Nikon to buy 100% of RED

norway said:
Not sure Nikon or Canon would benefit from continued manufacturing in China or Southeast Asia.

Other Japanese companies such as Yamaha is bringing factories back to Japan. Even microprocessor manufacturing is being brought back to make sure car makers, camera companies and others have stable access to chips.

https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15166889
https://www.reuters.com/technology/...factory-raising-investment-20-bln-2024-02-06/
Click to expand...

Looks like moving production from China to Japan is a hedge against trade tensions between China and the US. (And also apparently the Japanese yen is weak.) But it says that Yamaha is opening a semiconductor procurement company in Malaysia.

Nikon apparently makes all its cameras in Thailand.
 
ahalpert said:
stuff.
Click to expand...

ahal

o think there are two lines of enquiry here.

1) can red/nikon match sony canon with features.

you maybe correct that possibly they cant. I gave up following red once the c300iii or fx6 seemed “ good enoigh for me” i dont know what red is doing now.

i assumed red had nailed nd. Xlr sdi but was struggling with af.

ive been grip on a couple of red shoots and my observations were.
-easier to carry than alexa (goid)
-wifi monitoring didnt work (bad)

2) the Nikon shooter morphs between solo stills and bigger than you production

you maybe correct that they don't.

my introduction professional camera ownership was news papers where the whole group was “in” a system - head office would have a dream cupboard with 20 bodies 100 lenses and 10000 rolls of film. And regular service visits from nikon kingston. And three one hour process maxhines. And two technicians (a step into the indistry)

these tools could be doing sport fashion food conferences whatever.

colleges and sports clubs police and big business also had these kit rooms

Today if i were buying £1000000 of kit sony canon would be the obvious choice - nikon would struggle to get on the park.

but maybe the media griup business is dead and gone anyway.. or all shooting on phones
 
Last edited:
Nikon v canon at wimbledon 10 years apart.

now the 100 cameras use st wimbledon dont matter.. but they do becausr they build aspiration (as todays influencers do?)
nikon seem fkud
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3610.jpeg
    IMG_3610.jpeg
    146.9 KB · Views: 0
  • IMG_3611.jpeg
    IMG_3611.jpeg
    88.4 KB · Views: 0
DustinSchmidt said:
I'm curious about what lenses most people are currently shooting on?
Click to expand...

PL, EF and B4. I have lens mounts and/or adapters for all of them for my F55, Amira and Alexa 35. And my EF still lenses perform great on my R5 with the Canon EF-to-RF adapter.

Ignoring design/engineering advantages, the most versatile "system" is a camera with the shallowest lens mount/flange depth and lenses with the deepest.
 
ahalpert said:
For that sort of work, I see the value of having an ENG body mostly as show for the client.
Click to expand...

The value in an ENG body is mostly for the operator today, as a lot of clients don't know/care anymore. And a lot of people are ignorant as to what the cameras actually are and capable of and even look at them as "antiquated" and "sub-standard", whereas back in the day, yes, they did lend to the dog-&-pony show that you needed to put on in front of certain clients. Similar to tungsten and LED's. I've seen stories of clients looking down on tungsten and think you are broke/low budget if you're using tungsten and not whiz-bang LED's, even though tungsten is still the superior quality light source (3200K to 3200K).
 
Run&Gun said:
The value in an ENG body is mostly for the operator today, as a lot of clients don't know/care anymore. .
Click to expand...

Sure, for what you do. I have very little interaction with my camera bodies. Mostly remote control, I don't need to touch buttons on the body, I'm not holding it on my shoulder. In terms of impressing clients, I'm just saying that a mirrorless camera does not look like a professional video camera.
 
Are they obsolete?

i wonder this as my rf 24-105 does seem a little more magical witj af. But my ef are ok and fit everything.

the 24-105 2.8 is the first lense that betters ef. But its also a bit pointless as most working pros would take the f4 for low size and mass!

So classics like the 70-200 2.8 are fine especially as the rf 70-200 is a dust catching trumpet of a design
 
morgan_moore said:
Are they obsolete?

i wonder this as my rf 24-105 does seem a little more magical witj af. But my ef are ok and fit everything.

the 24-105 2.8 is the first lense that betters ef. But its also a bit pointless as most working pros would take the f4 for low size and mass!

So classics like the 70-200 2.8 are fine especially as the rf 70-200 is a dust catching trumpet of a design
Click to expand...

Obsolete is the wrong word. The look you loved then is the look you'll get now. But it's wild what lens manufacturers have managed to achieve recently, especially regarding wide open performance. With autofocus motors and performance, I think there's no question that they've improved. Again, if the older lenses are good enough for what you need then great. But over time I would expect people to transition to RF
 
ahalpert said:
Obsolete is the wrong word. The look you loved then is the look you'll get now. But it's wild what lens manufacturers have managed to achieve recently, especially regarding wide open performance. With autofocus motors and performance, I think there's no question that they've improved. Again, if the older lenses are good enough for what you need then great. But over time I would expect people to transition to RF
Click to expand...

This is an interesting point to consider. One of the things that lens manufacturers have been doing when working on their new designs for mirrorless mounts is working some of the lens corrections into software and correcting certain things in-camera. In that way they're actually not fully correcting things in the lens as well as they could, but just relying on the post-production side of things to "fix" errors.

So in a lot of ways the older EF lenses may be technically better when used on almost anything else, especially cameras that aren't the newest RF bodies.
 
DustinSchmidt said:
This is an interesting point to consider. One of the things that lens manufacturers have been doing when working on their new designs for mirrorless mounts is working some of the lens corrections into software and correcting certain things in-camera. In that way they're actually not fully correcting things in the lens as well as they could, but just relying on the post-production side of things to "fix" errors.

So in a lot of ways the older EF lenses may be technically better when used on almost anything else, especially cameras that aren't the newest RF bodies.
Click to expand...

I mean, maybe for distortion, vignetting, and breathing? But is that true for Canon RF lenses? I haven't given them a close look since I'm on Sony, but I had assumed that since they're generally much larger than the Sony equivalent lenses that they were still trying to do some of those corrections optically. Whereas Sony lenses are designed to be small and to offload everything I mentioned into software.

But I was specifically talking about detail and contrast. Here you can see the EF 50 1.2 vs the RF 50 1.2: https://www.the-digital-picture.com...ensComp=1225&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Screenshot 2024-03-11 at 5.29.28 PM.png
 
EF has used distortion correction as well. I think the RF glass is overall better in several different ways, including how they feel (and obviously the controllable ring is highly desired), but most probably won't notice on YouTube.
 
NorBro said:
EF has used distortion correction as well. I think the RF glass is overall better in several different ways, including how they feel (and obviously the controllable ring is highly desired), but most probably won't notice on YouTube.
Click to expand...

I mean, in the specific example I posted I think the difference is quite visible even at very small viewing sizes. That's from the center. The difference is even more stark in the corners. Then let's say you're cropping and enlarging the image, etc

EF 24-105 f/4 II vs RF 24-105 f/2.8: https://www.the-digital-picture.com...ensComp=1676&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
 
I've been using that site for like 10 years, def agree but that's not video or YouTube...also really should be using more similar modern cameras to compare. I know it's not possible for different lens comparisons because of the time passed between them (or because EF camera production slowed down), but the sensor and processing are worthy variables.

Regardless though..wide open is where many lenses always struggled. Stop it down a bit and it cleans up.
 
CA has always been a drag too...I remember using some expensive Zeiss in like 2010 and being like what is this purple? didn't even know what it was then
 
The lens quality matters but is the client going to notice? In video you won't be staring at stills like photography, with motion, compression and re-compression of YT. For the price of 2 RF lenses I could buy an FX6 or a B-cam with a lens.

Besides isn't the current trend against sharp lenses and putting on black mist filters to soften the image to give a more cinematic feel?
 
Last edited:
NorBro said:
I've been using that site for like 10 years, def agree but that's not video or YouTube...also really should be using more similar modern cameras to compare. I know it's not possible for different lens comparisons because of the time passed between them (or because EF camera production slowed down), but the sensor and processing are worthy variables.

Regardless though..wide open is where many lenses always struggled. Stop it down a bit and it cleans up.
Click to expand...

no, the issues you're seeing here are pretty much sensor- and processing-independent, I think. and there's no point in buying a fast lens if you have to stop it down anyway
 
no, you don't know that - and, yes, of course there is, for the low-light and shallow DOF and you let the rest be as it may.
 
NorBro said:
no, you don't know that - and, yes, of course there is, for the low-light and shallow DOF and you let the rest be as it may.
Click to expand...

stop the EF lens down on the EF body and you'll see that it is capable of resolving the same level of detail/contrast as the RF lens on the RF body. so you're 100% wrong.

if you don't like the way your lens looks wide open then it will pain you every time you do it. Like Doug Jensen, I mostly shoot wide open. I probably stop down for DOF purposes less than 5% of the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top