OlegKalyan
Well-known member
It just looks that its very had to dial good realistic skin tones, on BM cameras. A lot shot with it has desaturated look, with not much pure whites and blacks, low RGB range.
The Difference between Blackmagic and Canon/Nikon/Panasonic
- Thread starter Benjobe
- Start date
It's all semantics and all the same thing.
Do you want to make the "best" product on the market for the best price? I don't think Black Magic, Sony, Panasonic, or any company would say they want to make the worst product on the market for the worst price, right?
Well guess what? Making the best product on the market for the best price is how you make the most money. If you're doing one, you're doing the other as well. They are not separate things. One company only tries to make money, while the other company tries to make no money but good products?
If you make bad products, you make no money. If you make good products, you make lots of money. You have to take into consideration that there are all price points and different markets. Someone with 300 bucks that wants a camera to take Xmas photos still wants the "best" camera for their money, but they don't need a Red Epic for that. That doesn't mean the 300 dollar point and shoot model from Sony is a bad product, or just made so Sony can make money. Sony is fulfilling a market need, just like Red, Canon, or BMC.
You make good products and fulfill a market need, you make lots of money. You make bad products, or products no one needs, or products no one can afford, and you go bankrupt. The rest is just smoke and mirrors.
Is BMC trying to make a good product? Yes they are. That means if they are succesfull they will make lots of money. Just like Sony, just like Canon, and Panasonic.
There is no such thing as an "unfair" price in a free market economy. There are only market prices, or planned economies, or charity. All transactions will fall into one of those categories.
Market price means a willing buyer is going to purchase the item from a willing seller. If the price is "Unfair" the item will go unsold because there will be no willing buyers. If there is a willing buyer, the price is "fair" because that is what someone is willing to pay and no one is coercing them into it.
Sony cannot charge "unfair" prices for cameras. It's really not possible as long as there is competition and your life doesn't depend on buying a camera from Sony.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_price
Barry_Green
Moderator
Grossly oversimplified. There are plenty of manufacturers who make crap, and who sell a ton of it, because there are plenty of customers out there who are only willing to pay for crap.
There are many different avenues for a manufacturer to make money. One is to make a horrible product and put all your money into advertising instead (witness ANY product ever sold by infomercial). One is to make a premium product and charge premium prices.
One sure guaranteed way to LOSE money is to make a premium product and charge cheap prices. Now, if you can make a cheap product for a cheap price and make people THINK they're getting the same thing as a premium product, well, that's back to putting your energy into marketing rather than into development.
Gillvane, sometimes I agree with you and you get things spot-on (as in post #43). And sometimes I cannot imagine where you're coming from (witness, any post where you attempt to tell people what their motivations are). I think you engage in some extraordinarily solipsistic behavior at times, which makes conversations at times frustrating. Are you a manufacturer? Do you manufacture and sell products? Do you speak for all manufacturers that make and sell products? Different people have different motivations. And sometimes those motivations are charitable. Sometimes they're greedy. Sometimes they may be the motivations of a brilliant inventor but lousy businessman. None of us know what their true motivations are, and in the case of completely private businesses (like BlackMagic and Red) we don't get ANY insight into their business operations because they're completely private.
I think it's fair to say that no BUSINESSMAN sets out to make products that will lose money. But that goes back to the question -- are these people businessmen? Or inventors? Or marketers? Or camera geeks? What IS their motivation?
Unless THEY tell us, then we don't know. And to put words in their mouth is highly presumptuous. So can we just acknowledge that they are in business for their own reasons, and if they feel like telling us what those are, then we'll know...
BMC cameras shoot images that are meant to be graded. Actually the one thing I do like about them is color and skin tones. They are capable of very rich nicely balanced color images when handled properly.
A lot of people don't seem to know how to deal with low contrast film log originals, whether it is from a BMC, a Sony F series, or a DSLR. But that is not the camera's fault.
Al MacLeod
Well-known member
Pi$$ Barry off, pay the price...
I completely agree with that, and it's what I was thinking of in an earlier post: "If you are trying to break into an industry, you want to differentiate your product in the marketplace, and build up loyalty within a fan base. To do the latter, you need to make your target customers feel "special", or "separate from the herd" if you like. Comments such as reported are the way Black Magic are trying to play a trick that in essence is as old as the hills."
The trick of trying to make your target listeners "feel special" is called "marketing" when you are selling something, "propaganda" if you're a politician!
I think the disconnect is that I find the "motivation" to be immaterial.
I want to make a million dollars and I don't give a crap about cameras or people that use cameras.
I want to make the best camera in the world because I'm a techno geek and I love indie film makers!
My point is you don't get different behaviors in the market place because of different "motivations", unless your company is a charity like a 501 (3)-c organization. The market place doesn't allow that. You either deliver a good product, which makes money, or you do not. You can say it's because you're a ruthless competitor, an evil corporation, because you love indie film makers, because you love puppies and you are Ghandi, but the result is exactly the same. Good products make lots of money, bad products don't.
If you sell your product at below market price, but still make a profit, you will gain market share and still make a ton of profit and get rich.
Is that because you want to give people a "fair" price, or because you want more market share and more money?
It really doesn't matter, because the outcome is EXACTLY THE SAME.
I simply look at things from the standpoint of economics not emotion. If you are judging camera companies on emotion, I"m sure it looks like things are done for "charity" or "greed". From an economic stand point you either go out of business or you are successful and that's not dependent on "charity" or "greed" but basic economic principles that have nothing to do with those emotions.
greed (gr
How much money should Black Magic Cinema make before it would be classified as "greedy" in your opinion? If you can answer that question with a specific dollar amount, or any quantifiable criteria that is measurable, I'll admit to solipsistic behavior.
Give me a definite line where anyone on the planet could measure BMC objectively and say it's not greedy now, but as soon as it crosses this line, now it's greedy.
Andrius Simutis
Veteran
If you oversimplify economic theory to the level of dogma, you lose sight of some of the subtleties that really shape the companies and their contributions to the market. Corporate culture is very real and does determine how different organizations will act. Canon would never release a product like the BMCC because they would never release a product that wasn't a 100% consistent and reliable experience for their customer. Canon would sooner cut features than release something that wasn't 100% reliable. That's why a 5D3 can shoot raw video, but not without a third party hack. Black Magic (and RED) is more willing to push the envelope with their cameras and live on the bleeding edge of the technology because their corporate culture is based more on being radical innovators than being low risk, reliable providers. These companies will not do the "exact same thing", but will come out with very different products because they think and operate differently. Sure, they both want to earn a profit so they can continue to make more cameras, but the cameras will be different not because of the seeking of profit, but because the companies are organizations of real people and not examples from a textbook competing over theoretical widgets.
pulpfiction007
Veteran
^^^^^ Agreed, and to add - Making a good product/products is only one small slice of the pie of a company being successful. Other things DO matter to buyers such as reputation and future viability.
Barry_Green
Moderator
... and then attribute motivations to others. I don't mind how you look at the world for yourself, just so long as you acknowledge that others look at it differently.
In my opinion? They can make ALL of it, if they make enough good products that people want to buy and willingly give their money to them. Where there is no monopoly, markets reward those who can make products (or sales pitches) that people feel like they need to and should buy into. "Greed" is never a factor in that equation. Where "greed" comes into play is if the company starts doing unethical things to milk their profit margin (such as lacing their infant formula with rat poison), or deliberately misleading the consumer (lying to them in some way or other about the product) -- such as, any offering of "magnetic bracelets" or "ion-impregnated necklaces" that "promote healing" (aka "snake oil"). Or when a restaurant finds that their cheese is all moldy, and instead of behaving honorably by throwing it out, they instruct the employees to just slice off the visibly moldy parts and use it anyway. In cases such as that, surely you could see that it is NOT a case of a manufacturer offering the best product (because the product is, indeed, a lie) but simple deception and greed...
There is no such line, so long as they offer quality products at prices that the public deems good value.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Or "mojo". These are real factors. Some people choose to buy Ben & Jerry's ice cream over other brands, not for the ice cream itself, but to support the company's social agenda. Others on the opposite side of the social spectrum may choose to go to Chick-Fil-A for the same reason. In both cases, customers are making decisions to spend their dollars based on factors that have *zero* to do with the product or its relative quality or its price. I could argue that many Apple users might fall into the same category, those who have bought into and identify with the brand and will buy whatever product that company makes. And, for the exact same (but opposite) reason, there are those who will refuse to buy a product from Apple specifically and solely because it is from Apple, and having nothing to do with the relative merits of the products of the company.
I would say that we're seeing plenty of that in the camera arena. In fact, isn't the very origin of this thread about the idea of wanting to support the indie rebel company specifically because of who they are? Not because the product does what they want, necessarily... I've seen people frankenrig DSLRs to ridiculous degrees just to try to get them to a bare minimum level of functionality, but they do so not because the product is great (because, I think we're all mature enough to admit now, the video on the 5D Mark II really isn't very good, and certainly pales in comparison to an F3, F5, FS700, Red, Alexa, or even a BMC) but because they wanted to identify with, be a part of, and embrace the "DSLR Revolution". Were the products "the best"? No, frankly, they were not.
Having the best product is no guarantee of success (just ask Sony about that whole VHS thing). Having the product that people want to buy (for whatever reason) is the key to success in selling products. And there are as many different reasons for people to want to buy a product, as there are for inventors who want to sell products.
Yeah, there's a lot of "Mojo" keywords that go around every year, just like brand recognition such as "Canon 5D" "RED Epic". I was at a party full of "industry" people on Saturday night. 2014 is definitely the year of RAW. If it doesn't shoot "RAW" it must not be any good!! I guess they'll take an unstable Magic Lantern hacked 5D over a Sony F5. Poor Sony. Such great products that for some reason don't get the mojo they deserve among the indie feature crowd.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Sony are hugely bad at communication which lets their products down.
There are no good examples of the F5/55 raw about, all of their HFR efforts were mis communicated (they should have just said '720p' not 2kraw!) etc. ect.
Also the experience of buying an F5 (I didn't) was completely useless due to a dis interested dealer
But many of thier products are sort of excellent - I seem to always end up with a Sony (nex5, EX1, FS100, F3) but it is always a self researched journey to get there.
S
There are no good examples of the F5/55 raw about, all of their HFR efforts were mis communicated (they should have just said '720p' not 2kraw!) etc. ect.
Also the experience of buying an F5 (I didn't) was completely useless due to a dis interested dealer
But many of thier products are sort of excellent - I seem to always end up with a Sony (nex5, EX1, FS100, F3) but it is always a self researched journey to get there.
S
I don't disagree with any of that. But imo it doesn't mean Canon is an evil corporation that is "greedy" and BMC is altruistic and out for the little guy. They're just companies using different strategies to make a profit. Any strategy that is legal and makes you a profit is certainly legitimate and can be justified in economic terms. I would never expect all businesses to try and supply a consumer need the same way.
The point is altruistic actions often generate profits. For example donating to charity is very altruistic. It also generates good press which means more name recognition, and makes consumers like your brand which means increased sales and increased profits.
Now, does it make a difference if the company is doing it for the increased sales, or because they are purely altruistic, when the outcome is exactly the same either way?
here's an example:
http://www.csrwire.com/press_releas...-500-Non-Profits-Globally-in-Fiscal-Year-2004
Did Nike donate that money because Nike is just a really good company that is not greedy and has great intentions? Or was that a purely business decision to generate good press for the company? What if they tell you that it has NOTHING to do with profits? Do you believe them? If not, why then would you believe something BMC does has NOTHING to do with profits? If it makes you like the company more it's going to generate more profits right? So wouldn't saying it has nothing to do with profits actually be lying?
Last edited:
Yes, we call that "marketing". If you have a good product you have to market it and there's a million ways to go about that. Appealing to a certain social agenda or "green" agenda has proven to be a very successful marketing strategy. Ben Cohen of Ben and Jerry's has an estimated net worth of $650 million dollars. I think that's plenty of proof of how successful a marketing strategy Ben and Jerry's has.
I don't see Ben and Jerry's as altruistic or greedy, just a successful business using one of a million different marketing strategies. Putting $650 million bucks in your pocket seems pretty successful to me.
Last edited: