Nikon in Dire Straits

John Brawley said:
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
Click to expand...

Australia is "first world". In the second and third, the sets are smaller and less refined, the sound is recorded exclusively in post, the shot framing is ... well, let's just say, very Roger Corman'esque, et cetera, et cetera.

A year or so ago, an FB friend posted an article about "French films not to be missed". Many of them were romantic comedies, a genre that I enjoy. So, I sampled a few of them online. Then looked up whatever info I could and here what I had found. Their budgets are in the $6M-$10M range. The look is fully professional but the sets are a lot smaller, the takes are a lot longer, the shot framing contains far fewer closeups and more medium and wides. Overall, they're much closer in feel to the Hallmark flicks one sees on Lifetime than to a Hollywood theatrical release.

I also have friends or friends of friends who worked in television in the Soviet and post-Soviet markets. Their budgets were in the "late night TV on Channel 56 in Podunk" range. Some couldn't even tell their news anchors not to wear a blue business suit in front of a blue screen because that's the only business suit their TV anchor had. And they had to rely on an outdated equipment, that didn't even include a teleprompter, so anchors had to read off a typed sheet of paper and look down most of the time. And, of course, they didn't immediately upgrade to ARRI. As recently as 2015-17, BMD Cinema Camera was a preferred choice for many productions. Alexa was solely for the big budget theatrical projects and those presented a minuscule portion of the overall number of aired content hours.

PS. Bollywood is technically "first world' in terms of the sheer box office volume. Popular movies exceed $10M in gross, which is a huge amount in the country where an average income is $1,800/y in nominal terms. I assume that, if they do use ARRI cameras, they have a solid used selection that are certified by ARRI.
 
The September-October ILC sales rebounded, registering about 1,000,000 units each. The Covid summer was horrid, obviously, so the 2020 total is likely to still be under 5,000,000.
 
The dire straits are touring Thailand. Meaning that after 70 years of production in Miyagi, Japan, that plant is closing and Nikon is moving all of its manufacturing to Siam. Much like Olympus did. Much like Yul Brynner did. Let's hope it works out for Nikon as well as for Юлий Борисович.
 
Having scanned some rumor sites : Canon is working on high end RF mount models, as well as an APS-C R7. Sony's still have A7 IV as well as A9'ish R5 competitor. Nikon is supposedly working on something in between, kind of an all-rounder with a reasonably high pixel count for both stills and 8K (if implemented). No word on codecs or AF. Both Sony and Canon will likely include fairly high internal recording and top notch AF.

On the low end, smart phones are upping their pixel count and the periscope zoom range.

P&S, then MFT are getting squeezed on the low end. With Nikon and Panasonic using Sony sensors, they're likely to get squeezed out of the high.
 
DLD said:
With Nikon and Panasonic using Sony sensors, they're likely to get squeezed out of the high.
Click to expand...
I don’t see the connection between using Sony sensors and being squeezed out of the high-end market.

They use Sony sensors because they’re the best that money can buy and yet reasonably priced. They’ve used other sensors in the past and would again in the future, should anyone beat Sony. Sony sensors are currently a strength, not a weakness.
 
My speculation is nikon say 'how much for the A7siii sensor' then sony say.. 'not for sale. we can sell you the sensor out of the nex5 or F707 good deal?'
 
It's part of why canon and sony are so well-positioned- theyre the only ones making their own sensors.

Look at what canon is doing selling sensors - they're not selling anything that could compete with their video cameras. Not yet anyway
 
Image sensors have largely become a commodity. There’s generally more risk than benefit to making your own.

Moreover, ‘Sony’ sensors are made by Sony Imaging & Sensing Solutions, a separate business from the company that makes ‘Sony’ cameras (Sony Electronics Corporation). The former will sell sensors to any customer who pays the price, which is naturally higher for new sensors or exclusive access to a new sensor for a period of time. You’ll note that there have been many occasions when new Sony sensors have been exclusive to non-Sony cameras for a while. Nikon often paid for exclusive access in the SLR days (e.g. the 36-megapixel D800 sensor from early 2012). More recently Fujifilm had exclusive access to the 26-megapixel APS-C sensor. Maybe Sony Electronics Corporation paid for exclusive access to the current high-speed 12-megapixel full-frame sensor, or maybe Nikon wasn’t quite ready to launch a product around it.

Canon is a little different for historic reasons. They own at least one antique fab they need to use, which is the main reason their sensors lagged in performance for several years (and still do sometimes, e.g. the one in the R6). They’ve also developed a cohesive marketing strategy around rolling their own stuff, dating to their early full-frame CMOS sensors (which had a clear competitive advantage at the time).
 
Samuel Dilworth said:
I don’t see the connection between using Sony sensors and being squeezed out of the high-end market...
Click to expand...
Even in a fully competitive automobile market, which is not confined to half a dozen Japanese companies, there are all sort of partnerships and agreements that are only occasionally revealed. For example, Subaru and Toyota combine for a 'sporty" BRZ/F86 model but it's crippled by not having an engine suitable for this style of cars. Subaru is protecting its WRX and Toyota Supra and Camry TRD. Likewise, when Toyota partnered with BMW for Supra (hard top Z4), it only got weakest BMW 3L turbo of 335 HP. The second year, it got a 250 and a 380 but BMW won't give them a twin turbo 500 that went into M4. Maybe some day.

And Sony, obviously, doesn't want to sell copies of own equipment to its competitors. It seems obvious to me. YYMV.

morgan_moore said:
My speculation is nikon say 'how much for the A7siii sensor' then sony say.. 'not for sale. we can sell you the sensor out of the nex5 or F707 good deal?'
Click to expand...

A short while ago, I made a post on all the cameras using the Sony 24 MPX full frame sensor - Z6, S1, S1H, A7III, A7c, and Sigma fp. Now, Leica has its own version out. First obvious thing you see - and this is not hidden whatsoever ... you can check specs on any photo retail site - is how the auto focus systems differ. A7III has both contrast detect and phase detect. Most others disabled the phase detect. Sigma has fewer AF points on top of that.

However, Sony must also play along. Otherwise it'd make no sense for others to keep selling inferior models. This is how collusion works - illegal in the US and the EU - with Sony only offering an 8-bit recording on A7III and even A7c.
 
I don't think Nikon's situation has much to do with them buying their sensors from another company. Smart phones and then the pandemic has created a global drought in the camera market. There is too many cameras and camera companies vying for an ever shrinking market. The market remaining want hybrid cameras that can shoot video. Nikon was too slow to realize this. In hind sight Nikon should have partnered with another company and done what they did best design and build lenses and let their partner do the other tech related things relating to video. Imagine if instead of Sony having to develop their own G master lenses they used Nikon. Back to the original point there is far more than what sensor is used but how its implemented and this wasn't Nikon's strength. If it wasn't for the loyal customer base and great lenses they would have been knocked out long ago. Most companies go out of business because a fundemental change in the market place and they are unable to adapt.
 
Has nothing to do with being too slow...if you're purchasing your sensors from someone else, there are agreements, limitations.

Nikon could have had great video/cinema cameras 10 years ago like Canon or Sony if the circumstances were different.

D90 was among the first to have video in a DSLR.
 
Nikon isn't a video company but both Canon and Sony are, that's the difference. Nikon wasn't held back by Sony. The market shifted towards video leaving Nikon odd man out.
 
So then you become a video company. Like RED, like Blackmagic, like Sigma, like Digital Bolex, like Ikonoskop.

Nikon has been making cameras that shoot video for 12 years.

We are talking about Nikon Corporation here. 100 years of business. Endless knowledge and expertise opportunities. They had plenty of time to be a "video company" but were not in a position to move forward.

Plain and simple as they weren't dumb and understood the growth of moving images.
 
Big companies like Nikon don't change. They either are incapable or unwilling. It be like expecting BlackMagic or Red after they've been in the video business for a 100 years to just go into photography.
 
I'd definitely agree with that notion in general.

But RED's cameras' photography capabilities were highly marketed back in the day, and either company could make a stills camera but it would be a waste of time.

The thing with Nikon is that you're talking about them like they don't do video at all. As mentioned, the D90 was the first DSLR to have video (few months before the 5D Mark II) so they started dabbling way back then in 2008, but just for some reason never made cinema cameras.

Their DSLRs/mirrorless' - whether anyone wants to believe it or not - were clearly held back with video. It's just business-101...if you sell your competitor parts to make a product then they have to make it a certain way or pay you a lot of money for any potential loss of revenue.

Like...would it make sense for Sony to sell Nikon its a7SIII sensor and have Nikon come out with the same exact camera more or less and sell it for a similar price?

No one would win that way. Has to be a more calculated product development and cycle.
 
Posts continue to imply that Sony sensors are made by the same company as Sony cameras. Forget the names. They are for practical purposes two different companies. The situation is nothing like Canon cameras using Canon sensors.

Sony buys Sony sensors in the same way as Nikon and Panasonic.

Sony has a catalogue of off-the-shelf sensors and a large amount of image sensor IP that they assemble into custom products for whomever asks. They will sell anyone anything they pay for. That includes any viable permutation of their IP. So, for example, Panasonic does not pay for phase-detection pixels and the sensors that they buy from Sony do not have them. It is not that the pixels are “disabled” as DLD states. You don’t need a microscope to see this. You can see it by the complete absence of the characteristic artefacts in the image caused by phase-detect pixels. They aren’t there. Not because Sony doesn’t want to sell them but because Panasonic doesn’t want them (and didn’t pay for them). Nikon does want them, incidentally – and gets them.

The same applies to the technical nitty-gritty like column ADCs, BSI tech, stacked CMOS, dual conversion gain, etc.

Basic video is not a major technical challenge to a company like Nikon in 2020. To begin with, a mirrorless stills camera is necessarily a video camera. Silicon IP, the processors themselves, DRAM, codecs, and all the rest are available at competitive prices on the open market. Putting them together still requires expertise, but Nikon remains one of the most competent companies in the world at that. Besides, this stuff is now being done by drone companies, car manufacturers, and even $20 security-camera makers. It’s not that hard any more. Even easier is adding XLR ports, timecode support, or a big battery.

The difficulty with video is much the same as for any other technical product in a cut-throat market: getting the feature mix exactly right for fickle customer expectations and your brand identity and product mix, getting the bugs worked out, getting the manufacturing costs down, getting the word out, and getting the distribution nailed. There are great risks in all of this even for big companies like Nikon.

The times are a-changin’ and Nikon will change with them or go under the waves. Historically they have done their best work under pressure, so I wouldn’t rule them out despite their many mistakes in the last five years.
 
What do you personally think is the reason why Panasonic in their right mind wouldn't pay for PD pixels?

To cut to the chase; there is no answer that can justify this decision at this point in time, IMO.

___

Like 2016...fine, AF still isn't a thing just yet (although that year was the true reliable start).

2017...let's see what happens.

2018+...still no decent AF?

I'm just not buying it (no pun intended).
 
NorBro said:
What do you personally think is the reason why Panasonic in their right mind wouldn't pay for PD pixels?
Click to expand...
Stubborness? NIH syndrome? Hope or knowledge that DFD will come good? Senior management not communicating well with the tech people? Poor marketing? The latter is rampant in this industry. It’s why Nikon is in “dire straits”. They didn’t realise people who called themselves photographers would want video by the million (among several other things they didn’t realise until too late). Maybe Panasonic stilll doesn’t think enough video people care enough about autofocus to matter. Hey, everyone pooh-poohed autofocus just a few years ago.

Remind me how the collusion theory explains this detail?
 
ha...that's just being naive, IMO.

Maybe 4-5 years ago, but not in 2021.

I'm all for other analyses, but sometimes it's best for us to just open our eyes and take a look around.

As far as cinema cameras - and not industrial, security, hidden, toy, car, or any camera-in-a-product system - the options we have can be counted on one hand.

Besides ARRI (1%), most of the 99% are either going with one of the same two Japanese options, or one of the same two other country options (USA, Australia). [Insert Panasonic and Z CAM for the rest where applicable.]

Panasonic has made two cinema cameras under $10K (BGH1 or LT's price drop doesn't count) in the last 11 years, Nikon has made zero, and everyone else who has purchased a Sony sensor or another one off the shelf or made their own do not exist anymore (besides RED & Blackmagic & Z CAM).

And if all of that still doesn't add up then just taking a look at the distributed feature set and the strengths and weaknesses across all of the Japanese models is enough for anyone with truly no clue to at least say, "Yeah, that's kind of strange."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top