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

[lumiere]

This acquisition is about one thing and one thing only. Capture market share from Canon. You have to see it from Nikon’s board POV. RED’s revenue is less than 3% of Nikon’s. They’re not interested in growing it. The TAM is too small. ARRI’s is 10% of their revenue. Canon’s is 6.5 X their revenue. This is what they are after. The wanted RED tech and patents to go after Canon. They aren’t going to raise their prices by 10 X to match RED’s. They’re going to keep their Z camera types with RED tech in the sub $10K range and go after Canon. RED IS DEAD. Sorry.

I wrote the first business plan for RED in 2004 (still have it), that’s the price range where the big money is and will be for the foreseeable future.

 

[Phil Holland]

RED’s revenue is $160M. At a 10X valuation RED is a $1.6B acquisition (seems high). NIKON can shut down RED, own more of the market, the tech, the patents. Can a ZXX with RED tech convert some RED customers and recapture market shares from ARRI? I think so. It’s a good move for them.
Also, I don’t see Jarred reporting to the NIKON board… I could be wrong.

Heh. I saw where people were getting their revenue, but with RED being a private company, that is largely an unknown. And I noticed the site also thought RED was 3X size the employee base of the actual number. Whether the valuation was 3, 5, 10 years it doesn't really matter in my mind. And not to hit the nail on the head, Nikon's revenue last year was $4.5B, but they have a war chest that has been filling up for a 106 years with assets in the realm of $550+bil. They are big. And this is all big money stuff going on, which is good.

What matters is Nikon, through whatever transpired between them, took a keen interest in RED, which at the moment is after 4 good years of growth while also working rather nimble and lean. And RED saw potential in Nikon picking them up.

I mentioned it on the livestream today, which was awesome really. But to simplify it more, both companies are in a better place today then where they were at the beginning of the week.

And just speaking to Jarred today confirms more of where I think this is going more than anything. But the road isn't clear yet, whatever conditions must be fulfilled must transpire. And I suspect some of those conditions are "keeping RED RED". I know I would do that if I was in Jim's or Jarred's position and I also suspect that might be why it was mentioned in the PR.

Just to help for those of us invested in RED equipment and based on my experience in the past with other companies who have been acquired in a similar fashion. Products RED are likely developing now won't be effected by this in a major way, at least for a year to maybe 3 years max. Current hardware and general support isn't changing anytime soon either.

RED's general cameras and pricing structure are literally an entirely different market, which is another reason Nikon likely isn't changing anything anytime soon.

This is a big company portfolio move for Nikon too.

I'm certain Nikon wouldn't mind to move more product to catch up to the other 2 in front of them. Canon is a juggernaut in the camera industry as a whole, as is Sony. But we aren't talking about "this" market when we are talking about the cameras that make up the bulk of any of those companies sales. What does impress me, is Nikon is the oldest of the top 3 and that is something that should be observed and respected. Actually for history buffs, Nikon was founded two months before Arri even. However, Leica predates those to spry young 106 year old companies by another bit at 175 years of age.

Yeah, and I know the RED is dead crowd likely won't take the time, but do watch the livestream and listen to what Jarred said and what he did not say. RED isn't going anywhere for a while kids. If anything, at least my suspicion, this ensures they won't be going anywhere for a while as long as both Nikon and RED build effectively. But hell, we could have another pandemic, the clouds could turn into penguins, and aliens could land any minute. So we'll have to wait and see.

 

[lumiere]

Anyone who invested in RED and made a career out of it made a great choice. But unfortunately Obsolescence isn’t Obsolete (I came up with that term 19 years ago) in this case. Tech is moving at a lightening speed and the days of $50k+ cinema cameras will most certainly go away. Not tomorrow, but a few short years later. Nikon isn’t interested in growing a relatively small revenue 3% of theirs by a few percentage points. They are interested in eating Canon’s lunch. They want to do to Canon what RED did to analog filmmaking. That’s OK. I will still shoot with my RED for a few years until the Z15 shoots 10K RAW at 600 fps with AI for $6K. I loved my first MacBook, but we moved on. I give Jarred 12 months tops. I say this with nothing but admiration and love. I know Japanese corporate and let me just say… not compatible

 

[lumiere]

Heh. I saw where people were getting their revenue, but with RED being a private company, that is largely an unknown. And I noticed the site also thought RED was 3X size the employee base of the actual number. Whether the valuation was 3, 5, 10 years it doesn't really matter in my mind. And not to hit the nail on the head, Nikon's revenue last year was $4.5B, but they have a war chest that has been filling up for a 106 years with assets in the realm of $550+bil. They are big. And this is all big money stuff going on, which is good.

What matters is Nikon, through whatever transpired between them, took a keen interest in RED, which at the moment is after 4 good years of growth while also working rather nimble and lean. And RED saw potential in Nikon picking them up.

I mentioned it on the livestream today, which was awesome really. But to simplify it more, both companies are in a better place today then where they were at the beginning of the week.

And just speaking to Jarred today confirms more of where I think this is going more than anything. But the road isn't clear yet, whatever conditions must be fulfilled must transpire. And I suspect some of those conditions are "keeping RED RED". I know I would do that if I was in Jim's or Jarred's position and I also suspect that might be why it was mentioned in the PR.

Just to help for those of us invested in RED equipment and based on my experience in the past with other companies who have been acquired in a similar fashion. Products RED are likely developing now won't be effected by this in a major way, at least for a year to maybe 3 years max. Current hardware and general support isn't changing anytime soon either.

RED's general cameras and pricing structure are literally an entirely different market, which is another reason Nikon likely isn't changing anything anytime soon.

This is a big company portfolio move for Nikon too.

I'm certain Nikon wouldn't mind to move more product to catch up to the other 2 in front of them. Canon is a juggernaut in the camera industry as a whole, as is Sony. But we aren't talking about "this" market when we are talking about the cameras that make up the bulk of any of those companies sales. What does impress me, is Nikon is the oldest of the top 3 and that is something that should be observed and respected. Actually for history buffs, Nikon was founded two months before Arri even. However, Leica predates those to spry young 106 year old companies by another bit at 175 years of age.

Yeah, and I know the RED is dead crowd likely won't take the time, but do watch the livestream and listen to what Jarred said and what he did not say. RED isn't going anywhere for a while kids. If anything, at least my suspicion, this ensures they won't be going anywhere for a while as long as both Nikon and RED build effectively. But hell, we could have another pandemic, the clouds could turn into penguins, and aliens could land any minute. So we'll have to wait and see.

Fair enough, we don’t know RED’s revenue but ARRI’s is less than 10% of Nikon’s. That’s not the market they’re after. They’re after Canon’s $30B.

 

[lumiere]

I'm generally positive and optimistic about these developments.

I think Nikon is genuine in their stated aims and reasons for buying RED and see no reason to assume they're going to take a 'buy it out and gut it' or 'put it on the shelf so no-one else can use it' corporate-take-over type approach, which, for one thing, usually only applies when the buyer already has a competing product in the same market (like Sony and Minolta did). If Nikon already had a presence in the Digital Cinema Camera space or had been trying to get into it (like Canon), I'd be getting more of a 'hostile' loot-and-pillage vibe from it, but I'm not getting that impression. Not sure buying the RED brand out and then ditching it for some kind of Nikon Digital Cinema brand makes much sense either, from a business or marketing perspective.

Without further information, the insinuation that Jim and Jarred are just cashing in and bailing out while they still can is also a bit of an insult imo. Even if they did personally want to step out of the business, to suggest they wouldn't hand it over to others who could continue the RED legacy as part of the Nikon group of companies is also a bit insulting and doesn't line up with all they've managed to do up to this point.

I definitely think there's an aspect of 'reading the writing on the wall' behind these moves on RED's part, but there's more than one thing written on that wall.

I get the part where it looks like RED are now just a division of Nikon, but to me this looks more like an extension of RED's working with third parties approach that they've basically had to take over the years (in order to stay focused on their core aims and not diversify and grow the company into other areas). And I think in that regard, choosing to integrate with Nikon is the best move they could have made, and that Nikon could be the best company they could have chosen for that, especially when looking at it from a global perspective.

The degree of autonomy RED continues to have is an open question, but it's not like RED haven't been answerable to the bean-counters all along. Even when Jim was bank-rolling part of it at the start, it still required accountability and responsible decision-making to keep the whole thing going. That same way of making the company viable now just has another layer of accountability as it becomes subject to Nikon's checks and balances, while at the same time, potentially benefitting from the resources and expertise of that same company, who now have a vested interest in making sure what RED have already achieved is built upon and expanded.

RED and Nikon both have a huge opportunity here to walk the talk and actually push the development of Digital Cinema and stills camera's in ways they can't do alone and that no other company can do either.

How it all translates into products we end up being able to buy is obviously a complicated process with no guaranteed outcome, but at this point and based on the limited information we have so far, I'm looking forward to seeing what RED and Nikon can come up with.

What’s Nikon’s upside in your opinion? Think like a board member reviewing balance sheets and projections. Double RED’s revenue which would add a couple percentage points to theirs? Nah, they’re going after Canon’s $20B with new $5K model with RED tech. REDCODE is #1.

 

[Mark Phelan]

Didn't see this news until last night, but my first thought was, wow, what a great move. It's clear that Jim was going to sell RED at some point, which is perfectly fine, he made it, he gets to profit from his risk. Of all the options out there, to me this is a wonderful marriage. I started as a Nikon fanboy back in the early '70s, buying my first SLR which was a Nikkormat. Fully manual and bombproof. Well, until that fateful day in college when I was swinging the camera by the strap which broke, sending it straight upwards into a pine tree, hitting every branch it could find on the return trip, then a brick wall, and finally onto the concrete sidewalk. TIP: don't swing your camera by its strap.

Forward onto 2008 while I waited for my first RED One, I remember meeting and talking with Jim at NAB where he said he learned a long time ago to make sure your first product was your worst. Prescient. And it was RED's worst, in all the right ways. Each generation afterwards was a giant step forward as the industry moved digital.

So last year, I had to buy a new camera system for my company, being given a very limited budget. Knowing I couldn't afford anything RED, I went with what was I thought was the next best thing, the Nikon Z9. So far, it's been a solid camera with way too many options and submenus. That part really makes me miss a RED. Perhaps the marriage will bring some of that wisdom over to Nikon. We'll see.

Oh, one thing RED I did purchase with the Z9 were the RED/Angelbird branded 1TB CF cards. Those were a steal from B&H.

I for one am very hopeful for this new course. Two great companies combining. Think Jim has made the right choice. Again.
Thanks, Jim and Jarred.

 

[Ryan Zimmer]

Hey ya’ll, assuming there is a high probability of future RED cameras taking on the Nikon Z mount - I’m now wondering about future lens purchases. I was hoping to round out my Zeiss Milvus collection soon, I chose these in EF versions because I like having lens data pass through to Komodo, and the flexibility of the adapters. I’m now wondering if there is solid reasoning to get these in the Nikon F version going forward, obviously it has the benefit of the aperture ring, but I don’t like how I could not find a way to have lens communication with Canon mount bodies like Komodo. Does anyone know if there is a way to get lens data to Canon mount bodies with Nikon F lenses? Seems like it should exist but doesn’t.

 

[Les Hillis]

What’s Nikon’s upside in your opinion? Think like a board member reviewing balance sheets and projections. Double RED’s revenue which would add a couple percentage points to theirs? Nah, they’re going after Canon’s $20B with new $5K model with RED tech. REDCODE is #1.

No offense intended, but I don't accept the narrative or characterizations you've defined, and don't see a justification for the confidence you have in them.

If I were to try and come up with a counterpoint within those limits though, to your assertion that Nikon are basically just going to strip-mine RED and leave it for dead in their fight against Canon, I think the best I could do would be to say it's in Nikon's interest to keep RED in the Digital Cinema Camera market, as it currently exists, even if just to block or hinder Canon's gaining more of a share in it. I'd also say they can do that while simultaneously leveraging current RED technology and know-how to take profits away from Canon in the stills/hybrid camera market. Then there's the potential benefit Nikon might get by keeping RED alive so they can keep developing other technology and IP that Nikon might find useful. If RED's such a little inexpensive fish compared to Nikon, while also being useful enough to buy out, doesn't it actually make sense that Nikon would help keep them alive if it's no real skin off their nose to do so?

And again, no offense, but I also have to reject what I'm perceiving as an 'appeal to authority' in the way you're presenting your opinions, along with the dramatic nature of "RED is dead" and "Jarred is leaving within 12 months" proclamations.

Do you have some factual inside knowledge of RED and Nikon's current plans and capabilities that you can share with us in order to make your opinions more convincing?

Jarred has stated categorically in the recent livestream that he isn't retiring yet, while at the same time making it clear he's looking forward to being able to spend more time elsewhere like Jim has managed to do. I don't think you or anyone else knows the timeframe for any possible transfer of leadership at RED.

RED in 2024 isn't the same RED as it was in 2004/09/14/19... I don't think anyone knows for sure whether this is just another (albeit significant) period of change it's entering into, or something else.

Jarred also stated RED and Nikon are currently going through a process similar to a new marriage as they start to work together. That, imo, is the critical factor in all of these recent developments. I think both companies are capable and willing and committed to doing what it takes to make that 'relationship' work out to everyone's mutual benefit, but it's still about people coming together and co-operating towards a common aim, and that's always going to be challenging to some extent.

Until I see or hear or find out otherwise, I'm going to assume RED and Nikon are going to do everything they can to keep improving and advancing their camera's in ways that make them worth buying and using.

And like others have said, if for whatever reason it doesn't work out and we don't get the best possible outcome, well that's just too bad.

 

[lumiere]

No offense intended, but I don't accept the narrative or characterizations you've defined, and don't see a justification for the confidence you have in them.

If I were to try and come up with a counterpoint within those limits though, to your assertion that Nikon are basically just going to strip-mine RED and leave it for dead in their fight against Canon, I think the best I could do would be to say it's in Nikon's interest to keep RED in the Digital Cinema Camera market, as it currently exists, even if just to block or hinder Canon's gaining more of a share in it. I'd also say they can do that while simultaneously leveraging current RED technology and know-how to take profits away from Canon in the stills/hybrid camera market. Then there's the potential benefit Nikon might get by keeping RED alive so they can keep developing other technology and IP that Nikon might find useful. If RED's such a little inexpensive fish compared to Nikon, while also being useful enough to buy out, doesn't it actually make sense that Nikon would help keep them alive if it's no real skin off their nose to do so?

And again, no offense, but I also have to reject what I'm perceiving as an 'appeal to authority' in the way you're presenting your opinions, along with the dramatic nature of "RED is dead" and "Jarred is leaving within 12 months" proclamations.

Do you have some factual inside knowledge of RED and Nikon's current plans and capabilities that you can share with us in order to make your opinions more convincing?

Jarred has stated categorically in the recent livestream that he isn't retiring yet, while at the same time making it clear he's looking forward to being able to spend more time elsewhere like Jim has managed to do. I don't think you or anyone else knows the timeframe for any possible transfer of leadership at RED.

RED in 2024 isn't the same RED as it was in 2004/09/14/19... I don't think anyone knows for sure whether this is just another (albeit significant) period of change it's entering into, or something else.

Jarred also stated RED and Nikon are currently going through a process similar to a new marriage as they start to work together. That, imo, is the critical factor in all of these recent developments. I think both companies are capable and willing and committed to doing what it takes to make that 'relationship' work out to everyone's mutual benefit, but it's still about people coming together and co-operating towards a common aim, and that's always going to be challenging to some extent.

Until I see or hear or find out otherwise, I'm going to assume RED and Nikon are going to do everything they can to keep improving and advancing their camera's in ways that make them worth buying and using.

And like others have said, if for whatever reason it doesn't work out and we don't get the best possible outcome, well that's just too bad.

None taken I tend to post here every few years. I’ll check back in in 12 months. For the record, I love RED. I love RED owners and I certainly love what Jarred has accomplished with it. 20 years is a long time and Jarred doesn’t work for anyone other than his customers. If Nikon gets in the way of this (I think they will, you think they won’t), Jarred is out. They bought 100% of the company. Not a stake.

 

[Les Hillis]

I have no idea what Nikon will do.

They bought 100% of a company that's in the top three players in a market Nikon had no previous stake in at all.

As of settlement of the buyout, Nikon will only exist in the Digital Cinema Camera market to the extent that RED does.

Where they both go from there is yet to be determined.

The way I see it, the ball is totally in Nikon's court, and I don't even know who they are or how they play.

From what Jarred said on the livestream, the people at Nikon he's been talking with are very driven and keen to make the most of their entry into the Digital Cinema Camera space.

That sounds good to me, in that they sound committed to making something of themselves in that market, and aren't just in it to siphon off IP and talent into other areas of Nikon. But at the same time, indulging in a bit of FUD of my own, it makes me question how forcefully they might try and push into and through RED to try and achieve something that effectively ends up by-passing RED as we know it, and which may or may not even end up being successful in the end.

I trust that RED will do what they can to keep working and advancing as 'normal', and I hope there are enough decision-makers at Nikon that can see the mutual benefit of helping RED do that.

But yeah, who knows?

 

[Patrick Tresch]

I'll just put one crazy thought out there. RED hasn't implemented H.265 in cameras mainly due to licensing costs (ironical), but Nikon being big has put that in their cameras. So for those that want that, I think that's now possible financially speaking.

That's not the ADN of RED. Prores was allready a strange step. It would mean a lot (of bad things) if there would be the implementation of h265 as an acquisition format in a future RED/Nikon camera. Aiming at a lower level and broader user base.

I'm also worried about the cultural clash between those two companies. US and Japan being so different in their approaches.

 

[Phil Holland]

That's not the ADN of RED. Prores was allready a strange step. It would mean a lot (of bad things) if there would be the implementation of h265 as an acquisition format in a future RED/Nikon camera. Aiming at a lower level and broader user base.

I'm also worried about the cultural clash between those two companies. US and Japan being so different in their approaches.

I wouldn't use H.265 as an acquisition codec, I'm all REDCODE RAW for my work. But there are some who need extremely long roll times and really small files for cloud or wireless delivery. Lots of people in ENG, Event, Sports, etc. Some of the areas where RED Connect are being used to go to really big servers to just take in data beyond our media card capacities. I see events now rolling all day with people running cards and really, really not wanting to cut.

But the real reason is an 8K H.265 encode is about the same data footprint of a 4K ProRes Proxy encode. Both netting over 50 hours of roll time on a 4TB CFx card at common "good quality" H.265 encodes. Basically smaller proxy files at a slightly higher quality.

I'm unsure if the cost/value assessment makes sense in this class of digital cinema camera. But, 100% the use case is there.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

I watched the Livestream with Scott, Phil, and Jarred which filled in some holes for me, but of course only so much can be revealed at this time. I think this was an acquisition made based on each company benefitting from the other at this moment in time. How that plays out in 3, 5, 10 years remains to be seen. I see it going something like this, but fully admit I'm just spitballing because I know nothing about either company's intentions.

• In the short term, this really benefits Nikon as RED is an established name not only in Hollywood narrative filmmaking, but across many markets such as documentary, TV, music video, stock footage, etc. That brand awareness can help Nikon as people associate RED more with filmmaking than Nikon. As great as the new Nikon cameras maybe be for video, they just don't have the same instant cache that RED does.Think of it this way, if Nikon launched a digital cinema camera instead of acquiring RED, do you think it is immediately adopted onto a Hollywood production. No way. Would have to be something mind blowing to get people to put faith in a Nikon Cinema Camera. With RED, they have instant buy in.
• RED clearly benefits. With everything happening in the film industry, the economy, AI, etc it makes it very difficult for a relatively small company like RED to keep innovating while also turning a profit, keeping people employed, and providing top notch support. With Nikon, they get financial support I think they have desperately needed for some time. What Jarred has been able to do to keep things going is very impressive. A small company to survive a Pandemic, lengthy strikes, etc is not easy. Supply chain issues must have taken their toll on them too.
• Eventually, what I think you will see is Nikon changing the branding a bit. I don't see the skulls and that sort of thing lasting too long. I think they will homoganize the brands and it will take on a more Nikon feel. I do think they should keep RED in the branding somehow though as again, that name recognition matters, especially for the first few years. But no doubt, you will see cameras like the Z10, Z11 start to integrate RED tech while also maintaining a cinema line that probably starts to integrate some Nikon tech (think autofocus, lens integration, stabilization, gyro, etc) I also believe Nikon already has some advanced AI technology that will be making its way into new Z line in the near future, and most likely will carry over to cinema line as well.
• Branding could go in the direction of the cinema line having the Nikon font but in red to distinguish it from hybrid division. Or simply Nikon RED.

The industry as a whole is going through some major shakeups right now. So, as much as this acquit ion may have come as a shock to some and caused some anxiety about investment in RED cameras, I do think we have to give it some time because this news is far less shocking than hearing RED suddenly went out of business, which truly would have sent shockwaves throughout the industry. RED played this as well as I think they could have. I'm as curious as everyone else as to how it actually plays out, but I'm optimistic that this has brought some stability to the company and has added a touch of rebel to the Nikon brand, at least initially. Let's see where this goes.

 

[Mattia Palombi]

In all this hypothetical buzz, right now, I'm glad I did not invest in any of the DSMC3 cameras.

 

[Zack Birlew]

I saw someone replied to my NAB 2024 rumors thread and I had forgotten my prediction for Nikon at NAB this year, eerily close given the current context! Copied below:

Nikon

I think Nikon might be a surprise going forward as they have RAW video ready to go and instead of figuring out how to get Netflix approval for the Z series cameras, go ahead and release the first Cinema Z camera with RAW 8K+ video and all the professional video features and ports filmmakers and broadcast expect. The Z mount can already use Sony E and Fuji X lenses so they can add a lot of converts and cross-system users.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I'm also worried about the cultural clash between those two companies. US and Japan being so different in their approaches.

I think that the people at Nikon will have to stop being so conservative. Sometimes you really do need to hit the ball out of the park, which is what Red and Apple always understood.

 

[Lauri Kettunen]

RED in 2024 isn't the same RED as it was in 2004/09/14/19... I don't think anyone knows for sure whether this is just another (albeit significant) period of change it's entering into, or something else.

Yes, well put. Twenty years ago Jim recognised the potential of new technology in camera production. Quite a bit has happened ever since. Especially, I guess very few, if anybody, was able to anticipate the image quality of the forthcoming small cameras. Right now AI can be exploited to improve image quality to an extent that would have been difficult to predict only some years ago. Summing up, the new technology is changing things with speed, and maybe Jim as an experienced businessman came to the conclusion it's time for a move (before it's too late)?

 

[Phil Holland]

experienced businessman

That was one point I brought up in the somewhat surprise interview with Jarred while he was in Tokyo on Scott's stream. Which was very nice of him to do.

RED changed course with DSMC3 to not try to reinvent the wheel on some accessories, when there were others who were doing it better or best. The partnership with SmallHD is a good example of that and interesting to see Arri following the same path in that specific case.

Jarred has been dropping hints about collaboration being so critical to the future of digital cinema and I wonder what sort of conversations were had over the last year surrounding this.

I don't know the real number, but I do actually think Jim pushed a $1bil into RED to make it what it is today. He is a madman and extremely passionate about making images. During the pandemic there was great fear that both RED and Arri were going to "vanish" if we had another 6-12 months of the world not spinning. With Nikon acquiring RED, I think this is a nice safety net in these interesting times while allowing for some very interesting developments for both companies along the way. And interestingly, both companies had very successful years leading up to this.

Nikon is the big winner overall here, but this is a big win for both companies in my mind as there is nearly no overlap of markets with both having technology and resources that benefit each other. It was shocking news, but looking at it from a distance, it's a savvy move.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I saw someone replied to my NAB 2024 rumors thread and I had forgotten my prediction for Nikon at NAB this year, eerily close given the current context! Copied below:

Nikon

I think Nikon might be a surprise going forward as they have RAW video ready to go and instead of figuring out how to get Netflix approval for the Z series cameras, go ahead and release the first Cinema Z camera with RAW 8K+ video and all the professional video features and ports filmmakers and broadcast expect. The Z mount can already use Sony E and Fuji X lenses so they can add a lot of converts and cross-system users.

Which is also in line with what I've said; that I think it's more likely that Red won't do any further cameras and that Nikon will develop their own cinema camera based on Red tech. Essentially, Red may still continue as support for the current lineup, but all R&D is being transfered over to Nikon including personnel from Red's R&D. They might operate from Red, or they have to transfer to a location were they can fuse the two R&D departments into a cinema camera development section.

I have a hard time seeing how Nikon would let Red continue just as usual. They will improve their own major brand much more if they use the Nikon brand on a new cinema camera based on Red technology. The reason is that Nikon's major problem is brand recognition. When people see the Sony or Canon brand logo on a camera, people know what they get. Nikon has done a terrible job of getting that recognition in modern times. Seeing a Nikon still camera in any professional situation is like seeing a unicorn.

So it's very much in Nikon's interest to infuse their brand with a sense of quality. I think they want to strive for getting to that place in which you see a cinema camera with a "Nikon Cinema" label and people will go "oh, that's quality". THAT's the gain that Nikon could reach with this acquisition.

This acquisition has put a lot of eyes on Nikon from the filmmaking world, amateur filmmakers and YouTubers. Nikon has already made a huge marketing gain by this acquisition alone. The logical path from that is to push the Nikon brand, not Red.

So I very much think that Nikon will release a cinema camera, their own, based on Red tech. Red will be a support company for the current Red cameras, but not be the innovators or progress further with some new lineup of cameras. They're gonna be a slowly sinking ship until the current cameras are considered outdated or not much in use anymore and then get dismantled down to only being a "legacy Red support" page at the bottom of Nikon Cinema support pages. All while "Nikon Cinema" grows further into maturity with a second or third generation of cameras.

People think I'm a pessimist, but I'm trying to be realistic with expectations here and see what's logical through a business perspective based on how Nikon is viewed as a company and what would be a logical move on their part. I will have no problems buying a Nikon Cinema camera in the future and I actually think it might be even better than continuing with Red, as I've had criticism with some decisions Red has taken in recent years.

Nikon will probably produce a tremendous cinema camera in the future, but I just don't think Red has a future after this.

There's also the major thing that the cost of R&D is baked into the acquisition price. They can set whatever price they like on a future Nikon camera since it does not require a logical pricing path based on previous Red pricing, especially not if they can pull off mass production into an off the shelf lineup.

So they have the opening to do a disruption path that would shake the entire industry by releasing a $3000-$4000 camera featuring technology only found in only $20 000+ camera systems. That would not only make a serious dent in the competition, forcing Canon and Sony to adapt to such pricing, but also enable them to become the number one, mass produced cinema camera that everyone owns as there's nothing else like it for its price.

Think about the old DVX100 with its 24p system. It took over much of the industry due to lowering the cost of such a simple tech as progressive 24 fps in video getting that cinematic feel. Think about when DSLRs introduced video. The explosion of sales that happened reshaped the industry. The same could be said for the first Red One.

The only reason we aren't seeing low cost cameras with higher level technology is because it would eat up companies own lineups. No one would disrupt away their own business. But Nikon is in a spot where they would benefit from disrupting everyone else as they would themselves not be as affected by it and instead gain from getting the attention of being the disruptor providing a camera that is so far ahead of everyone else in terms of cost vs quality.

That is what I'm hoping for at least; since it's pretty clear that the entire industry is in a position right now in which all it takes is a new company (similar to Red back in 2007), to release a cheap disruptive system that reaches the level of quality that runs circles around everyone else. 4K+ video technology today is so cheap to produce compared to 15 years ago but the prices on cameras have remained largely the same. New tech have been mostly incremental and stagnated. So a new system at a low cost price point is a logical disruptive path forward and all it takes is one company to do it. Nikon has that ability now.

It would suck for current owners of expensive systems, especially Red owners, but I think such disruption is inevitable and will happen any day now.

 

[lumiere]

Which is also in line with what I've said; that I think it's more likely that Red won't do any further cameras and that Nikon will develop their own cinema camera based on Red tech. Essentially, Red may still continue as support for the current lineup, but all R&D is being transfered over to Nikon including personnel from Red's R&D. They might operate from Red, or they have to transfer to a location were they can fuse the two R&D departments into a cinema camera development section.

I have a hard time seeing how Nikon would let Red continue just as usual. They will improve their own major brand much more if they use the Nikon brand on a new cinema camera based on Red technology. The reason is that Nikon's major problem is brand recognition. When people see the Sony or Canon brand logo on a camera, people know what they get. Nikon has done a terrible job of getting that recognition in modern times. Seeing a Nikon still camera in any professional situation is like seeing a unicorn.

So it's very much in Nikon's interest to infuse their brand with a sense of quality. I think they want to strive for getting to that place in which you see a cinema camera with a "Nikon Cinema" label and people will go "oh, that's quality". THAT's the gain that Nikon could reach with this acquisition.

This acquisition has put a lot of eyes on Nikon from the filmmaking world, amateur filmmakers and YouTubers. Nikon has already made a huge marketing gain by this acquisition alone. The logical path from that is to push the Nikon brand, not Red.

So I very much think that Nikon will release a cinema camera, their own, based on Red tech. Red will be a support company for the current Red cameras, but not be the innovators or progress further with some new lineup of cameras. They're gonna be a slowly sinking ship until the current cameras are considered outdated or not much in use anymore and then get dismantled down to only being a "legacy Red support" page at the bottom of Nikon Cinema support pages. All while "Nikon Cinema" grows further into maturity with a second or third generation of cameras.

People think I'm a pessimist, but I'm trying to be realistic with expectations here and see what's logical through a business perspective based on how Nikon is viewed as a company and what would be a logical move on their part. I will have no problems buying a Nikon Cinema camera in the future and I actually think it might be even better than continuing with Red, as I've had criticism with some decisions Red has taken in recent years.

Nikon will probably produce a tremendous cinema camera in the future, but I just don't think Red has a future after this.

There's also the major thing that the cost of R&D is baked into the acquisition price. They can set whatever price they like on a future Nikon camera since it does not require a logical pricing path based on previous Red pricing, especially not if they can pull off mass production into an off the shelf lineup.

So they have the opening to do a disruption path that would shake the entire industry by releasing a $3000-$4000 camera featuring technology only found in only $20 000+ camera systems. That would not only make a serious dent in the competition, forcing Canon and Sony to adapt to such pricing, but also enable them to become the number one, mass produced cinema camera that everyone owns as there's nothing else like it for its price.

Think about the old DVX100 with its 24p system. It took over much of the industry due to lowering the cost of such a simple tech as progressive 24 fps in video getting that cinematic feel. Think about when DSLRs introduced video. The explosion of sales that happened reshaped the industry. The same could be said for the first Red One.

The only reason we aren't seeing low cost cameras with higher level technology is because it would eat up companies own lineups. No one would disrupt away their own business. But Nikon is in a spot where they would benefit from disrupting everyone else as they would themselves not be as affected by it and instead gain from getting the attention of being the disruptor providing a camera that is so far ahead of everyone else in terms of cost vs quality.

That is what I'm hoping for at least; since it's pretty clear that the entire industry is in a position right now in which all it takes is a new company (similar to Red back in 2007), to release a cheap disruptive system that reaches the level of quality that runs circles around everyone else. 4K+ video technology today is so cheap to produce compared to 15 years ago but the prices on cameras have remained largely the same. New tech have been mostly incremental and stagnated. So a new system at a low cost price point is a logical disruptive path forward and all it takes is one company to do it. Nikon has that ability now.

It would suck for current owners of expensive systems, especially Red owners, but I think such disruption is inevitable and will happen any day now.

I think you nailed it Christoffer. I think new cameras will compete with Canon EOS in the sub $10k range. It’s a few short years away though.

Who knows, maybe they’ll keep RED as a deluxe model like Toyota and Lexus. It’s the Japanese way.