coralnut wrote: Spectro wrote:
I’m not a video guy and am not qualified to talk about it but where might RED fit into this scenario? Something like a Z8ii with RED goodness to differentiate it making more room for a high mpx Z7iii.
I'm not a video guy either, and I take issue with video being forced into every camera that Nikon is currently manufacturing, irrespective of whether or not the customer wants to pay for video capability.
The act of forcing increasingly high performance video capabilities into every camera benefits Nikon in the form of higher unit sale prices, but it does not benefit the customers who are seeking a still-centric high-IQ camera. Those customers who feel that they are being forced to pay for features that they do not want have no choice other than to buy a different brand of camera. IMO that's a mistake on Nikon's part. I've been a loyal Nikon customer since the film era, but the realization that stills-centric high-IQ can only be had elsewhere has killed several decades of brand loyalty for me.
With the acquisition of Red it appears evident that Nikon intends to transition from a stills-centric photography company to become a videography company. It would seem that with the acquisition of Red, Nikon intends to amortize that acquisition cost across it's entire customer base by forcing incremental improvements in video performance into all of their cameras, irrespective of whether or not their customers want to buy video.
That's a great thing if your interest is in cinematography and you aspire to own Red video technology as it trickles down into smaller camera bodies, but it's not such a great thing if your interest lies in photography. Nikon is actively transitioning from a stills camera company into a video camera company, and they expect to distribute the cost of that transition upon everyone who buys one of their cameras. Being interested in a stills-centric high-IQ camera, I have no interest in subsidizing Nikon's decision to democratize Red cinematography technology across it's entire line of cameras.
At this time it seems that Nikon doesn't have any interest in producing stills-centric high-IQ cameras any more. If that's the case, then I won't be buying any more new Nikon bodies, and my needs will have to be met in the world of medium format. I could be wrong though -- I really hope that Nikon is willing to produce an stills-centric high-IQ camera. I'd buy it. But I think that because it would be technologically sparse and would not require any of the Red tech, such a camera would need to be priced like the Z6 and not the Z8.
All i have to mention here is that u don't think you're paying really anything extra for the video capabilities. I mean the Z9, by far the best hybrid camera video capabilities and came out $1,000 cheaper than Sony A1 and $500 cheaper than the Canon R3. The Z8 with the same capabilities as the Z9 was $3999 and destroyed anything else in it's price point. It's the same with the Z6III now. That extra $500 is likely due to the partially stacked sensor, which benefits stills more than video.
So I didn't think you're going to save much money if they left out the video capabilities. The hardware will be the same. So why not just have the capabilities in case you ever decide to use them?
Jun 25, 2024 at 03:47 PM
Previous versions of Eric214's message #16580166 « Laughable Nikon Z7 III and Z80 "rumors" »
