Nikon in Dire Straits

Photokina says it was the decline of cameras that caused it to collapse. We can assume the phone killed Photokina. Camera manufacturers focused their marketing budgets to other more important shows.

There are so many cheap ways to market equipment now. Just hand a camera to popular vloggers that won't say anything critical about your camera (they only get popular with manufactures if they play nice) and you get a pile of good reviews and buzz that cost virtually nothing.

Conferences like NAB and IBC will be evaluated by exhibitors. The pandemic offered the perfect opportunity to find out what impact those shows have and if it is worth attending.
 
Last edited:
Paul F said:
Photokina says it was the decline of cameras that caused it to collapse. We can assume the phone killed Photokina. Camera manufacturers focused their marketing budgets to other more important shows.

There are so many cheap ways to market equipment now. Just hand a camera to popular vloggers that won't say anything critical about your camera (they only get popular with manufactures if they play nice) and you get a pile of good reviews and buzz that cost virtually nothing.

Conferences like NAB and IBC will be evaluated by exhibitors. The pandemic offered the perfect opportunity to find out what impact those shows have and if it is worth attending.
Click to expand...

Yeah, think of how many reviews start with "ok, guys, I am not getting paid, and I had to return the camera, so these are my unbiased...." ....150K targeted views = cost of shipping camera to reviewer
 
James0b57 said:
Yeah, think of how many reviews start with "ok, guys, I am not getting paid, and I had to return the camera, so these are my unbiased...." ....150K targeted views = cost of shipping camera to reviewer
Click to expand...

One day, someone will add up the view totals for a new camera release from the Top 15-20 Vloggers. It should easily pass a couple of million.

Of course, the mobile phone reviews are in tens of millions.

PS. "I don't get paid for this video" is an interesting disclaimer. I wonder if the follow-up is, "but the manufacturers do send me gifts and store coupons".
 
Samuel Dilworth said:
Reviewers talk about differences with little regard for the significance of those differences. Nikon thrashed Canon for dynamic range for a decade and yet no-one – except reviewers – cared.
Click to expand...

No, the average reviewer didn't even comment about how Nikon dominated over Canon for years with dynamic range and high ISO performance. If they had, then Canon would never have had the same market share lead over Nikon that it had.
 
Peter C. said:
I had this idea when I was in the shower this moring. Imagine if Nikon only did what they were good at the body and lens, then on the back of the camera you insert your phone into an adapter plate, that interfaces with the camera. You use the phone's great touch screen and interface to control the camera and view your images.
Click to expand...

That's been kinda tried beforehand, unfortunately the Sony QX100/QX10 was a flop. Many people want physical buttons, not just a smartphone's touch screen.

DLD said:
Which doesn't stop six billion people from using their smartphones for photography.

As to markets, ARRI generates (roughly) $200,000,000 annually with their camera sales. At $50,000 wholesale average, it's about 4,000 units. But the lower tier pro is pretty hot now with A7SIII, C70, FX-6 and so on. As the video pyramid expands, it expands at the bottom more and a sub-$10,000 cameras are good enough now to get a lot of work.

Nikon, however, has shunned this market. As had Olympus.
Click to expand...

Got a link to where it stats ARRI gets $200M/yr just from camera sales? As ARRI has lots of other revenue streams as well.
 
Last edited:
IronFilm said:
What makes you believe there was a cartel?
Click to expand...
It's been discussed here for at least half a decade. First with incredulity, then with acceptance. I would say there's a prima facie evidence of the photo-industry operating as a Japanese cartel of manufacturers controlling features, technical specs and prices between each other.

IronFilm said:
... Got a link to where it stats ARRI gets $200M/yr just from camera sales? As ARRI has lots of other revenue streams as well.
Click to expand...
ARRI publicly stated it hit about $400,000,000 in revenues some time around 2017. As a privately held company, it doesn't have to release the exact numbers. I took a conservative estimate of the 50% coming from purely camera sales, not counting the accessories and licensing fees, and an average wholesale price to the retailer. It's a ballpark guess. 4,000-5,000 units shipped annually.
 
DLD said:
ARRI publicly stated it hit about $400,000,000 in revenues some time around 2017. As a privately held company, it doesn't have to release the exact numbers. I took a conservative estimate of the 50% coming from purely camera sales, not counting the accessories and licensing fees, and an average wholesale price to the retailer. It's a ballpark guess. 4,000-5,000 units shipped annually.
Click to expand...

I think Arri would have a far greater proportion of their revenue coming NOT from cameras.

Lighting for starters. Between Sky panels, M series HMI and now the Orbitals, Arri just totally dominate lighting. A three camera show like mine literally now has many hundreds of Arri lighting units. I have Sky panels into the high hundreds of units and with the M series of HMI's they are the very dominant in lighting use. My show has a few dozen of the M Series HMI's as well all the way up to a couple of Arri Max 18'Ks just for the location package.

Matteboxes. For every camera they sell they must sell a dozen matteboxes alone...

Then you look at follow focus....For some reason the Preston still persists in the US...go anywhere else on the planet and it's WCU4s....

I Just bought an Arri SRH3 stabilised head. It's a lot more than a camera to buy.

Trinity... Steadicam package.....More than cameras...

It goes on. I think cameras would be at best 20% of their total sales in dollar terms. They are high value items, but they make plenty of other things that sell at 5 or 6 figure prices in a lot more volume.

JB
 
Out of curiosity, why did you feel that a stabilized head was worth adding to your personal kit instead of renting?
 
I agree, in pure dollar terms they're surely selling far far more lights than camera bodies! Let alone all their other accessories or services they get revenue from.
 
John Brawley said:
... It goes on. I think cameras would be at best 20% of their total sales in dollar terms. They are high value items, but they make plenty of other things that sell at 5 or 6 figure prices in a lot more volume.

JB
Click to expand...
Fair enough. My take is that, outside of the wealthy West, their cameras generate more revenues than lighting. The latter is a norm for the big budget Hollywood production but is far more sparse across the globe, where there's limited time and personnel to man elaborate sets.

Of course, Vadim Perelman shot "Pepel" ("Ashes"), the most expensive TV miniseries at that time on the Russian TV, in 2013 on C100. But, by now, the lower tier markets switched to Alexa too.
 
DLD said:
Fair enough. My take is that, outside of the wealthy West, their cameras generate more revenues than lighting. The latter is a norm for the big budget Hollywood production but is far more sparse across the globe, where there's limited time and personnel to man elaborate sets.
Click to expand...

Bollywood is quite a bit bigger than Hollywood, and definitely has extensive lighting and grip + electric on its sets.

Of course, Vadim Perelman shot "Pepel" ("Ashes"), the most expensive TV miniseries at that time on the Russian TV, in 2013 on C100. But, by now, the lower tier markets switched to Alexa too.
Click to expand...

I get the impression that most of those are rentals rather than sales. Arri's focus definitely seems to be more on rentals than on sales throughout its product line, and it's camera pricing model also reflects that. You don't see that many $100,000 cameras like Alexa and even Varicam Pure in the hands of owner/operators, no matter how popular they are on set, and with cameras as long-lived as Alexas, it's unlikely that rental houses have to buy them all that often.
 
John Brawley said:
I think Arri would have a far greater proportion of their revenue coming NOT from cameras.

Lighting for starters. Between Sky panels, M series HMI and now the Orbitals, Arri just totally dominate lighting. A three camera show like mine literally now has many hundreds of Arri lighting units. I have Sky panels into the high hundreds of units and with the M series of HMI's they are the very dominant in lighting use. My show has a few dozen of the M Series HMI's as well all the way up to a couple of Arri Max 18'Ks just for the location package.

Matteboxes. For every camera they sell they must sell a dozen matteboxes alone...

Then you look at follow focus....For some reason the Preston still persists in the US...go anywhere else on the planet and it's WCU4s....

I Just bought an Arri SRH3 stabilised head. It's a lot more than a camera to buy.

Trinity... Steadicam package.....More than cameras...

It goes on. I think cameras would be at best 20% of their total sales in dollar terms. They are high value items, but they make plenty of other things that sell at 5 or 6 figure prices in a lot more volume.

JB
Click to expand...

No Arri camera, but I have an Arri manual follow focus, two Arri matte boxes (the big one was easily ~$4K-$5K) and probably at least a dozen/dozen-and-a-half Arri lighting instruments.
 
ahalpert said:
Out of curiosity, why did you feel that a stabilized head was worth adding to your personal kit instead of renting?
Click to expand...

1. In a pandemic world, sales / rentals of remote heads have gone through the roof (to socially distance actors from cameras). Means I always have access to one. It's been in use a lot already, and when not, it's sub hired out all the time.
2. It's actually a great head that DOES NOT require a tech. I freakin hate the head tech / union position mentality. Nine times out of ten the head tech is sitting in a corner bored out of their brains. Can't stand it.
3. It's a great way to keep wheels skills in practice.
4. It's cheaper than a lot of other heads that perform to similar specs, but it's still tiny.

This is actually my second remote head. I own an Ronin R2 and master wheels. Have hardly ever used it as a gimbal (I hate gimbal shots0 but it was used full time as a head on a remote crane for a whole season of a series. Worked very well. The Arri carries nearly 60 pounds so you can put an SXT with a 24-290 on it and the head is still a lot smaller than every other head out there. The Movie XL for example is an oversized pig.

Being an Arri head with the new FOMA wireless, it also means your remote focus is transmitted with the remote head channels. Range of the focus / head commands (when using WCU's) is now upwards of a mile in almost any environment,. I heard in Vegas when they first tested it in open air they got to nearly 6 miles before it dropped....


JB
 
Tamerlin said:
Bollywood is quite a bit bigger than Hollywood, and definitely has extensive lighting and grip + electric on its sets.



I get the impression that most of those are rentals rather than sales. Arri's focus definitely seems to be more on rentals than on sales throughout its product line, and it's camera pricing model also reflects that. You don't see that many $100,000 cameras like Alexa and even Varicam Pure in the hands of owner/operators, no matter how popular they are on set, and with cameras as long-lived as Alexas, it's unlikely that rental houses have to buy them all that often.
Click to expand...

I’m not trying to say it rivals or even comes close to the rental numbers, because it doesn’t, and maybe my perception is a little skewed by the market segment I mostly serve, but I think there are a lot more Arri(Alexa & Amira) owner/operators than people think or realize.
 
DLD said:
Fair enough. My take is that, outside of the wealthy West, their cameras generate more revenues than lighting. The latter is a norm for the big budget Hollywood production but is far more sparse across the globe, where there's limited time and personnel to man elaborate sets.

Of course, Vadim Perelman shot "Pepel" ("Ashes"), the most expensive TV miniseries at that time on the Russian TV, in 2013 on C100. But, by now, the lower tier markets switched to Alexa too.
Click to expand...

Oh cmon.

I’ve worked in Australia, the UK, many parts of Asia, South America on big and very low budget shows.

It’s not just some exclusive enclave in Hollywood. Those are universal truths. The scale changes perhaps. But it’s not just Hollywood centric. I’m fact I’d argue Arri are even more dominant in other non US markets.

JB
 
iain.bason said:
My apologies if this is a stupid question, but why would they sell more matteboxes than cameras?
Click to expand...

I see a lot of cameras that aren't made by Arri with matte boxes that ARE made by Arri.

The LMB 15/25 is probably THE go to matte box, copied by many, but the defacto lightweight matte box and now kind of replaced by Arri with the LMB 4x5
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1341045-REG/arri_kk_0015177_lmb_4x5_pro_set.html

No matter if it's a film camera, a RED, a Venice, a Blackmagic, a Panasonic....They all tend to wear an Arri. Most of the big and small camera rental companies use Arri matte boxes because they are built better for rental abuse and are more reliable to service and get spares for.

JB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top