There is something I don't end to get here or there. It's about prices.
If some camera nanufacturers are targetting both the high-end profesional sphere and the "wealphy dentists" amateurs as the refrain says, what's the Price point then?
What's 30.000 bucks for people who are making 300.000?
I'm not saying that the Price isn't important, but if the target is people who have more than enough to afford those equipments, then the Price question is pointless.
Making a paralel with motion, one can argue that Red brought Raw on the cheap and a small structure can successfuly use Epics, but the fact is that what I'm seeing here is
that were the money is (or where the money still is because you know the spanish situation...), they would use Arri Raw because cost isn't a concern. And there could be endless debates Red vs Arri etc etc...but for the people-structures who have
mediums, those questions are pointless, the relation Price/value is pointless, just the value counts. Nikon target is mass market, big volume. Others aren't targetting this.
And about the Nikon, how is the pro service in Nikonland? Because is not just about a camera performance isn't it?
Something even more absurd: An Hasselblad covered of diamonds would be ridiculously vulgar. But if you think about it, some nouveau riches would bite, but I don't think a Nikon covered of diamonds will interest them
because there isn't enough exclusivity-luxury-prestige in Brand's image involved. My point is that the brand's prestige counts and has a Price too, regardless if some chinese industry would produce something
better at 1/100th of the cost. Manolo Blahnik is not the same as Bally with the exception that both are suitable to walk.
To ilustrate my lack on understanding on the Price/value side, the other day I was on set (invited, not working in) with a "silly" co-production digital cinema. An "historical" serie Co-produced by the national teevee. It's never going to be projected in theaters but HD tv. There was no tripod under 5.000 bucks, there was no lens under 55.000 (and generaly cine lenses are so expensive that they work in rental only). What's the point on spending huge amount of money on out-fashionned productions that nobody will watch except our grand'mas ? They could have filmed with a Scarlet and cheap Nikon optics, or with a C300 and guarantee that no viewer would ever notice something. The only reasonable answer I have is that they do it because they can. Same happens in still imagery. If some people can afford ultra-expensive lenses or cameras, they will do it, even if one can proof that there is the same or better at 1/10th the cost. All that is very relative.