to make a profit with the size they are. And as said before with those that believe every stupid influencers who predicted a company who did not make a profit only once, in at least the last 15 years, was going to fold!!!! This was because they were doing massive restructuration ( Moving production to their Thailand and closing Chinese factories etc).

They will also bring some massive economies of scale that Red could not even dream of. For example the Xspeed 7 processor in the Z9, can already do 60 fps 8k raw recordings. This same processor is going into the 2000 USD Nikon ZF and could go in lower end models, because of economies of scale. Red would never be able to do that because they could order some thousands chips, while Nikon would order in the millions. Two of these could perhaps run the 120 fps 8k sensor in a the Red camera. Same for any other elements like the excellent viewfinder, VR (stabilization) , top of the line autofocus etc. These could drastically reduce Red Cameras Bom and perhaps even bring some serious advantage, like I need 2 sec to be able to power on my camera and shoot 8k 60 fps RAW video. With time, Nikon could also bring a big global sales and support infrastructure. Nikon already have their own professional services apart from normal customer services.

I think it is also a given, that Nikon will launch z mount Red cameras. This will have two benefits for both brands, Nikon is much more certain that their cine line lens won't be a flop because they will be related to a well known brand that has already a customer base. For Red, a native lens brand that will work at its best with very high quality lens, with Sony style autofocus for those that need it. Might entice some in the Fx3, Fx6 market to choose the RED KomodoZ, than one of the Sony's.

As for Nikon what they at least need from Red is that they continue to be a player in the cinema/video market. They might inject some money even for the marketing beyond the technology. They might include Red RAW and Red color science in some of their cameras. As no one will be laughing at a 8k 60 fps Nikon Z9 with internal redcode Raw in the mirrorless/hybrid market. The two lineups also don't walk on each others foot, as the Z9 is 5000 USD, and the Reds start's higher. Some shooters might go for both as they will have same workflow from taking stills or editing videos.

So their are many possibility of integration/cooperation. From just implementing some redcode raw and color science in Nikon cameras, while leaving red more or less as it is, with just Z mount models that can take Z lens. To leveraging all their technologies together, like developing some global sensors that could go both in a z9ii and a Raptor, a common xspeed processor for the autofocus, image processing/compression, viewfinder etc. I personally don't think all their cameras need custom sensors, they will still use Sony sensors on most of their cameras. But they already had custom sensors designed by them on their flagship D3-D6 cameras.

My conclusion is that, their is no way Nikon will just disband RED as some are implying today. Since the fiasco of the late mirrorless move, they have been super aggressive and this moves buying RED is another example. At worst you will get Nikon Z mirrorless camera line and Nikon Red cinema line of cameras.
 
Last edited:
Interesting perspective Daniel, thanks for that.

Others here have described, in a logical and realistic fashion, how Nikon could go about pursuing a particular course of business to the detriment or even destruction of RED as a camera development and manufacturing operation, but I'm still not convinced that course of action or outcome is inevitable.

I think some of the observations you've made point out some equally valid reasons why it's also possible, and also in the best interest of Nikon, to help RED keep improving on doing what RED does best, with minimal disruptions or interference and only implementing the corporate and business changes necessary to facilitate that.


BTW, I had a look at some footage from the Nikon Z8 back in May last year and was impressed by what I saw, in terms of the image quality and how Nikon managed to get such a high-quality result while working within the limitations of that camera's sensor, form-factor and price-point.

For what it's worth, I shared my findings and opinions about it in this thread about the Z8 that was started here on Reduser - https://reduser.net/threads/nikon-z8-announced.3815621/

Finding out now the same company that managed to make that camera is going to own RED, actually gives me hope they can find a way to work together to improve both their stills and motion picture camera's in ways that won't just benefit them financially, but will also enbale them to keep advancing the image gathering technology itself.

There will undoubtedly be an ongoing progression of more accessible camera's and image-capturing products that are more advanced and capable than before, from several companies. But there's also a very good reason for keeping and maintaining the facility for pursuing and pushing the absolute boundaries of the technological capability, which is what RED has repeatedly and uniquely managed to do throughout its existence, and which they could continue to do, to an extent previously unattainable, even as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nikon.

Here's hoping.
 
Can RED continue to exist as a vibrant, innovative, audacious, entrepreneurial company within a 106 year old corporate structure? Can RED survive and thrive amidst a 'ringi' style management system? Or will it's tech be subjected to being surgically dissected, distilled and transplanted into seasonal releases of expensive mirrorless products? Can the acquiring company agilely navigate the specialized high-end film production market? Will new branding badges be synonymous with being indispensable, cine-specific workflow tools? Or commodity sales category leaders?
 
Strangely enough, i fantasized something similar few days ago thinking: "How terrific would that be to have an Hasselblad X2D with global shutter and internal raw video", i can see that coming with this new acquisition..

And let's all realize that Red "finished the game" of cinema cameras with their Komodo-x and Raptor-x, S35 and vista vision tiny cubes with global shutter and internal raw", i see nothing above that point. From now on, it's only fine tuning the image with color profiles, textures tweaking.. Features that are firmware related only.
Seeking for new ventures is natural when you've accomplished your mission.
What i see coming from this marriage is a sleek metal body mirrorless medium format camera with ultimate cinematic power (global shutter and internal raw), i can see it be the next step..
 
Christoffer Glans said:
That's not for certain, it makes as much sense that they infuse their own brand of Nikon cinema cameras, with their own design and target group, to have most of the acquired tech from Red in them. There's nothing that conclusively hints at them letting Red go on as if nothing has happened. Remember, it's 100%, that means, they will have full control over the trajectory of Red cameras and it's not far fetched that they have other ideas of where to take this. Just wanting to enter the cinema camera space does not equal to them having a good idea of where to take things; it may just be a pure Excel spreadsheet decision rather than having any actual vision as to what to make of this purchase. Like, enter the cinema camera business to compete with Sony and Canon, check... now what?
Click to expand...

While nothing is for certain, logic suggests that Nikon now has a vested interest in preserving the Red brand instead of tanking it and wasting a lot of money. Nikon isn't going to break into cinema on its own. Look at Canon; it's been trying to get into cinema for years, and it's made hardly any headway; just try to find a major production using a Canon cinema camera. Good luck -- you'll find more Varicams on set than Canon cinema cameras. In fact, you'll find more Black Magic cameras on set than Canon.

Total acquisition usually leads to assimilation into the owner company. It will fuel Nikon, but there's nothing that says that Red will continue other than marketing speak to calm down a market when stuff like this happens. However, we've seen the same thing before, some calm and positive spin in press releases and yet a few months or years later, that acquired company becomes a skeleton of its former self.
Click to expand...

Total assimilation does tend to be a major money loser. Intel bought Digital Equipment Corporation and ended up not keeping any of the engineers, and as a result the successor to the DEC Alpha was the AMD Athlon, and the StrongARM ceased to exist because without the engineers, it took years for for Intel to launch a successor. Black Magic on the other hand bought DaVinci Systems, kept the team on board, and now has established itself as a major player in indie cinema cameras as a direct result. Intel was stupid, BMD was not.

That said, the former is definitely more common than the latter in corporate shenanigans.

Aren't Canon and Sony also BIG camera companies? But still, what we're seeing is that the tech in large cinema cameras trickles down into the consumer market. I've been saying this for years, it only takes one low-cost mirrorless semi-cinema camera that features enough tech to make a dent into the cinema camera industry. We will see more stuff like "The Creator" being made, especially if internal compressed RAW gets released into the wild.
Click to expand...

Big is an understatement, since Sony owns a major studio and has a stranglehold on the camera market because it provides the sensor manufacturing for practically everybody including Fuji, which has nearly as long a history of sensor design and manufacture as Sony... yet it can't afford to make medium format sensors in house, and nearly every cell phone on the market has a Sony made camera in it.

If we are to be even more pessimistic, they might even have acquired Red to just strip the tech and Frankenstein it into some other lineup that they focus on, not caring at all for the cinema camera space, but I doubt it's that doom and gloom.
Click to expand...

While possible, that would make for a very poor investment and a complete waste of money. Why terminate a revenue stream and alienate a large slice of a small but lucrative market when you can have your cake and eat it, too?

Obviously we can't say anything for certain here, but I suspect that we're looking at a Microsoft acquiring a games studio situation here; there's a reason that the Microsoft gaming studios are so successful: it's because once part of the Microsoft fold they gain access to the vast ecosystem of internal Microsoft services, which is includes distribution, packaging, telemetry and crash reports... literally tens of terabytes daily, or at least it was already that big when I interviewed with that team around ten years ago.

They effectively purchased the tech, developed together with Minolta, released their camera and then killed off Minolta and now it's a purely Sony camera. Why wouldn't Nikon do the same with Red? What's stopping them from that? Good intentions? I'm too much of a realist to expect good intentions out of business moves like this. Hopefully proven wrong, but I think the writing's on the wall.



I've witnessed the opposite, maybe that's why I'm more of a pessimist in this case. But then again, I've been the forum pessimist for years now. I just think that there's a lot of bias towards the positive due to an overwhelming trust in Red. But I've seen questionable choices made by Red in the past and I'm not sure this was made in the interest of Red, but instead a way to opt out of the market before it gets saturated by cheaper cameras with cinema camera capabilities. It's telling that we see this at a time when movies like "The Creator" gets made.
Click to expand...

It's true that this deal could go sideways for Red and its customers, but it's also possible that Nikon could be smart and instead give Red access to more resources and therefore enable Red to streamline its operation and continue developing new technology and creating compelling cool new stuff.

Or it could end up somewhere in between where not much changes except that the Red logos start including Nikon branding.
 
Biggest issue I observe with this deal is it being a 100% acquisition of RED which would leave the
company with zero protection if things do go wrong.

Maybe build slow with Nikon but 100% control from the outset is questionable.

I do strongly question the logic of going all in with a company that less than a year ago tried to sidestep a known patent then attempt full blown legal war in defiance.

While I definitely see where there are considerable areas RED and Nikon can combine resources in a way that greatly benefits their customers and business interest, I think purchase of a minority stake of RED might be a safer way to do this particularly as a protective measure for RED.

RED's general corporate culture (as Jarred says "Move fast and break things") works well if you can act from a base of self determination but this deal would greatly limit that if not out right wipe it away.

Handshakes and promises don’t cut it in business (or life), and I don't see anything to protect RED in this type of full on acquisition beyond that.
RED (and us as customers) essentially assume all of the risk if this endeavor doesn't work out and no... hope is not a plan.

I say this as a customer since the beginning (RED One 1825) who bought 3 REDs in the past 3 years.

This deal needs to be reevaluated by RED.

Brian Timmons
BRITIM/MEDIA
 
Last edited:

Nikon Buys Red and Changes The Game!?!​



By Brandon Washington


 
Brian Timmons said:
Biggest issue I observe with this deal is it being a 100% acquisition of RED which would leave the
company with zero protection if things do go wrong.

Maybe build slow with Nikon but 100% control from the outset is questionable.

I do strongly question the logic of going all in with a company that less than a year ago tried to sidestep a known patent then attempt
full blown legal war in defiance.

While I definitely see where there are considerable areas RED and Nikon can combine resources in a way that greatly benefits their customers and business interest, I think purchase of a minority stake of RED might be a safer way to do this particularly as a protective measure for RED.

RED's general corporate culture (as Jarred says "Move fast and break things") works well if you can act from a base of self determination but
this deal would greatly limit that if not out right wipe it away.

Handshakes and promises never cut it in business (or life), and I don't see anything to protect RED in this type of full on acquisition beyond that.
RED (and us as customers) essentially assume all of the risk if this endeavor doesn't work out and no... hope is not a plan.

I say this as a customer since the beginning (RED One 1825) who bought 3 REDs in the past 3 years.

This deal needs to be reevaluated by RED.

Brian Timmons
BRITIM/MEDIA
Click to expand...
I think you demonize Nikon unfairly, Nikon will learn and let RED be RED I think you are terrified and with obvious Nikon phobia.
 
Haven't been here for a while. Would be great if someone created a tribute thread for Jarred, Jim and all the Red team, our hopes (and fears) of the Nikon acquisition deal, and maybe some words of appreciation? Already posted something about this on Facebook, but this is, indeed, the place where , somehow, it all started for many of us.
 
fgonz031 said:
I think you demonize Nikon unfairly, Nikon will learn and let RED be RED I think you are terrified and with obvious Nikon phobia.
Click to expand...

This is not about demonizing a company but discussing concerns with the deal based on known information.
Would be great if Nikon had business interest in line with ”keeping RED, RED” but no one knows that for sure and
there are risks that can be rather far reaching and permanent.
RED has very limited protections under these current terms and it would be a mistake to dismiss that.

I see it’s your 1st post so welcome to the forum.
We have a “real name” policy for this forum so please take note.

Brian Timmons
BRITIMMEDIA
 
Last edited:
Brian Timmons said:
This is not about demonizing a company but discussing concerns with the deal based on known information.
Would be great if Nikon had business interest in line with ”keeping RED, RED” but no one knows that for sure and
there are risks that can be rather far reaching and permanent.
RED has very limited protections under these current terms and it would be a mistake to dismiss that.

I see it’s your 1st post so welcome to the forum.
We have a “real name” policy for this forum so please take note.

Brian Timmons
BRITIMMEDIA
Click to expand...
Nikon tomorrow could produce a fx3, fx6 or Burano type of camera, by just taking a z9 apart and putting it in a more video style body. Would you buy it and how many of DOP, film producers etc. would buy or use it in their productions??? And believe me, apart from DR with the Alexa and red (but equals to the Sony's), this camera is superior to every cinema camera that existed until like 5 years ago. Lets say it is not Hollywood quality, but more than enough for all those 3 o'clock telefilms and TV series. But would they even get all these productions... guess what no.

This is why they are buying RED, even cannon with all the momentum it had couldn't make a dent in that industry. So they are realistic, that they would have no traction in that field and that the person who are at RED, were successful where they failed. They acquired Mark Roberts Motion Control in 2016, nearly 10 years ago and changed noting their. They did not even change or put the name with the company. So my guess, they won't change anything, except give red more funds for their R&D, bring some of their expertise in manufacturing and reliability, and then perhaps try some convergence of technologies between the two companies.

People thinking they will be firing engineers are out of their mind. And I think those engineers and most of the people at RED will be relieved that they have a multi billion company making very good profit for their job security. Only the ones in manufacturing could be in danger, if tomorrow Nikon wants to transfer the manufacturing within Nikon.

For Nikon, having the marketing clout to say our Z camera now have same tech than the camera who shot DR Strange movie is a big deal, in their core business. I think they will put REDRAW and Red color science in their cameras. The rest about RED sensor tech etc, could perhaps happen, but I am not sure about this. They will go to the shows with red cameras etc. With RED, they have beaten Canon 15 years dominance in the hybrid camera world. They won't destroy that.

​

 
Last edited:
Christoffer Glans said:
Well, this feels like a "told you so" moment as I've said numerous times that the competition of lower cost cameras will start to eat up the reasons to buy into the expensive lineup of Red cameras. Maybe "The Creator" was the final straw, showing how an IMAX movie can actually be filmed on a cheaper camera.

The fact that this is a 100% takeover and not just a a major stake in the company hints at a coming decline in Red Cinema. I wouldn't be surprised if Red gets killed off and that the purchase of the company was purely to acquire the cinema camera tech to implement in their own cinema camera lineup. Nikon has been struggling against Canon and Sony so this feels like a desperate attempt at pushing into a valuable space to compete with everyone else. I mean, who's seen a Nikon brand on anything used for video and cinema capture? Let alone for photography? Sony and Canon dominate still photography and aren't stopping with innovation. Buying Red seems like a last resort attempt at getting any kind of part of the action.

But I can't shake the prediction that this will tumble down into a big mess, that we are now probably witnessing the beginning of the end of Red cinema cameras, regardless of the marketing jargon surrounding this acquisition. Nikon will assimilate all the tech developed by Red, chew it and spit out their own lineup of cameras in the attempt to balance the scales against Sony and Canon.
Click to expand...
Hi Christoffer, I’m a new member. Long time Nikon user and follower of the industry for a long time. I’ve been a fan of RED ever since I saw that GQ video by Greg Williams of Megan Fox in 2010. That was with the RED One.

Anyway, long story short, I don’t think there is anything to worry about. In 2016 Nikon bought Mark Roberts Motion Control. That has basically been untouched. Some spin off to Nikon was the creation of automated camera control and robot arm for use in sports. I.e D6 with a 70-200 mounted on the Green Monster in Boston. But it hasn’t become Nikon Motion Control.

I think the same will be seen with RED. And just clarify… Nikon designs their own sensors and owns their own patents. They get Sony Semiconductor to fabricate them. Which is a different entity that Sony imaging, but under the Sony Corp. umbrella. But, Sony Semiconductor utilizes Nikon lithography machines to make the sensors. So there is some symbiosis there. And it’s this that I could see directly helping RED directly in their sensor fabrications. Using Nikon’s lithography machines.

As late as 2023, one of Nikon’s managers expressed interest in developing a line of cine-lenses. In a dwindling consumer camera market they have made it be know they are not chasing (low end) market share per se by spitting out Canon Rebel level cameras. They want to produce higher end lenses and cine-lenses are one way to do that. So I could see some sort of lens line up with either RED branding or cross over RED-Nikkor branding. The Z lenses are phenomenal. Already very little to no breathing. They are focus by wire but I could see them adapted to mechanical versions. The 58 f/0.95 is already all mechanical. Just lacks gearing.

And for a Nikon user this is exciting. Until now there hasn’t been an upward path for upgrade of someone’s needs and abilities exceed say what a Z9 can do. So a Z mount Komodo X or a “Nikon C70” as a bridge camera will get a lot of people buying RED. R&D will be expedited. Canon users could port their EF and RF lenses to Canon, RED and Blackmagic. Nikon users had no choice but to run two systems. This potentially allows one system. Nikon’s manufacturing scale will also help things get to market quicker. For years I’ve read about RED release delays and beta firmwares etc. That won’t fly with Nikon. They like to release a finished product, and quickly after announcement (Covid related supply chain issues notwithstanding).

We may not see anything change in the next two years. At a corporate level it often takes that time for the acquisition dust to settle. Nikon moves very deliberately. They would not have made this move without a long vetting process to see if the business is viable and what synergies both companies could bring to the table. Clearly there is something there. They also understand that RED is a name that has some clout.

Regarding the RF mount… I can see Nikon honouring that for some time. Even coming out with a parallel Z mount version of whatever, or a modular option where you pick the mount at time of purchase. Keep in mind, the Z mount has the shorted flange distance in the business. That means it’s the most flexible. Hypothetically, you could use the Megadap E to Z adapter and put Sony FE or E lenses on Z mount. Or of course adapt any Nikon F-mount lens from the last 70 years onto a Z mount. (I have a beautiful 105 2.5 with a dummy adapter that I use).

If you’ve gotten this far, I appreciate you sticking with my post. This is a good thing. RED will continue as they are with an infusion of R&D money and production scale and Nikon’s AF tech in the future. Nikon shaves off 10 years of getting into the industry and attaining legitimacy.
 
Brian Timmons said:
This is not about demonizing a company but discussing concerns with the deal based on known information.
Would be great if Nikon had business interest in line with ”keeping RED, RED” but no one knows that for sure and
there are risks that can be rather far reaching and permanent.
RED has very limited protections under these current terms and it would be a mistake to dismiss that.

I see it’s your 1st post so welcome to the forum.
We have a “real name” policy for this forum so please take note.

Brian Timmons
BRITIMMEDIA
Click to expand...
Thank you Brian Timmons for your welcome I am Felipe Gonzalez a pleasure to meet you. Could you help me put my real name on my profile?
 
M Black said:
In a dwindling consumer camera market they have made it be know they are not chasing (low end) market share per se by spitting out Canon Rebel level cameras.
Click to expand...
Nikon's brand management has a lot to answer for. There should have never been a cheap Nikon. Affordable, yes. Cheap, no.
 
As the person accused of "Nikon phobia" :) I look forward to reading more from you Felipe Gonzalez
and your contributions to the board.

I believe the administrator who goes by the name Luffy (ironically not a "real name" but he has the keys to this place)
might be the best person to contact about changing the profile name.

If there's anyone else that might know better please step in.

Brian Timmons
BRITIM/MEDIA
 

Dear Nikon… – A Wishlist of Features We’d Like to See on Future RED Cameras​

By CINED
Article
www.cined.com

Dear Nikon... – A Wishlist of Features We’d Like to See on Future RED Cameras

In a shocking move, Japanese tech giant Nikon recently announced the acquisition of RED Digital Cinema, thus sparking all sorts of reactions within our filmmaki
www.cined.com www.cined.com



Nikon-RED-Features-Wishlist-featured-1300x750.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top