Previous news story    Next news story

Kodak to stop making digital cameras

By dpreview staff on Feb 9, 2012 at 19:17 GMT

Kodak will stop making digital cameras within the next few months. The company, currently in bankruptcy protection, will also stop making pocket video cameras and photo frames as a cost-cutting measure. Instead it is looking to license its name to other manufacturers who wish to sell cameras under the Kodak brand. Closing the business will cost around $30m, mainly in the cost of laying-off workers, but will save around $100m per year in running costs. All product warranties will be honored.

There was an outburst of nostalgia when the company announced it was discontinuing its famous Kodachrome color film but today's announcement that one of the innovators in portable photography and digital camera technology is leaving the business is a sad one. The company's recent retreat into bankruptcy protection means this step won't come as a complete shock but, whatever now happens to the company, its link to everyday photography has been broken.


Press Release

Kodak Focuses Consumer Business On More Profitable Growth Opportunities

ROCHESTER, N.Y., February 09 -- 

Eastman Kodak Company (the “Company”) (OTB: EKDKQ.PK) announced today that, as a result of its ongoing strategic review process and commitment to drive sustainable profitability through its most valuable business lines, it plans to phase out its dedicated capture devices business – comprising digital cameras, pocket video cameras and digital picture frames – in the first half of 2012. Kodak will instead expand its current brand licensing program, and seek licensees in these categories. Following this decision, Kodak’s Consumer Business will include online and retail-based photo printing, as well as desktop inkjet printing.  

Kodak has contacted its retail partners, and is working closely with them to ensure an orderly transition. Kodak will continue to honor all related product warranties, and provide technical support and service for its cameras, pocket video cameras and digital picture frames.  

“For some time, Kodak’s strategy has been to improve margins in the capture device business by narrowing our participation in terms of product portfolio, geographies and retail outlets. Today’s announcement is the logical extension of that process, given our analysis of the industry trends,” said Pradeep Jotwani, President, Consumer Businesses, and Kodak Chief Marketing Officer.   

Upon completion of the phase out, Kodak expects to achieve annual operating savings of more than $100 million. Kodak expects to incur a charge related to separation benefits of approximately $30 million resulting from the exit of the business.  

In addition to its Consumer Businesses segment, Kodak has a Commercial Businesses segment that includes the Digital and Functional Printing, Enterprise Services and Solutions, and Graphics, Entertainment and Commercial Films units. Kodak’s digital businesses now comprise approximately three-fourths of total revenues.          

Kodak continues to have a strong position in the personal imaging market.  While photos are increasingly taken on multi-function mobile devices, Kodak technology makes it easy for consumers to produce a broad range of photo products, anywhere, anytime – from prints to photobooks, photo greeting cards and personalized calendars. These items can be made on Kodak products, with Kodak quality at retail, at home, and ordered for delivery to home.   

Kodak’s continuing consumer products and services will include:  

  • Retail-based photo kiosks and digital dry lab systems, a market in which Kodak is the clear worldwide leader. Kodak pioneered the retail-based kiosk market, and the company now has more than 100,000 kiosks and order stations for dry lab systems around the world, with some 30,000 of those units connected to the most popular photo-sharing sites.  
  • Consumer inkjet printers, where Kodak has outpaced overall market growth for several years. Kodak consumer inkjet printers provide consumers with high-quality output and the lowest total ink replacement cost. Consumers can send documents and photos to Kodak printers from anywhere, using any web-connected device.  
  • Kodak apps for Facebook, which make it easy for consumers to obtain photo products using photos from their Facebook albums.  
  • Kodak Gallery (www.kodakgallery.com), a leading online digital photo products service. Kodak Gallery enables consumers to share their photos, and offers product and creation tools that enable people to do more with their photos.  
  • The Kodak camera accessories and batteries businesses. These products are universally compatible with all camera brands, and extend into other consumer product segments such as charging units for smartphones.  
  • The traditional film capture and photographic paper business, which continues to provide high-quality and innovative products and solutions to consumers, photographers, retailers, photofinishers and professional labs.

Comments

Total comments: 146
12
Michael Piziak
By Michael Piziak (3 weeks ago)

It's sad to see this once giant camera corporation be brought to its knees and stop making cameras.

0 upvotes
Frederick Lim
By Frederick Lim (Mar 20, 2012)

In addition, phone cannot replace the superzoom models, it only make sense if Kodak only stop the compact camera models, but doesn't make sense if it kill the performance line models.

0 upvotes
Frederick Lim
By Frederick Lim (Mar 20, 2012)

I have an easyshare Z1015 and I just bought the easyshare max z990 today.
I like the it very much and it is much cheaper than Japanese rivals.
I am also a fan of Kodak color.
If they stop making camera, we need to buy more expensive one made by Japan.
If they really stop making camera, I hope they only stop in 2012, please continue to make great and affordable camera.
I hope Kodak board fire the CEO if he really kill the camera business.

0 upvotes
Dattaphoto
By Dattaphoto (Feb 14, 2012)

I never forgave them for discontinuing Ektar 25.

0 upvotes
PK24X36NOW
By PK24X36NOW (Feb 13, 2012)

Kodak makes digital cameras? lol

Somehow, I don't think their contribution to digital camera offerings will be missed, since nothing of note has been made by Kodak in years camera-wise.

0 upvotes
Axibis
By Axibis (Feb 13, 2012)

This is very sad.

0 upvotes
Aero Windwalker
By Aero Windwalker (Feb 11, 2012)

Kodak was too greedy on its film business and wasn't smart enough to dedicate on making high quality affordable products, and finally ruled out from the market. It deserves the lost.

0 upvotes
EcoPix
By EcoPix (Feb 11, 2012)

The list of continuing Kodak businesses above show Kodak as innovator, leader or a major player in most aspects of 21st century photography. Not a misty-eyed heritage – they’re visionary right now. The financial trouble seems inexcusable, just because their low-end cameras are being replaced by phones.
Over a lifetime in the industry, I’ve come to see Kodak like a benevolent government department. All teaching aids at tech college were Kodak, most books. They funded most research. Their paternal responsibility to photography’s a credit to them, and maybe a detriment financially.
The future needs just as much pioneering. If Kodak the institution isn’t there with their long-term vision, on a firm financial footing, then photography worldwide will be the poorer.
It would be good if they could be helped out of their current mess, and an inquiry set up to find out what really went wrong and rectify it, in the public interest.
Enough from me! Back to working on my SLR/n files!

0 upvotes
Lights
By Lights (Feb 11, 2012)

My Kid just got a phone with a 5mp camera for 1.00 USD along with a contract. Although sensors like the M9's are wonderful, it seems as if there's an analogy between losing film to digital, and losing digicam sales to phone cams. It's all kind of sad, just as I'm starting to shoot some film again..and glad it will continue..always have found it very consistent. It seems to me, that businesses that are slow to adapt, local or global..no matter how well they are managed otherwise, or how well they treat employees, are in these tough times failing. It isn't business as usual. Regardless of reasons it's sad, both for the tradition behind, and for the employees.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Jmmg
By Jmmg (Feb 11, 2012)

Fujifilm, you are next soon!

0 upvotes
Osvaldo Cristo
By Osvaldo Cristo (Feb 12, 2012)

Really? I do not believe on this as their figures looks me better than Kodak's: it is true their operational profit decreased yoy from 6% to 5% (forecasted for this year) but it looks me 5% is a robust figure for this challenge year. Additionally their product portfolio IMO is much more (market) attractive than Kodak's one.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
nanoer
By nanoer (Feb 13, 2012)

Film eventually will be gone for sure but the company will survive IMO. Considering they have their own lens and sensor development capability as well as all the know how to put together a fine series of X cameras. Fuji is a pride to Japanese and they will not let it go easily.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Alizarine
By Alizarine (Feb 13, 2012)

I don't really think so...

0 upvotes
Lou Gonzalez
By Lou Gonzalez (Feb 11, 2012)

“For some time, Kodak’s strategy has been to improve margins in the capture device business by narrowing our participation in terms of product portfolio, geographies and retail outlets...” said Pradeep Jotwani, President, Consumer Businesses, and Kodak Chief Marketing Officer.

Read that again.

The President of CB at Kodak is saying their strategy to improve profit was to NARROW (read that as reduce) their participation with outlets. WHAT?!?! That makes no sense at all. It's a great way to kill a business though. As a company you need to be in as many relevant markets as possible. And retail is key. Fire that guy because he doesn't have a clue.

2 upvotes
mbpm
By mbpm (Feb 11, 2012)

"...whatever now happens to the company, its link to everyday photography has been broken." I don't think so, as long as they continue providing professional films for enthusiast photographers (like me), Kodak will never depart from its roots and thus never fail. Kodak is mostly known for manufacturing the best sensors in the world, but are restricted for only scientific and research purposes. Now they can invest more time and money to bring their sensors to consumers for an affordable price by partnering with camera manufactures like they did with Leica (Sony has done it with Pentax and Nikon and it's economical poise is thriving).
I honestly believe that Kodak can still pull it off. A prime example is the M9 which, in my opinion, has one of the best Image Sensor (in the 35mm range) the KODAK KAF-18500.

1 upvote
mbpm
By mbpm (Feb 11, 2012)

It is ironic, Kodak was the first company to develop the first megapixel sensor in 1986, and are now in bankruptcy protection....

1 upvote
nanoer
By nanoer (Feb 13, 2012)

Current market model requires camera manufacturers to turn around new model very quickly. Companies knowing just how to design a great sensor, good lens or cool housing design does not safe them from extinction. I see in a few years, only those companies that have their own resources in sensor, Lens, electronic development and manufacturing will survive.

0 upvotes
Kenneth Margulies
By Kenneth Margulies (Feb 10, 2012)

buh-bye. it was a slow suicide. any camera manufacturer who does not innovate and go higher in quality is finished. today's point and shoot camera for the masses is the iPhone.

0 upvotes
Tware
By Tware (Feb 10, 2012)

It's strange to see a less than 10 year old DCS and think what might have been. On an average consumer level I don't remember (at a ripe old 28) Kodak ever being a contender. The first P&S I ever bought with my own money was a Canon. I don't remember even considering Kodak. I just don't think they ever established themselves as relevant in the mid-priced consumer market for quality digital cameras. And selling cameras based on other companies bodies probably didn't help. What I do remember of pro Kodak cameras during my late teens is seeing Nikon on what were supposedly Kodak cameras. Confusing.

What I'm shocked by is bailing on the digicam market. I love my zi6 and would have bought whatever the new iteration was when it finally broke. From a brand recognition and cosumer confidence level I trusted their digicams. And of course their film wich is still profitable for them, thank God. I'll shoot Kodak color neg forever, Fuji can suck it.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 11, 2012)

Whatever.

0 upvotes
Tware
By Tware (Feb 11, 2012)

I'm curious how old you are Francis. Not being snarky, genuinely curious.

Out of my group of friends, all of us in our mid 20's, I'm the only one that owns Kodak anything. And that's my little digicam. And a few boxes of Tri and Gold usually in the fridge.

Forget about the Kodak you remember and think about the market they have to go forward in. All my friends are getting married and having kids, and they want to take pictures of their families on affordable, high quality camera's. None of them in my circle of friends are buying Kodak. Faced with that kind of market maybe they made the right decision.

0 upvotes
creddy
By creddy (Feb 13, 2012)

Let me clarify a few points here: First, it was Nikon and Canon Lenses on Kodak Bodies for the professional Digital cameras. Kodak designed and manufactured the bodies and licensed the lens mounts from those 2 companies. For the longest time, they were the ONLY professional Digital Camera in the market.

What no one realizes is that both KODAK and FUJI are in unique positions. For every dollar of digital they sell, it robs them of hundreds of "analog" (read film and paper) dollars. It is to both their benefits to transition slowly - it is easy to say they should have transitioned faster, but when you are selling BILLIONS in film and paper yearly, that is not something you just walk away from. If they even could - way too many movies and TV shows still use film (and medical x-rays, etc). It was/is a very fine line to walk and manage - right now it looks like Fuji is doing a better job - partly because of Government subsidies that KODAK has been fighting since day one. Just my HO.

0 upvotes
oldshutterbug
By oldshutterbug (Feb 10, 2012)

Pity they never continued with the old DX and P Series cameras they really had something worth buying back then.

Kodak should be ashamed of themselves so hang your head in shame CEO.

0 upvotes
Vandyu
By Vandyu (Feb 11, 2012)

Like most CEOs of failed companies, Kodak's most likely has a multi-million dollar golden parachute and retirement plan. Only the guys and gals working the production line will suffer--they've lost their jobs. Maybe the CEO will share his retirement plan with the workers so everyone has a share. Ha Ha Ha! Has this ever happened in the history of mankind?

1 upvote
Anepo
By Anepo (Feb 10, 2012)

I think Kodak just proved that modernizing a company that is used to doing things certain way can be difficult.

If a company does not manage to become flexible and evolve with technology it will in the end be left behind.

Being a fast runner does not mean that you have got the stamina to reach the finish line first.

1 upvote
Jogger
By Jogger (Feb 10, 2012)

Kodak and Fuji. The two dominant companies in consumer film; couldnt be any more different today.

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 10, 2012)

Kodak is retiring its digital camera business. Whereas Fujifilm is releasing a number of rather technically flawed cameras (Fujfilm X10 and X-S1, particularly).

0 upvotes
madmaxmedia
By madmaxmedia (Feb 10, 2012)

Fuji had it's electronics manufacturing to fall back on, I think that's the big difference between the 2. The consumer electronics companies were the ones best suited to dominate digital photography, not chemical companies.

1 upvote
thinkfat
By thinkfat (Feb 10, 2012)

As long as they keep making Kodak Professional Portra and Gold film, I'm fine ;)

Comment edited 11 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Feb 10, 2012)

The Kodak pocket videocams work well in good light. Kodak's decisison to exit the field may mean buyers can pick up units at attractive discounts. A budget video project involving a live event could employ six or more of the little cameras, planted at key positions, and (after editing) result in multi-camera results that beat anyting one can get with a single high-end camera.

Alternatively, two or three little fixed-focus cameras, placed acros a tripod bracket, could yield cheap but good 3D video results of outdoor subjects that expensive 3D cameras (with little inter-ocular separation) cannot.

Several Japanese giants share some things with the dearly-departed Kodak. They make stuff that earns them no profits and fail to focus on the few good things that might earn them money and assure a future.

0 upvotes
steveh0607
By steveh0607 (Feb 10, 2012)

So the company that invented the sensor will continue the "traditional film capture and photographic paper business...".

Wow! Just let that sink in.

1 upvote
dominic2
By dominic2 (Feb 10, 2012)

Another success story of American CEOs.

2 upvotes
mdruziak
By mdruziak (Feb 10, 2012)

Take a look at Kodak's camera portfolio compared to Canon's point and shoot lineup.

Kodak has 10 different cameras that sell for under $100 while Canon only has 1. At the top end of the line, Canon has 10 cameras that sell for over $300 while Kodak has none! Kodak was trying to be the price leader/bottom feeder of the digital camera market.

How much margin do you think there is in a <$100 camera that you OEM from another company? Not a lot.

The other interesting thing in the press release is that they had been pulling away from the retail market for a while. I guess they were trying to sell cameras direct thru Kodak.com instead of big box and e-tailers. This doesn't make for happy channel partners when you are trying to sell other stuff, say like printers, thru them.

Why would a big box store want to sell Kodak printers, when Kodak was competing with the big box store on camera sales?

0 upvotes
wyoming
By wyoming (Feb 10, 2012)

i have a z915 and i think that you can sell it even under 100$ making profits. sorry but it can be compared only with basic canons, it's incredibly slow and the exposure isn't alwais good. it uses a tecnology that is totally absorbed so you can sell it for 100$.
problem is that my kodak broke down twice in 18 months! and if you sell an unreliable product you loose market share.
plus i had to send it from italy to germany!! for the warranty sorry but you should be crazy to spend 30$ only for the shipment of a product you sell for 100$!
the fact is that this company was run by .......

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Debankur Mukherjee
By Debankur Mukherjee (Feb 10, 2012)

Sad News 8-((

0 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Feb 10, 2012)

Kodak was the leading edge when digital burst forth... Canon, Nikon, etc had no clue, and yet just over a decade of gutsy innovations, these two brands are the leading edge.

Kodak had the diamonds in their hands.

The board of directors didn't know how to polish and cut them... so the cutters and polishers took them away.

4 upvotes
Martin_PTA
By Martin_PTA (Feb 10, 2012)

The problem in today's business world, is that senior management teams tend to be composed of legionaries working on contract for the highest buck! Their passion is more focused on the currency they're earning than on the product generating that currency! Without passion for the product, it's nothing more than gambling with experience, which isn't always enough!

The management team of Kodak took the company out of the high-end market by discontinuing their premium cameras! It's like a famous restaurant saying "Although we established our name with french cuisine, in future we should focus on burgers & fries". What the big Kodak probably did not realize, was that they dropped into the street-corner mass-market segment where the players are quick and light on their feet.

It will be sad to see them disappear! IMO licensing a good name is just another "epic fail" decision. They need a "Steve Jobs" turnaround plan rather!

4 upvotes
Valentin Hertz
By Valentin Hertz (Feb 10, 2012)

Martin you said it all!Yes the same bunch of morons move from one company to another destroying them one at the time..

1 upvote
Bron
By Bron (Feb 10, 2012)

Amen, brother! How many times have we seen this? I only wonder how huge will be their bonuses for this magnificent achievement.

How truly sad. Kodak was such a good company until the morons took over. RIP, Kodak!

0 upvotes
Amateur Hour
By Amateur Hour (Feb 10, 2012)

Kodak is just another company in a long list of companies that suffer from corporate hardening of the arteries. Kodak had every chance in the world possible to make it in the digital realm. They were even digital innovators with some of the worlds first professional digital cameras. But as is usual with long time companies with management that rests on their laurels, the efforts were for show only.

3 upvotes
Bron
By Bron (Feb 10, 2012)

Would be interesting to go back and see when they shifted their emphasis to marketing and short term profits (and stock incentives for the big brass) and started laying off engineers and creative people with a passion for the product. My guess is the decay began right around that time.

0 upvotes
migus
By migus (Feb 10, 2012)

another great American company going down
http://otal.umd.edu/~vg/amst205.S97/vj19/Project5-2.html

taking its place is less in Japan, more in Koreea...

0 upvotes
PhilsPhoto
By PhilsPhoto (Feb 10, 2012)

It's really sad to see Kodak go. I have had Kodak cameras and printers in the past. When digital cameras came about I went Nikon and Kodak early on. Then changed to Canon when the EOS 10D was produced, got lenses and flashes which compels brand loyalty. It's hard to believe that Kodak couldn't or didn't compete well enough in this market space.

0 upvotes
Mk7
By Mk7 (Feb 10, 2012)

@ JosephScha -
As the digital revolution occured, Fuji executives were smart enough to invest in and focus on digital. The dummies at Kodak kept throwing money in to film as if nothing new was going on around them.
When Kodak execs finally got their heads out of their... The company still had enough clout to become #1 in digital. Kodak had a strong enthusiast following, but the brilliant execs chose to abandon them. Fuji didn't.
This week: Kodak is out of the camera business, while Fuji has the #1 pre-ordered camera on Amazon.com.
Sorry, your "apologist" defense of management doesn't convince me.

0 upvotes
Alizarine
By Alizarine (Feb 10, 2012)

Come to think of it, maybe Kodak should've done this a long time ago and kept the Sensor Division instead...

0 upvotes
Alizarine
By Alizarine (Feb 10, 2012)

I hope they still make film 100 years from now... nothing can replace that medium. Hey, Fuji still makes films, might as well have some competition in that area.

2 upvotes
JosephScha
By JosephScha (Feb 10, 2012)

I think we all need to remember that every company that made buggy whips, phaetons (look it up), etc are defunct. They didn't all have horrible management, a dramatic change in technology made their product totally obsolete.
I think Kodak should be regarded in that way: they made their money selling consumable supplies - film and photo paper. They also made slide projectors (Kodak carousel) and mass produced film cameras. Then the technology changed - sales of film and photo paper collapsed. No film, no slides; so no slide projectors. All film camera sales, even disposable cameras, tanked.
I'm glad part of Kodak will survive. It's easy to call management stupid, but managing a company whose moneymaking products have almost all completely faded away during the last decade must be nearly impossible.

2 upvotes
453C
By 453C (Feb 10, 2012)

Polaroid is a better example of a defunct-by-technology failure.

True enough about the death of film, but Kodak was also a pioneer in digital photography. No doubt more than a few Kodak employees were frustrated by the company's inability and/or unwillingness to capitalize on their early lead in the new technology which ultimately led to its destruction. That was a clear failure of management.

2 upvotes
pdcm
By pdcm (Feb 10, 2012)

But Kodak were digitial inovators. They knew what was coming, they helped invent digital technology. The were already making changes to the company structure to bring about the changover at the start. It was other factors that caused the current problems, poor management decisions, failure to capitalize on their technological lead, poor design, poor marketing and in the wrong markets, and basically the 'Big Blue (IBM) Syndrome'

0 upvotes
Mk7
By Mk7 (Feb 10, 2012)

Starwolfy said:
That is also the reason why they will fire many people. They need to make the company operational costs to be ligther.
Any CEO would do the same in such case.

That's what happens when CEOs run companies, not workers. Want to cut costs? How about cutting your own multi-million dollar salary/stock portfolio/private jet/bloated personal spending account, Mr CEO?
If your solution to problems is always layoffs and firings, who's going to have money to buy your products?

4 upvotes
Mike Davis
By Mike Davis (Feb 10, 2012)

The people of India and China are buying the stuff we used to buy. Four guys in a 400 square foot apartment in Bangalor might split the cost four ways to buy a microwave oven, but they are buying the microwave oven just the same - and the blender, and the HDTV, and you name it. U.S. manufacturers (the few that are left) don't need U.S. consumers. The outsourcing of jobs will continue until we're willing to study as hard, work as hard and and accept the lower standard of living the labor force overseas has accepted. Hear that scratching sound at your office window? That's hundreds of educated, legal immigrants trying to get your job with a willingness to work harder for less compensation.

0 upvotes
Mk7
By Mk7 (Feb 10, 2012)

Kodak is but the latest in a long line of once-mighty American companies destroyed by stupid, incompetent, short-sighted, self-serving, greedy managers and executives. But to hear the executives tell it, their downfall was caused by taxes, regulations, health care, welfare… BS!!

Never fully investing in a Velvia-beater? Brilliant. Still pouring hundreds of millions of R&D dollars into film, in the 21st century? Genius. Abandoning the enthusiast digicam market? Bravo.
Gluttonous executives roll the dice, American workers pay the price. RIP Kodak.

10 upvotes
Narek Avetisian
By Narek Avetisian (Feb 10, 2012)

if one was looking at Kodak pages in social networks, there was nothing but pocket camcorders!!! It was more like a little chinese company's page, than Kodak's... Now Kodak Russia's page is full of old pictures from company's great past...
RIP Kodak :(

0 upvotes
Knackerman
By Knackerman (Feb 10, 2012)

Kodak wasn't/isn't all about consumer products.

Their big losses came when the movie industry also went digital.
- But off course the collapse of the analog consumer market also played a role.

Still, the analog and film business is doing well, as far as reports go, there is quite a big marked for it, even today. Even though they've cut down on the number of film brands produced, they still seem to support the analog community -and making a profit.

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
across_mountains
By across_mountains (Feb 10, 2012)

Let me see if I get this right. Kodak originally entered the digital camera market because it was losing money by adhering to the film business. It’s getting out of the digital camera business because of the shrinking digicam market (understandable); but, it’s staying with film (huh?).

1 upvote
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Feb 10, 2012)

I have long lost interest in opaque image media, no matter how it is illuminated from the front, inconsistent as a matter of normalcy, and much prefer light displays of images where one can enjoy a broader, more natural perceived dynamic range, that better captures truer representations of what we see around us. Good riddance to low-representative unlit imagery... Opaque PRINTS... (I'm more receptive to well lit transparent prints at the worst, and light projection, so, in this sense, film transparency can always be used like 'stained glass' is used now, and make room for digital light displays instead (passive or active)... stills or motion. For basic text reading, non-lit media still has an important niche, so, opaque media will remain for that.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 10, 2012)

Feeling all right, everyone?

0 upvotes
hc44
By hc44 (Feb 10, 2012)

Please close open bracket, I have a phobia!

0 upvotes
Hennie de Ruyter
By Hennie de Ruyter (Feb 10, 2012)

)

0 upvotes
Bron
By Bron (Feb 10, 2012)

To each their own. I have no problems with transparent presentations of any kind, I love projecting my images, but I must admit, I still very much love a good print. The tactile nature and the glory of well reflected light from a physical medium is still something I find entrancing.

Best!

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 10, 2012)

Which company is next to go down the proverbial drain, I wonder?

Sigma? Pentax? Canon? It's not going to be Fujifilm or Fujinon, of that I'm pretty sure.

0 upvotes
across_mountains
By across_mountains (Feb 10, 2012)

Sales of lower end digital cameras are declining. The future of digital cameras lies with the higher end ones, including DSLRs. Canon makes these higher end digital cameras. I fail to see why you include Canon, which has a plurality of all digital cameras sold both in the USA and worldwide.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 10, 2012)

Trouble brewing in Canonland. They can't get a grip at all on the mirrorless camera market, that much is obvious. And how long before DSLRs with optical viewfinders and flipping mirrors start to fade away, and then completely go away? I would say we'll be saying sayonara to mirror-type DSLRs in 8-10 years time.

From that point on, it will be all mirrorless. No OVFs, either.

0 upvotes
AndreyT
By AndreyT (Feb 10, 2012)

Well, when companies go down, they don't always make a splash. Kodak was a historical icon, even if it lost its relevance, that's why its death attracts so much attention. Remember when Nikon died? Nobody even noticed. The gas is still escaping from the corpse and it is twitching from time to time so that it sometimes creates the illusion that the company is still alive, but it isn't really there anymore.

I would put my bet on Pentax. Sigma is making Canon lenses, which will help it stay afloat as long as Canon is alive. And Canon is synonymous with very Art of Photography itself. If it ever goes down, it goes down when the entire Art of Photography disappears. Some day it is going to happen, but certainly not in our lifetime.

Pentax. Mark my words.

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting
1 upvote
gillamoto
By gillamoto (Feb 10, 2012)

@AndreyT actually samsung lenses are rebadged pentax lenses. and I don't think pentax will down. what I see now is the opposite.

@Francis yes, I think I agree with you. it's only about time that in the future, mirrorless tech will replace slr. and so the sensors, I believe that the future is the era of smaller sensor. size wont matter anymore.

1 upvote
Knackerman
By Knackerman (Feb 10, 2012)

Actross_mountains: You are actually wrong, the future of the -consumer camera business- lies in the unit you make calls with. It lies in network based photo sharing, online photo ordering business, social media.
Normal people want small units, able to do everything with ease, not in huge and bulky DSLR's like _enthusiasts_ and _professionals_ use.

An by the way, Canon, Nikon, Sigma and Pentax does a helluva lot more than make cameras and printers. Go to their actual websites and check out what they are actually making.
Even Fuji is doing stuff like making chemical compounds for the pharmacy industry. Both Nikon and Canon (and Sigma) have huge contracts in the military and space industries around the world. as the same for Kodak, they are a lot more than a "film making company"

The huge companies mentioned in this thread makes a LOT of money in other markets than the consumer one.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Anepo
By Anepo (Feb 10, 2012)

The day DSLR disappears is the day I will quit photography.

Canon seems to be doing well in my country.

I don't know about the overall world market.
But I would love to hear what financial trouble each of these companies are having.

My prediction though from a rather national standpoint if you look at figures in my country would be that Pentax goes down next.

Just saying because having a DSLR with endless amount of color selections can NOT possibly be anything else but a desperate attempt at getting parents to buy they´re kid a pink or a blue DSLR.
It feels like I am look at the Nintendo DSI of cameras when I see DSLR cameras in other colors than black or grey.

1 upvote
kbozen
By kbozen (Feb 10, 2012)

Sony ?
Sony Credit Rating Cut: lowered to BBB+ by S&P, Moody’s assigned Sony “Baa1,” its third-lowest investment grade, while Fitch gave a “BBB-” rating, one level above junk
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-08/sony-credit-rating-downgraded-by-s-p-on-concerns-about-earnings.html

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 10, 2012)

@ AndrewT:

"Remember when Nikon died?"

No, I do not. What year was that, please?

"Sigma is making Canon lenses."

Of course it does. And Canon is making Sigma lenses. Tits for tats, right?

0 upvotes
EOSHQ
By EOSHQ (Feb 10, 2012)

I'm probably in the .2% of DPR who care about film, but yes I love the look of color and b&w negative film. Everyone should care though, because it's the same technology that makes our best looking TV shows and movies as well. Do you think it is some accident that beautifully photographed films such as "the Dark Knight" and "Inception" were shot on Kodak Vision film? No... They refused to use anything else, because anything else (RED, Sony, etc.) pales in comparison. I use DSLRs and I like them, but if I could afford to shoot portraits on 4x5" Portra film scanned on an Immacon, I would every time. There is no comparison.

3 upvotes
Alizarine
By Alizarine (Feb 10, 2012)

I love film but can't afford it, being born at the twilight of film. Good thing Kodak still makes it, but I can only shoot film rarely on my old Minolta since processing it and printing takes up so much time and money now...

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 10, 2012)

If you want any quality today and longevity for what you shoot, you really have no choice: you need to shoot on film. Maybe one day digital will be a real contender of film and can actually deliver on the heady promise. Just not yet.

0 upvotes
steveh0607
By steveh0607 (Feb 10, 2012)

?
Film is fine and has it's niche, but digital has surpassed film in quality except for large format. And not that many people shoot large format. As to longevity, digital storage is better and quality inkjet prints last longer and look better (looking better is subjective though).

1 upvote
JennD0091z
By JennD0091z (Feb 10, 2012)

George Eastmann must be rolling in his grave

3 upvotes
Ran Plett
By Ran Plett (Feb 10, 2012)

The future: "Hey man, is that a kodak branded camera? Nice." :s

0 upvotes
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (Feb 10, 2012)

Make me think of Back to the Future: Part II for whatever reason.

0 upvotes
QSMcDraw
By QSMcDraw (Feb 9, 2012)

Sometimes it seems as if American companies years ago fell under some kind of curse, a curse of stupidity. Yes, we have some success stories, but Kodak is a powerful metaphor.

4 upvotes
mlackey
By mlackey (Feb 10, 2012)

I call it capitalism. Corporations cannot be content with stable profits, they must show ever-increasing profits I think this leads to a death spiral in which corporate decisions are not based on what will become profitable in the future but instead what will return profit for the immediate quarter. It is both a blessing and a curse.

5 upvotes
Anepo
By Anepo (Feb 10, 2012)

And this is why I would never allow a company if I had one to become a share holder crap & I would run it myself and make sure that no stupid stuff was pulled.

But then again there is no way that I am starting a company. Heck I lost my job in january so first I need a job then a company XD

0 upvotes
Babya
By Babya (Feb 9, 2012)

Sad to hear they're going to stop milking cameras-I own many myself including a DC4800 and a DX6490, which were quite good cameras in ther times as both have PC sync sockets for external flash usage which I love. I also remember Kodak for the Z series super zooms.

0 upvotes
ginsbu
By ginsbu (Feb 9, 2012)

I’m not sorry about the cameras, but Kodak’s Pulse Wifi-connected digital frames were really quite good. Simple to e-mail photos to the frame and remote administration so even technologically ignorant relatives can enjoy having one. I sincerely hope Kodak will continue to fully support the online features of these frames and the kodakpulse.com site.

1 upvote
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Feb 9, 2012)

'Instead it is looking to license its name to other manufacturers who wish to sell cameras under the Kodak brand.' Yeah, way to destroy an iconic brand....let cheap, Chinese camera companies use your name.

6 upvotes
Alizarine
By Alizarine (Feb 10, 2012)

...and stay away from total dissolution by doing so. Hey, if it keeps the company alive, why not?

0 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Feb 10, 2012)

.....Because brand is everything....once they lose that it won't matter.

1 upvote
thomas2279f
By thomas2279f (Feb 9, 2012)

Sad news.... what is Kodak doing instead, is it still ongoing concern either whole or partial or is this the end for iconic brand.

0 upvotes
Carlos AF Costa
By Carlos AF Costa (Feb 9, 2012)

Nikon bla bla,, Canon bla bla, Fuji bla bla, Pana bla bla, XPTO bla bla,…
My God, how I like the good old brands: Kodak, Leica, Praktica, Zeiss Ikon, Agfa, Rollei ...
And always remember:
“Kodachrome They give us those nice bright colors
They give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's
a sunny day”

0 upvotes
Colin Stuart
By Colin Stuart (Feb 9, 2012)

Might've been great in the film days, they never figured out the digital thing. = death.

7 upvotes
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (Feb 10, 2012)

Nikon has been around since 1917, Canon 1937, Fujifilm 1934, Pentax & Olympus 1919, Panasonic 1918, Minolta 1928, Konica 1873

Nuff said.

3 upvotes
453C
By 453C (Feb 10, 2012)

Konica died in 2003 when it merged with Minolta.
Konica Minolta died in 2006 when it was bought out by Sony.

Pentax went to Hoya, then merged with Ricoh, and now both brands aren't in the best of health.

Olympus is struggling to regain its strength after a huge financial scandal.

I'm not sure why you included those in your "Nuff said" list. A brand's history means little if they no longer produce competitive products and market them accordingly.

0 upvotes
Carlos AF Costa
By Carlos AF Costa (Feb 9, 2012)

What a pity!
I would love to have a wonderful Kodak mirrorless four thirds.
Full Frame sensor and 30 or 40 MB.
Yes, and the name KODAK on the top of it.

0 upvotes
Hentaiboy
By Hentaiboy (Feb 9, 2012)

Kodak should license colour simulations to all the camera manufacturers. Much like Fujifilm has Velvia, Provia simulations, Kodak could offer Kodachrome and Ektachrome...

6 upvotes
PaulRivers
By PaulRivers (Feb 9, 2012)

Yeah, that's what I really miss about my Kodak digital camera - I was really comfortable with the colors it produced. With my Canon sometimes the colors are great, occasionally they're awful...the colors are my biggest complaint. I mean they aren't terrible, but Kodak just seemed to nail the colors more often than not, you know?

1 upvote
rt22306
By rt22306 (Feb 9, 2012)

A few of their (Kodak) more recent models, such as the Z990 and M583 have color simulations of Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Kodacolor and Tri-X. I may pick myself up another M583 tomorrow.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 10, 2012)

I never liked any of the Canon-cams' colors.

For right now, best to go with a FUJIFILM camera, if you are into the Fuji look, that is. I am.

@ rt22306: Okay, so you gonna get one. And who else?

Could not find the Z990 on their web site. They are still promising some new models for April, but now we know that won't happen, eh?

0 upvotes
rt22306
By rt22306 (Feb 10, 2012)

Francis, a lot of sites have the Z990 listed as the Kodak Easyshare Max. I did pick up another M583 this evening; I hope sincerely that whomever buys the rights to make cams under the Kodak brand also buys the ability to simulate Kodachrome, etc. on what they market. Some of the Fujis have film simulation for their brand films also. Good luck, and if you get one I hope it works well for you.

0 upvotes
Yanko Kitanov
By Yanko Kitanov (Feb 9, 2012)

Even the greatest tradition and best practices can't save an entity that lost touch with reality and its customers....

I still haven't seen any colours better than the Kodachrome though....I am afraid I will not see better....

0 upvotes
Lupti
By Lupti (Feb 9, 2012)

Well, sad that a traditional name will go but to be honest, Kodak only produced crap in the last years. Some pedestrian P&S cameras, low quality pocket camcorders and nothing real exciting. They failed to match with the competition and now they get their comeuppance.

3 upvotes
Total comments: 146
12