Kodak has found they can't compete with the big boys at the high end of digital cameras and the market for their color film/paper is on the wane. My guess is that they will soon find the lower end of the digital camera market is pretty cut-throat too. The future looks like it will be pretty bleak for them!

Homer Arment

Kodak's future only looks bleak when you compare it to their utter dominance of the market back when film was the only game in town. Because of that dominance, they have tremendous value in their brand name - lots of people will prefer Kodak over any other brand in the small camera market. What's more, despite heavy losses, Kodak is still a huge company with the financial muscle to take advantage of opportunities that less well-heeled companies will be unable to try. For instance, they've decided that they'll pull out of the full-sized sensor market. That'd be a devastating loss for many businesses, but Kodak will simply sell its remaining stock on hand and be little the worse for wear.

Kodak will likely never again be the overwhelming force it once was, but it's a long way from the trash heap of history.

I would almos bet that the real market is in the low end cameras and portable printers. that is what Kodak seems to want to concentrate on; one goes where the money is.

Ronk

Boy, you hit that nail on the head. I know of 5 families that now use a Kodak PS digital with printers instead of their SLR's and 2 using Sony. Everyone really enjoys getting prints at the family get-togethers, no waiting or computers required.

Warren

Ron is dead on. Years ago I had a discussion re this with a Nikon VP--this was when Nikon first ventured into the AF PHD

cameras--about 1983. At the time, he stated that the engine which supported Nikon producing pro cameras (at the time--the F3HP) was the PSD cameras--without which there would be no money to produce pro cameras.

Dave,

I think sadly in this world we now live in so much of what is available, is only because there is a popular consumer product that's really quite mediocre supporting it, like snapshot cameras supporting serious pro camera, TV's supporting computer displays. Without TV we would be paying 10-20 times as much for a computer display.

That is a huge contrast with the way it was in the 50's and 60's, when there were many makes that catered exclusively to excellence, like Leica, Rollei, Alpa, Rolls-Royce, Ferrari.

I remember a little "economy" car I had for a short time in the 50's, a little V4 1100cc Lancia 4 door. Although small, not too fast, and very economical on gas, it also had the craftsmanship, finish and refinement of the big luxury Lancia cars. Today there is really nothing comparable, maybe the closest thing to it is a Mini-Cooper S.

They still make Leica's today but so few are made and sold they have the price of fine jewelry. I think it is sad so much has to be based on the back of cheap, mediocre mass consumer products.

Just the opinion of an old-timer.

David,

Here's an interesting quote from Ansel Adams in his autobiography, first published almost 30 years ago:

"It is unfortunate that most photographic manufacturers know or care little about creative photography. They have a vast knowledge of advertising and sales, some of engineering, optics, physics, or chemistry, but none of aesthetics. Everything must relate to the markeplace; if sales are not adequate, the corporation will find it difficult to continue, certainly unable to spend funds on exotic indulgences such as fine printing papers."

The context of this quote centers on Adams' support of Edwin Land's efforts to include a regard for "aesthetics" and creativity in Polaroid products. I think it has some relevance today across a broader spectrum of products in the photo industry.

So, as one old-timer to another, I think you're right, and I think we're in excellent company.....

david and Bill, I too am an old guy so I know whqt you are saying. The world has changed substantially in the last 30-40 years. The emphasis is on quantity and speed and, of course, money.

Bill / Ronk,

Well, the old-timers are pretty much on the same page. So maybe its time to turn to a new page?

4 yrs ago, at age 54, I bought a computer and 3 yrs ago I went digital. Any more changes may cause heart failure.

Ronk,

Not to worry. I've been on the bleeding edge of technology for over 15 years with digital. And at 72 if anything the challenge has ben healthy and provided a new lease on life. Nothing worse for the health than boredom<S>.

I have watched Kodak shoot it self in the foot many times over the past 30 years, and it never fails to amaze me that they have not been bought out or gone under. Digital sensors will be no different than film as far a there development. Just like the grain in film, in the end sensor size will rule

David,

Unless there is a major breakthrough in sensor efficiency, I doubt that you will see much greater increase in the number of megapixels for particular sensor sizes, nor much more development of larger area size sensors. The reason is physics. As more sensor sites are packed into a sensor, the size of each site gets smaller, and less capable of gathering light and generating a signal. Presently about 6 micron sensor site size is about as small as can be made and still provide sufficient sensitivity and a low noise ratio to reproduce high quality images.

David
You mudt have missed the news...University of rodchester has devloped a new way to extract the sensor data from the chip in seral thus allowing for not only larger imaging chips but faster and more lattitude too

David,

Not at all. But, until one of the sensor chip manufacturers actually adopts the science, and then finds a way to manufacture it in affordable chips, who should care? Ever hear of "vapor ware"? Over the last 15 years digital has been real, for every dozen or so announcements of a breakthrough, maybe one real product emerges quite a long way down the road.

BTW, although Kodak has surely made a bunch of management gaffs over the years, they are still committed to high-end sensor development even though they have abandoned the 24x36mm chip field, and not long ago announced new very high performance chips for MF backs.