Nikon to acquire RED and make it a subsidiary

[EOS 4 Life]

Do we even have an idea who makes RED sensors?

People claim to know but it is officially a secret.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Depends on when that contract expires… but if soon, you might see internal compressed raw dropped from future Canon models.

The patents should start expiring as early as next year.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Canon doesn't need to worry about REDRaw going into Nikon Cameras

If I were Nikon I would do this ASAP.
NRAW is not well supported.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

That gets Nikon to the league of ARRI and Sony

RED is not in the league of ARRI and Sony is not in the league of RED.
This is not to say that they can't move up or down.

 

[LookingThroughMyLens81]

Canon's so-called cinema cameras are mostly used for live/stage productions, such as sports, concerts, award shows, interviews, etc., corporate video work, vignettes, and documentary production. These are things where the post time and budget are very limited or almost non-existent, so they have essentially jumped into the market position once occupied by Canon's video DSLRs and before that, their DV cameras.

 

[TwoWheeler]

So what’s the consensus here? Will Canon pay up or change the color of their logo?

 

[Dragon]

So what’s the consensus here? Will Canon pay up or change the color of their logo?

That might work the other way around. The Canon logo has been around since before anyone at RED was born.

 

[TwoWheeler]

That might work the other way around. The Canon logo has been around since before anyone at RED was born.

Well Nikon has had yellow for a long time - maybe if they snap up Blue they can charge a licensing fee for ALL the primary colors!

Pretty sure puce will stay in the public domain though.

 

[3kramd5]

Do we even have an idea who makes RED sensors?

People claim to know but it is officially a secret.

I suspect it varies from product to product. We know that OnSemi is currently Arri's supplier, but RED keeps it a secret.

 

[Dragon]

Canon's so-called cinema cameras are mostly used for live/stage productions, such as sports, concerts, award shows, interviews, etc., corporate video work, vignettes, and documentary production. These are things where the post time and budget are very limited or almost non-existent, so they have essentially jumped into the market position once occupied by Canon's video DSLRs and before that, their DV cameras.

Canon has long been careful to avoid too direct competition with Sony in Broadcast and ARRI in cinema, because they make lenses for both and as many here have noted, Lenses are where Canon makes the most profit. I would not be at all surprised to see Canon continue to make lenses that fit on RED cameras (even if RED moves to Z mount, which I doubt). If they have been able to manage that coexistence with Sony and ARRI (and RED) for all these years, Nikon shouldn't be too big a challenge. It will be an interesting transition to watch, but Nikon can't just dump Canon lenses off of RED and walk away. That type of lens is years in the making and most are rented, so existing rental inventory is a big deal.

 

[Dragon]

One last scenario to consider. Nikon may have been the one assigned by MITI to buy RED in order to bring the patent portfolio into the realm of Japan, Inc. MITI should never be underestimated.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Pretty sure puce will stay in the public domain though.

I thought Pixar had trademarked that one.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

The shareholders get rich.

That's a lazy and uninformed answer.

RED was founded in 2005. Given their leadership and name recognition within the industry, I'm sure that if the owners simply wanted to cash out, they would have done so long ago. This is likely far from the first opportunity they've had.

Moreover, as a privately held company, RED could not be forced into a "hostile takeover" as publicly traded companies can.

This is, of course, all speculation, as I have no inside knowledge of RED. Being a still photo hobbyist, I don't even usually pay much attention to cinema cameras. But I've worked in technology companies of all sizes, from 5-person startups to global household names, for more than 35 years. In my experience, when a privately held company that's been around as long as RED and is in a market leadership position, decides to sell, it's because the owners recognize one or more significant barriers to achieving the "next level" of growth, and seek a partnership that will help them overcome those barriers.

Both the Nikon and RED press releases (which, no doubt, were coordinated) mention Nikon's expertise in product development, image processing, optical technology (of course!), and user interface. That's likely all that those of us in the outside world can know at this time. For more information, we'll just have to keep watching how the products evolve in the future.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I would not be at all surprised to see Canon continue to make lenses that fit on RED cameras

That would be a good strategy but we have yet to see Canon make mirrorless lenses for other mounts.
Sony does not really support EF lenses as well as they used to and they started making their own cinema lenses.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

MITI should never be underestimated

I take it that you have never owned one of their cars.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

That's a lazy and uninformed answer.

RED was founded in 2005. Given their leadership and name recognition within the industry, I'm sure that if the owners simply wanted to cash out, they would have done so long ago. This is likely far from the first opportunity they've had.

Moreover, as a privately held company, RED could not be forced into a "hostile takeover" as publicly traded companies can.

This is, of course, all speculation, as I have no inside knowledge of RED. Being a still photo hobbyist, I don't even usually pay much attention to cinema cameras. But I've worked in technology companies of all sizes, from 5-person startups to global household names, for more than 35 years. In my experience, when a privately held company that's been around as long as RED and is in a market leadership position, decides to sell, it's because the owners recognize one or more significant barriers to achieving the "next level" of growth, and seek a partnership that will help them overcome those barriers.

Both the Nikon and RED press releases (which, no doubt, were coordinated) mention Nikon's expertise in product development, image processing, optical technology (of course!), and user interface. That's likely all that those of us in the outside world can know at this time. For more information, we'll just have to keep watching how the products evolve in the future.

Jim Jinnard is 72 and not in the best of health.
He also already had generational wealth from Oakley long before he founded RED.
I can't really see him caring that much about long-term growth and I doubt Nikon would be the best partner for it.

 

[koenkooi]

That would be a good strategy but we have yet to see Canon make mirrorless lenses for other mounts. [...]

Depending on how you define 'mirrorless lenses', their cine lenses feature PL mount versions and their broadcast lenses feature the B4 mount. For photo centric mirrorless lenses, Canon only does EF-M and RF versions.

 

[Dragon]

I take it that you have never owned one of their cars.

MITI is not a carmaker, but rather the Japan Ministry of International Trade and Industry. As far as I can see, the Mitsubishi connection to Nikon has no relevance to any of the discussion but I did own a Mitsubishi diesel pickup for several years and it was a good little truck.

 

[Dragon]

That would be a good strategy but we have yet to see Canon make mirrorless lenses for other mounts.
Sony does not really support EF lenses as well as they used to and they started making their own cinema lenses.

Canon does make PL mount lenses and Canon cinema cameras support PL lenses. In broadcast, this page of lenses is made to go on cameras that Canon does not make. https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/pro/lenses/broadcast-lenses . Go back and reread what I said. Canon is careful not to compete too directly with ARRI in CINEMA cameras and Sony in BROADCAST cameras. In fact, Canon does not even make broadcast cameras other than run and gun models for ENG and their cinema cameras are in the lower fringe. In Broadcast lenses, they are king and those puppies are expensive.

 

[TwoWheeler]

I thought Pixar had trademarked that one.

Unleash the lawyers!