What is Kodak doing, DSLR's?

440roadrunner · Joined: 07 Aug 2007 Posts: 52

I guess I'm stupid. I'm wondering if Kodak has or is working on any "actual" Kodak DSLR's

Now, I'm not referring to some of their products that are really a Canon or Nikon with a Kodak digital back hung on, I'm wondering about a stand-alone Kodak product?

If they are, what lens mount do they use, and what is the (proposed) register?

A Google search has been frustrating.

Katastrofo · Expire: 2013-11-19

The only one I've seen info on is the last rendition of the Pro/n in 2004, $4995, taking Canon EF lenses.

patrickh · Expire: 2011-11-18

I believe Kodak exited the business - they tried Nikon and Canon to build their bodies and they could not get the chipset/software right. Typical Kodak screw up. It's a company that died but refuses to stay buried. They make fewer dollars profit now than they did twenty years ago (discount that backwards and you can see just how badly they have done). Their snap machines are barely holding on.
Why would you be interested in them, their DSLR's were never very good, only very expensive.

patrickh

montecarlo · Joined: 04 Apr 2007 Posts: 1865 Location: Romania

As I know Kodak dSLR's were based on Sigma d/SLR (see upper camera's shape) ans were made with Canon and Nikon mounts, and of course were only full frame. Unfortunately their quality (at least the images produced) is not quite good.

440roadrunner · Joined: 07 Aug 2007 Posts: 52

Thanks, folks. I guess that explains things. I'm now using a Canon Xt, and have been considering something else, possibly an Olympus (used)--especially now that the 'Dandilion" thing has gotten underway.

The object is to be able to use old manual lenses and still get reliable shots. For me, the viewfinder on the Xt (type) cameras are a problem. I've also considered Pentax, but it still rejects a large possibility insofar as older lenses due to the flange register. I do have some AF focus chips for my Xt, but they are many times not accurate enough, and at least two of them front focus.

rick_oleson · Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:44 pm Post subject:

I'm not sure how the fact that Kodak is making fewer dollars now than they were 20 years ago is particularly relevant to anything except the fact that 20 years ago every photographer in the world bought film and paper, and today they don't. 20 years ago most of the camera makers were in trouble and the film companies were doing very well, and now it's the reverse. Of all of the major film makers, Kodak has survived the transition to the digital world in better shape than most. Imagine what your life would be like if you dominated the world in a huge market that, over the course of 10 years or so, ceased to exist.

This is not to say that Kodak makes the best digital cameras or that they should make an SLR (there has never been an American SLR of any kind since the old sheet-film Graflexes of more than half a century ago) .... just that they have run a competent business and handled a very difficult transition better than .... well, seen any world-beating digital cameras from Agfa or Ilford lately? The digital market favors the camera makers, not the film makers.....

patrickh · Expire: 2011-11-18

Kodak were one of the early front runners in the digital age - with access to very advanced digital imaging technology early on in the satellite programme, thanks to Uncle Sam's Defense Budget. Somehow they failed to capitalize on it - to the point where they are barely in the market now. They were in fact losing out on the film market while it was still going strong to outfits from Japan and Germany. They were also very late in moving their emphasis (especially R+D) from film to digital - it seems they originally felt it would stay in the professional domain. Other tech companies have weathered the loss of their markets somewhat better (GE, IBM ?,) and still others have disappeared (ITT most notably). It is part of the natural cycle for the biggest to grow elephantine and bureaucratic and eventually lose it all (or nearly all).
Your comment on Kodak only makes any sense at all if you are not a shareholder.

patrickh

rick_oleson · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:24 am Post subject:

IBM?????????????????????

Richard_D · Joined: 21 Oct 2007 Posts: 2378 Location: Faversham Kent UK

Fuji seem to have managed the transition quite well. The S5 serves a niche market well (Wedding photography) whilst still appealing to others who want something slightly different.

patrickh · Expire: 2011-11-18

Rick

IBM was a classic case of the dumbing down of corporate America, but they have re-invented themselves to be a software company rather than hardware. They still make super-computers and main frames quite profitably - but they are nowhere near the dominant force they were, because they never understood what the PC was going to do (that's how Bill Gates conned them out of the software). My problem with Kodak is that they have lost their monopoly and their market and do not appear to have any future ahead of them. What are they without a major presence in digital? a dying specialized paper company. They are not alone in this quandary - GM and Chrysler are there too. Xerox is a spent force. and so on... International competition is a real killer. We are becoming a nation of book-keepers and "financiers".

patrickh

rick_oleson · Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 1:10 am Post subject:

I live in an IBM town.... around here they're kind of a bad joke.

patrickh · Expire: 2011-11-18

They survived by taking it out of the hides of their employees - what they did to the pension plan was unconscionable. But the ethics of the corporate world is another subject.... Crying or Very sad

patrickh

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

Corporate world has no ethics at least I not seen any... I worked two years on a project for IBM and when I was close to finish after first beta IBM rejected. My boss wasn't a smart guy he invested money only on promise, that is true.