Previous news story    Next news story

Kodak licensee shows off Micro Four Thirds camera in China

By dpreview staff on Jan 18, 2013 at 18:43 GMT

Just a week after announcing it was licensing the Kodak brand name, JK Imaging has been showing a Micro Four Thirds camera at a press conference in China. Details are vague but the camera, reported to be called the S1, does appear to be sporting the official Micro Four Thirds logo. The camera, which will offer Wi-Fi for communication with smartphones, is said to be based around a Sony CMOS sensor (Reported as backside-illuminated CMOS in some sources. To the best of our knowledge, Sony only uses BSI designs in 1/1.7" and smaller sensor sizes, where it brings most benefit.)

Image from PCOnline's Weibo Digital Camera's blog

JK Imaging - a recently established California-registered company - has bought the right to make cameras under the Kodak name. At the same press conference it also showed a series of the sort of contract-made compact cameras such a deal would normally be expected to yield, but the decision to create Micro Four Thirds camera and have something tangible to show so quickly, is a surprise. The UK's Amateur Photographer magazine had reported that a Mirrorless system camera was planned.

Kodak was a founding member of the original, open, Four Thirds standard and its name has subsequently been added to the list of members of the Micro Four Thirds consortium.

Another slide in the presentation includes Asia Optical (a Taiwanese contract manufacturer) in the Kodak/JK Imaging partnership, though this may only relate to the compact cameras being launched in Q2 2013.

Image from PCOnline's Weibo Digital Camera's blog

While images available give little away, it's interesting to note that the position of the focus and zoom rings on the lens (along with the lip around the front of the lens), is very similar to Olympus' 14-42mm mark II design, though it's too early to know if this is much more than a mock-up. (via PetaPixel)

Comments

Total comments: 192
12
Photocounter
By Photocounter (Jan 23, 2013)

It's interesting to note that JK Imaging and General imaging share the exact same same office address in California:
http://www.photocounter.com.au/2013/jk-and-general-imaging-odd-bedfellows/

The guy holding the Kodak camera in this story is Robert Lai, who heads up Asia Optical, which will handle all design and manufacture for JK Imaging/Kodak. They also make all General Imaging cameras.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (8 months ago)

This reminds me Tokio, whe Nikon is on the third and fouth floor, and Sigma occupies the 2 lower ones.

0 upvotes
Max Demian
By Max Demian (Jan 22, 2013)

Almost EVERYTHING is made in China. There are products running the entire range of quality and price - form dollar store items to your i-Phone. You get what you pay for. Buy a fifty buck Chinese made no-name lens vs. a $1500.00 branded (but made in China) lens and your results will reflect the price (barring counterfitting). For the information of some on this thread - JK Imaging is an American company. If they deliver a camera that is fast, responsive, intuitive, has great battery life, and last - but definitely not least - has that beautiful Kodak travelogue/National Geographic color scheme...
I'm in!!!

0 upvotes
SDPharm
By SDPharm (Jan 22, 2013)

> You get what you pay for...

Hopefully, at least most of the time. Sometimes, marketing plot gets the better of people and you ended up paying for hype rather than real substance. This happens a lot in the high-end audio world.

1 upvote
Ahmet Aydogan
By Ahmet Aydogan (Jan 22, 2013)

That National Geographic color was almost exclusively Fuji Velvia.

0 upvotes
Max Demian
By Max Demian (Jan 26, 2013)

Really? National Geographic made their name in photography with Kodak Ektachrome film (and extrememly talented photographers!). I agree, Velvia has also been used by their photographers - but not exclusively.

0 upvotes
Art Deco
By Art Deco (Apr 9, 2013)

Actually, National Geographic's iconic images were created with Kodachrome not Ektachrome.

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (8 months ago)

National Geographic was so sold on Kodachrome, they commissioned a study to determine which film had the most permanence. After a considerable amount of time and money (I think it was Peter Krause who did the study) they discovered what everybody already knew. Kodachrome had the best longevity.

1 upvote
Peter K Burian
By Peter K Burian (Jan 21, 2013)

Yeah, this is just milking a familiar brand name with some Chinese-made stuff. Another Chinese company did that with GE digital cameras too for a couple of years, and those were junk; they got very poor reviews. See http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-camera-reviews/?filter=1000036_124865_

1 upvote
Revenant
By Revenant (Jan 21, 2013)

Olympus has just announced that five more companies have joined the M4/3 group. Seems to be mostly makers of video cameras and industrial imaging equipment, but one of the companies is JK Imaging. I guess it's official then.

http://www.olympus-global.com/en/news/2013a/nr130121mfourthirdse.jsp

1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Jan 21, 2013)

So first Polaroid licensed their name to Sakar International for an Android powered interchangeable lens/sensor module camera and now Kodak have licensed their name for a Micro Four Thirds camera, I guess these new mostly unknown camera makers feel they need a "big" name to put on their cameras to sell them?

0 upvotes
LaFonte
By LaFonte (Jan 21, 2013)

Polaroid is licensing its name for ages for many different (often crappy) products including subpar cameras. This is all what is left from Polaroid and Kodak - bunch of patents and their name. They can still milk it for some time and it probably pays few of their managers salaries.

1 upvote
yonsarh
By yonsarh (Jan 21, 2013)

hmmmm.....

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Cirrus888
By Cirrus888 (Jan 21, 2013)

This is good news for all. Especially micro 4/3rds, I'm glad I chose this format over 2 years ago rather than a sony nex at the time. I still don't want to spend crazy amounts on a lens though especially for a small sensor but I will buy lenses if they are good and cheap.

All this anti China rhetoric is unfounded and basically sour grapes. Manufacturing power has always shifted around the world throughout millenia does no one remember porcelain and the crazy debts the Europeans ran up just to get their hands on it including all the fakes they use to make which were hilariously crude. And Yes porcelain has a longer history than the USA.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
timo
By timo (Jan 21, 2013)

People here are dismissive about China's approach to quality and innovation. They were saying all the same thing about Japanese cars in the 1960s, and they've been saying the same thing about everything with 'Samsung' on it for years. Reality: China and Korea are going to give Japan, let alone the USA, real - really real - competition in every area of business over the next few years. (The Pacific is not going to be tension-free.) Get used to it. If you don't like it, produce more competitive products at home.

6 upvotes
LaFonte
By LaFonte (Jan 21, 2013)

The point is not that people were SAYING the japanese cars in 1960 had terrible quality, they really WERE build terribly.
Other than that yes, China quality will improve with time, they will start producing more their own designs without copying. But are they there yet?

2 upvotes
Lucafeb
By Lucafeb (Jan 21, 2013)

Hi, I live in China and for my work covering Japan, S. Korea and China. What you say about China is shared by other people but if you guys knew the 3 cultures you mentioned you would agreed that China will never have the culture of perfection that is needed to do quality stuff. Chinese focus on making money (kudos to them) increasing their profit with any mean. Korean are closer to the Japanese but more dynamic , Japan is obsessed with the perfection and improvement. Japanese culture well adapted to improve what they copied from the west , China culture is more geared to make in a cheaper way what they copy from west

4 upvotes
timo
By timo (Jan 22, 2013)

Lucafeb, what you say may have been true in the past, and it may be true now (to a degree), but I think it's short-sighted and complacent to believe that it will be true in the future. No doubt neither of us will be 100% right, but China and Korea are big enough to create pockets of excellence, which will be enough to rattle the cages of their competitors. Time will tell which of us is right!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
noonin
By noonin (Jan 26, 2013)

I agree with Lucafeb. I'm no expert, nut all the anecdotal stories I hear, China doesn't have, at least the reputation, the cultural DNA to strive for high quality, like Japan or Germany does. Making money seems to be the most important part of manufacturing, and quality/reliability is off the radar in favor of cutting corners. From what I've read, even China doesn't trust their own manufacturers for critical industrial safety equipment. Will they figure this out and adapt? As timo says, time will tell.

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (8 months ago)

Lucafeb is right of course but to be fair to the Chinese, they are being asked to build everything to a price. Nobody is saying "make this an exact duplicate of what Zeiss makes in Germany, regardless of how much it costs".

0 upvotes
Photocounter
By Photocounter (Jan 21, 2013)

Just in relation to those wondering who/what JK Imaging is, there's a story here which gives the bare bones:
http://www.photocounter.com.au/2013/kodak-camera-licence-to-unknown-start-up/
- But this just makes the whole thing even curiouser. JK Imaging is fronted by a Miami camera distributor called Joe Atick (Jaacx Distributors) who operates mainly into Latin America. Simply a marketing/distribution business with no design smarts. When speaking with JK Imaging's marketing/PR firm IMS - also out of Miami - there was no hint that there were any cameras about to be announced a couple of days later. There is something decidedly odd and even a bit tacky about this whole deal. How many employees does JK Imaging have? 'We don't reveal that sort of information.' Come on!

0 upvotes
wakaba
By wakaba (Jan 21, 2013)

Buy cheap chinese bulk - stick your logo on - sell at inflated prices in chinese run airport stores merchandiser?

No intrinsic product qualities - boring and no buy.

1 upvote
tompabes2
By tompabes2 (Jan 21, 2013)

"Buy cheap chinese bulk - stick your logo on - sell at inflated price"... isn't this what american, european and japanese companies are doing now? ;)

0 upvotes
LaFonte
By LaFonte (Jan 21, 2013)

It is not that you need to designed anything. You go to expo in china, pickup interesting product, agree on volume and they can put any name on it. This time JK licensed the name as well - a good strategy move. Kodak sounds better than Jazz

1 upvote
Craig from Nevada
By Craig from Nevada (Jan 20, 2013)

I prefer basic black to white for my cameras

0 upvotes
Kokeen4231
By Kokeen4231 (Jan 20, 2013)

Good for the m43 market. More lenses!

0 upvotes
deleted_081301
By deleted_081301 (Jan 20, 2013)

I think it will be at least worth a look IF/When it becomes available in real life ....
not too sure that the camera will be of interest to me but the lenses (IF... they make a range of M4/3rds) might be .. and if not its no loss to me ....

0 upvotes
Oery
By Oery (Jan 20, 2013)

so now they can sell their product under "Kodak" name, not "Kodax, Koddak or Kobak"
good job.....

2 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (Jan 20, 2013)

Do you not know how to read ?
"Just a week after announcing it was licensing the Kodak brand name, JK Imaging has been showing .."

0 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Jan 21, 2013)

Yes, it's much better than Sorny or Panaphonic :-)

2 upvotes
micronean
By micronean (Jan 20, 2013)

More micro four-thirds products will only help the market, even if it's made in china--where already so much is made anyway. In terms of manufacturing logistics, it's pretty convenient.

The only problem I have with Chinese products is that they're often copies or re-badges of products that they did not originally design. That includes the IBM "Thinkpad".

I would prefer they had the courage to create a native quality chinese brand with native chinese design.

1 upvote
NoTx
By NoTx (Jan 20, 2013)

Er, no that doesn't include the IBM Thinkpad. Lenovo bought the entire division, which is why support and design are still in the USA... With the same people. They had to hire every employee, and even expand the local colleges.

Stick to the topic... This is a camera site.

And any new micro four thirds body, helps micro four thirds. It makes people want to produce more third party lenses.

2 upvotes
KariIceland
By KariIceland (8 months ago)

So china and hasselblad have got a lot in common XD

0 upvotes
photobeans
By photobeans (Jan 20, 2013)

There are a number of m43 cameras from Olympus and Panasonic selling at bargain basement prices. Going to be hard sell for the producer of this Kodak camera.

0 upvotes
Husaberg Grok
By Husaberg Grok (Jan 20, 2013)

I'm happy to see the diversification of licencees using the micro4/3 format.
This will strengthen the format by providing more choice to the consumer. The openness is part of what drew me to the format.

1 upvote
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Jan 20, 2013)

Kodak, ThinkPad, Jeep -- such wonderful Chinese names. Chinese Communist Party can be proud of such achievements, as their ideological teachers used to say: Capitalism will gladly sell the rope used to hang itself.

3 upvotes
abarth
By abarth (Jan 20, 2013)

Jeep is not chinese.
Its parent company, Chrysler LLC, is owned by Fiat Group thus making Jeep of Italian ownership.

6 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (Jan 20, 2013)

Don't blame the Chinese.
It's the western CEOs that sell them our brands, outsource to their factories etc etc.
We're selling ourselves out. Why blame the Chinese for being smart enough to buy what we are selling?

4 upvotes
Paul Guba
By Paul Guba (Jan 20, 2013)

Very simple. Next time you are at Walmart looking for a bargain don't buy anything made in China. A business can only sell you what you want, or they quickly close. Most want cheap. Don't blame a good business for providing the market exactly what is wanted.

0 upvotes
BDTROUT
By BDTROUT (Jan 20, 2013)

the writing is on the wall, read till the end,,,,,,
http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1081781_its-official-jeep-will-build-models-in-china-too

0 upvotes
wakaba
By wakaba (Jan 20, 2013)

Add Apple - Engineering and production is chinese. Marketing is US/international - and since Jobs death aimlessly drifting. Soon to be wholly absorbed into China Inc.

0 upvotes
Tom Caldwell
By Tom Caldwell (Jan 20, 2013)

The Chinese domestic market alone will make any accepted product a success. But strangely a US middle-class marketer of huge quantities of very profitable film and average (mostly) performing cheap cameras that went with it probably has more cachet with the Chinese mainland market than it has in the west where most buyers of cameras prefer Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, Sony, Olympus (need I go on? .... hint, hint, ...) to US domestic Kodak (and Polaroid) whose management were too busy making money to notice that their core product was literally slipping off down the drain. Killed on the conservative alter of inability to make change I guess the Chinese market will love a shiny new Kodak even whilst those who cannot accept that any other country cannot rise to making quality equipment of technical expertise continue to avidly buy Japanese designed cameras (often made in China).

1 upvote
knize10
By knize10 (Jan 19, 2013)

If its another Made In China creation may it stay there for ever.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 20, 2013)

This attitude is really puzzling to me. People don't realize just how many everyday items they use are made in China. Where do you think that beautiful new iPhone 5 or iPad is mostly made?

For people to continue with an unfair perception of low-quality products based on a bias formed 10 or 20 years ago makes no sense whatsoever.

15 upvotes
Michael Jardine
By Michael Jardine (Jan 20, 2013)

Sure it makes sense. People change their perceptions slowly. I remember it took even longer for the "made in Japan" label to change from 'cheap' to 'best'.

Don't forget, though, that most of the changes in China's capability to produce excellent products only began about 8 years ago with Lenovo. The iPhone has only been in existance for 5 years.

1 upvote
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (Jan 20, 2013)

Some people are dumb as dirt on DPR.

2 upvotes
Tom Caldwell
By Tom Caldwell (Jan 20, 2013)

Cheap shots at made in China now replace cheap shots at made in Japan. Some things never change. If it is no good people will not buy it. If is is good then no amount of cheap shots will stop the tide of acceptance. In the end people see "value" and "good value" will overcome "high priced made at home" to support excessive profits and a bloated mamangement structure.

2 upvotes
JoostL
By JoostL (Jan 19, 2013)

Well at least they didn't put an X in the name - very refreshing!

1 upvote
MEBEE
By MEBEE (Jan 20, 2013)

piXpro?

0 upvotes
wakaba
By wakaba (Jan 19, 2013)

@sleepy
most likely an old recycled japanese licence. Old tech and not open...

3 upvotes
SleepyHammer
By SleepyHammer (Jan 19, 2013)

I don't care about the name. I just hope they make the firmware open source and hacker-friendly, maybe Android-based. I.e., just make the platform and let the community go nuts with the software. That would really differentiate them and make manufacturers with proprietary software run for cover or join the fun.

1 upvote
Michael Jardine
By Michael Jardine (Jan 20, 2013)

Hmm... which explains why there are over 1 million software apps for the "closed" iPhone, and - how many for Android? :)

1 upvote
Rockchan
By Rockchan (Jan 20, 2013)

It is just "submitted app", not "approved app". You cannot find 1 million app in app store.

The numbers of Android App and iOS App are pretty close. You may know that iPhone started to sell earlier than Android. Android has caught up and nobody will feel surprise if Android got more App than iOS in 2013.

0 upvotes
PhotoPhart
By PhotoPhart (Jan 20, 2013)

Hey now that's a thought, a hacker friendly camera. It wouldn't be everybody's cup of tea, but it would be fun for those who have that inclination.

0 upvotes
PhotoPhart
By PhotoPhart (Jan 20, 2013)

Apps and hacked firmware are two different things.

0 upvotes
sorinx
By sorinx (Jan 20, 2013)

@Michael: You are confused! how many apps are there for Nikon and Canon?

Off topic:
As for Android vs iPhone: people make apps for a platform or another depending of how much they expect to sell. And no. of apps for Android is bigger than iPhone.

0 upvotes
wakaba
By wakaba (Jan 19, 2013)

Buy a name, buy a productline, market below cost. Not innovative or interesting. Boring chinese Metoo for emerging lower middleclass.

3 upvotes
obeythebeagle
By obeythebeagle (Jan 19, 2013)

It is a world economy, and great products come from every country. The pause for thought is in regard to branding. The Kodak name was one the ten great icons in the world, but it is not American anymore. Kodachrome is dead, long live Kodachrome! Kodachrome in a Retina III. Instamatic 104 even.

0 upvotes
Chris_in_Osaka
By Chris_in_Osaka (Jan 19, 2013)

Well, I guess it's no different than what the Japanese did way back in the day when they stuck the names of once great German makers ( Contax, Voigtlander Leica etc.) on their cameras to lend them credibility. Many still do it today. I've owned Zeiss, Voigtlander and Leica lenses, all of which were made in Japan ( Cosina and Panasonic), though it could be argued tat in the case of Zeiss and Leica that there is some input in either the design or manufacturing process.

2 upvotes
tompabes2
By tompabes2 (Jan 19, 2013)

So true...

0 upvotes
Dave729
By Dave729 (Jan 19, 2013)

I had a Chinese Seagull folding 2-1/4 rangefinder camera for many, many years. It took some of the best pictures I've ever taken, so I don't have any doubt they can be very competitive.

4 upvotes
wootpile
By wootpile (Jan 19, 2013)

Chinese coming into the market is very positive and can only lead to more diversity. It is a long time ago since made in china was associated with lack of quality on all items. These days ity is just the cheapest stuff that still has low quality control, the same is true for low products made anywhere though.

0 upvotes
nekrosoft13
By nekrosoft13 (Jan 19, 2013)

made in China, still is associated with poor quality.

3 upvotes
knize10
By knize10 (Jan 19, 2013)

And will be for very long time.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 19, 2013)

As with any country with a large manufacturing base, low or high quality depends on the item and the price you pay for it. I have a Benro Travel Angel that's as well made as any Manfrotto or Gitzo tripod I've ever owned. It certainly wasn't inexpensive, but then it's not poor quality either. Not at all.

I used to own a Chamonix 4x5 LF camera that was a beautifully crafted wooden field camera with truly cutting edge features like a carbon fiber bed. It was as well made or better than the Japanese-made Wista 45 field camera I owned before it.
In most cases, you get what you pay for and many Chinese manufacturers are making wonderful gear.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (Jan 19, 2013)

Almost everything is made in China, of every quality. Their domestic companies have rarely been able to design/engineer quality products, but it's not clear yet where this new company will be designing its goods. They may rely on established optical companies to design their lenses. As others have noted, the lens on their prototype looks an awful lot like an Olympus kit zoom. That would not be surprising at all. Olympus could use some more income, and building up MFT can only help. The more companies making MFT cameras, the better, unless they are complete junk, and this sounds like a serious effort.

1 upvote
Tord S Eriksson
By Tord S Eriksson (Jan 19, 2013)

If this start-up company is a success we will hopefully eventually see more m43 lenses on the market, which can just be a boost to everyone! But making great lenses is a difficult art - note how few lenses of any quality Sony has managed to make for the NEX range, and that's from a company with huge resources!

Kodak-branded cameras have been around for ages - the very first digitals were made by Kodak, using lenses, and camera houses from Nikon, with electronics from Westinghouse, I persume! The only digital Nikonos cameras had electronics from Westinghouse, that's for sure, with a whooping 1.3MP, or something like that!

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
RDMPhotos
By RDMPhotos (Jan 19, 2013)

I am not taking sides but For all those that are defending Made in China products by pointing out things like the iPhone and some M.Zuiko lenses are made there, you should also know that those company's send their own employees over there (dozens) to over see production and quality assurance of their products before they get exported. Yes it increases costs a little (which is just passed on to us in the retail prices they charge), but still with the cheep labor costs it's still inexpensive compared to being made in most other countries..

Remember ..It's like when Zeiss had Sigma make its Jenna Zoom lenses and had their German guys over seeing production, but later when sigma released their own, less expensive, lenses in the same Focal length and speed, the optics were not always good depending on the copy you got. I know more examples too, like Minolta making their Fisheye lens for Leica, but I don't want to write any more..

.......Quality control makes a huge difference....

2 upvotes
NZ Scott
By NZ Scott (Jan 19, 2013)

What you say is true to a certain extent, but products that are exclusively Chinese are improving all the time. I own a carbon fibre Sirui tripod that is close to Gitzo in quality at 1/3 the price, and the Sirui company is purely Chinese. The tripod is fitted with a Photo Clam ballhead, which comes from a purely South Korean company. Remember, it wasn't that long ago that "Made in Japan" was a sign of inferior quality. Nowadays, Japanese products are among the best you can get.

1 upvote
deleted_081301
By deleted_081301 (Jan 19, 2013)

Zeiss did not have its Jena zoom lenses made by Sigma .... "Zeiss jena" had nothing to do with the "Carl Zeiss foundation" after 1945.... Real Zeiss lenses were made in Japan By Yashica (Tomioka) after 1973 ;)

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
tompabes2
By tompabes2 (Jan 19, 2013)

Well... do you think the Chinese are so stupid they couldn't do this themselves? :) I've heard the "made in China has lower quality" refrain for ages, and now that even the most renowned brands in the world, from Apple to Honda, manufacture in China... well, quality control makes the difference... the truth is that they now have the knowledge to design things themselves and yes, they will also do quality control, because we taught them.
In a few years, we'll also outsource design. Can you imagine? Chinese engineers... skilled but much less expensive than European or American engineers... and in 20 years we won't be able to design products anymore... we won't be able neither to design nor to build computers, phones, cars, consumer electronics anymore. We'll totally depend on China! Did I go too far? :) Maybe, but... maybe not...

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (Jan 20, 2013)

We've seen this happen in other places, from Japan and Singapore to Korea and Taiwan. Quality increases, but so do labor costs. That's already happening in China. Next up is Vietnam, then India, with cheaper labor than China and growing educated middle classes.

In the eighties we worried about being destroyed by Japanese industrial might. They have been struggling badly for the last twenty years, with an aging workforce, massive social costs, and nobody willing to invest money because returns on investment are so low. They still make some fine products, and design even more, but they are no threat to anyone's economy.

The Chinese have been a big part of the Japanese problem, but they know they face the same risks. Maybe worse because they've been less effective at building up the international reputation of their domestic brands (Lenovo a rare exception.)

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Jan 20, 2013)

China is a nuclear power, and some people act as if they are so technologically illiterate that you have to search to find somebody who knows how to turn a wrench.

0 upvotes
Frenske
By Frenske (Jan 19, 2013)

I've stopped associating the brand Kodak with quality long time ago. The owners just try to suck the last dollars out of its blood.

8 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Jan 19, 2013)

Well, all it needs is a killer sensor, since the lenses already exist. Kodak has made some legendary sensors in the past, so maybe with their patents and Sony's fab, this has some potential.

Heck , if it's cheap and offers manual control of video with no time limit, I'm all over it!

2 upvotes
Chaitanya S
By Chaitanya S (Jan 19, 2013)

you that it is not true kodak, its similar to Sakar selling stuff under Vivitar name.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 19, 2013)

Or Rokinon and Bower. It's a trade name, essentially.

1 upvote
Pal2012
By Pal2012 (Jan 19, 2013)

This is Good, Late but good.

And why not? It was after all Kodak and Olympus who came up with the 43 standard back in 2002.

The only problem I see is that most but not all of the talent that was there back when are gone due to poor managment, hopefully this will create even more competition and we all will benefit.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Jan 19, 2013)

But this is not Kodak. They left the camera business some time ago.

2 upvotes
Winston Loo
By Winston Loo (Jan 19, 2013)

Maybe DPreview should open an office in the fareast. Closer to where the action is.

3 upvotes
NZ Scott
By NZ Scott (Jan 19, 2013)

This is a good point, I think. All of the big camera companies are based in Japan, and most of the manufacturing plants are in Japan, Taiwan, China, Thailand and South Korea.

Not much going on in the UK or US, which is where Dpreview is based.

The only "Western" country with much camera action going on is Germany, which confines itself to top-quality gear targeting a tiny percentage of consumers.

1 upvote
NZ Scott
By NZ Scott (Jan 19, 2013)

This is great news for m43. Every time a company joins the m43 universe it helps to solidify the standard and ensure its longevity.

It's disappointing to read so many negative comments about Chinese manufacturing standards. Perhaps you should all throw your iPhones in the trash. After all, they are made in China.

Not only that, but the Chinese already make some of the best m43 lenses - including the M. Zuiko 45/1.8 and 60/2.8 Macro.

13 upvotes
ogl
By ogl (Jan 19, 2013)

They need to open PC and understand that 90% of components are made in China and Taiwan.

9 upvotes
bunfoolio
By bunfoolio (Jan 19, 2013)

This might be good for M4/3. A low cost provider will ultimetly be good for the consumer and will spur competative innovation.

2 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Jan 19, 2013)

Watch out, the Chinese are coming! All the mainland Chinese will buy their own China made products, given the recent tiff between China and Japan. The Chinese market is NOT small!

Exciting times. They'll help to push down the prices of cameras and lenses.

2 upvotes
leorolim
By leorolim (Jan 19, 2013)

I work at a camera store (not in China) and the first thing chinese ask is "Where is the camera made? China? No thanks!"

4 upvotes
NiceGuy86
By NiceGuy86 (Jan 19, 2013)

Interesting, but people are lining up to scope up iPhones made in the same country.

3 upvotes
the reason
By the reason (Jan 19, 2013)

have any of you flipped your cameras to see where it was made? I have one of each brand and only one from japan (not my favorite one BTW) the rest from china.

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Mike Ronesia
By Mike Ronesia (Jan 19, 2013)

China is like anywhere else in the respect that the quality of the product produced is up to the manufacturer. Company's with good quality control and a high standard can produce great things in China. Lots of company's bring their knowledge and quality expectations to China when they build a factory to produce goods. Not all of course.

The problem with some Chinese not wanting products made in China might have to do with they were made cheap for the Chinese market and not for high end consumers in other parts of the world.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (Jan 20, 2013)

A recent survey showed 60% of Americans favor buying American-made goods. 60% of Chinese also prefer buying American-made goods. The Chinese still think of most Chinese brands as low quality. Which is why they have bought the rights to so many foreign brand names like Volvo and now Kodak. They still have to convince Chinese buyers they are not just Chinese companies in disguise, that they are of imported quality. If we're lucky they'll make good products. The Chinese are certainly capable of it.

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Jan 20, 2013)

"Which is why they have bought the rights to so many foreign brand names like Volvo and now Kodak."

The Chinese haven't bought the Kodak brand; JK Imaging is an American company. The cameras will (it seems) be manufactured in China, but other Western companies, like say Apple, do the same.
As for Volvo, the Chinese company Geely didn't just buy the rights to the brand name, they bought the entire company! And they have factories not only in China, but also in Sweden and Belgium, all presumably having the same quality standards.

0 upvotes
KariIceland
By KariIceland (8 months ago)

MarkinSF i try to avoid "made in america" as that is also of very low quality.

0 upvotes
chino
By chino (Jan 19, 2013)

Not to rain on everyone's parade (and tirade), but:
There's absolutely no 'Kodak' in this thing, besides the name its realtors are hawking left and right. And who's JK Imaging? Did anyone know about them a year ago? The only real news here is the manufacture of a full (albeit low tech/quality, at least initially) mirrorless line by a Chinese company. It won't take more than a couple of years-at most, before they flood the market with their own branded mirrorless everything, all based on the open source (and free) Android OS. Further reads:

http://www.photocounter.com.au/2013/kodak-camera-licence-to-unknown-start-up/

http://www.estiasis.com/story/jk-imaging-market-kodak-branded-micro-43-camera-lineup-first-model-will-be-named-kodak-s1-wifi

3 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (Jan 19, 2013)

Actual Kodak content would add very little. I'm guessing the Kodak branding adds value in China and other markers that associate American brand names with quality.

I quite like the idea of future 'Kodak' cameras, wherever they are made. If they make an MFT camera with a Sony sensor, it may even be competitive, and it will improve the prospects if MFT as a format. I doubt they will design/make their own lenses to start. Expect to see a rebranded Olympus or Panasonic kit zoom. Either one could use the business. If they eventually start making lenses, even better. Olympus and Panasonic can have the high end, Kodak the bargain alternatives. One of the things I quite like about my Nikon V1 is that Nikon has kept most of the lenses quite affordable, so I can have a reasonable set for not much expense If there had been enough similarly inexpensive lenses fir MFT, I would have bought a G3. I hope they sell them here.

4 upvotes
jande9
By jande9 (Jan 19, 2013)

I owned 3 P&S Kodak cameras in the past and truthfully, none were that great. Good prices though. One was made in China, I'm not sure about the other two. I wonder how much actual Kodak content were in these cameras. They claimed to have that special Kodak look so perhaps the software was tweaked to their specs but it is difficult to imagine Kodak going to the expense of designing these things from the ground up. Why bother when you can simply slap your own brand on some other manufacturer's camera.
It isn't much of a step for that manufacturer to buy the name themselves and slap it on their own cameras. They will probably be more interested in the quality of the product than Kodak ever was.

2 upvotes
Paul Farace
By Paul Farace (Jan 19, 2013)

I have news for everyone above... there has been little or no Kodak content in many of their cameras for decades! Their best cameras, Retinas, were made in Germany... all the crap below was made in the USA... and then made in Japan, Taiwan, and China the last few decades. So I am happy the Kodak badge will be around, but I sadly have had some bad experiences with below-par SD cards with their brand on them... so I may have to consider them "DEAD!"

1 upvote
robert1955
By robert1955 (Jan 19, 2013)

thx for those links. Very interesting.
Makes me wonder about the role of the m43 consortium. This looks like they'll accept any comer, even a start-up like this one.

0 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Jan 18, 2013)

Smartphone is the most popular excuse for the horrible camera.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
1 upvote
cprevost
By cprevost (Jan 18, 2013)

Looks like maybe the Chinese are entering the market. This will be interesting. If what usually happens holds true the cameras will suck at first but be cheap. They'll rapidly improve though and quickly drive prices down. If they make some reasonable lenses at good prices this could be good news for micro four thirds users. I doubt they'll compete with the high quality optics from Panny and Oly but if they can make something reasonably close for cheap prices they'll have a hit. Imagine a slew of optically good Chinese lenses for a hundred bucks or so.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 19, 2013)

There are already some very good lenses for m43 and NEX mount coming from Hong Kong made by SLR Magic. The 12 f1.6 Hyperprime is a terrific lens, and this new 35 Hyperprime T0.95 previewed at the link below looks even better. Beautiful rendering, it ooks like an excellent optic.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/tag/slr-magic/

0 upvotes
deleted_081301
By deleted_081301 (Jan 19, 2013)

Why do people think "The Chinese are entering the Market" ???
this is just a Chinese manufactured camera NOT a chinese company the Company is American JK imaging .. who have bought the rights to "Kodak" 's name .. the camera is no more "Chinese" than my Olympus Micro four thirds cameras "Assembled " in china ...

I have also noticed a Lack of mention of this "Camera" in anything to do with the Panasonic/Olympus websites and they seem to have the Rights to the "Micro four thirds" system

0 upvotes
tbaker
By tbaker (Jan 18, 2013)

This is really disappointing news. M4/3 mount, really? Even Panasonic will admit(in closed doors) that they only have m4/3 just to take your money, because the kit lens options are average at best(even the 14mm f2.5).
What they should have done/do was/is take the amazingly perfect Panasonic FZ200 lens+glass and pair it with a 1/2" or even 2/3" Forven like sensor(to keep size down) to make the perfect camera for everyone, in every situation. People will be quickly dropping their DSLC and other similar cameras in a second for this. But, alas Kodak is setting themselves up for big failure, again. Sad to see.

4 upvotes
mchnz
By mchnz (Jan 18, 2013)

Superzooms are only possible because they use tiny sensors - increase the sensor size and a small(ish) lens becomes impossible - that's why good quality zooms for larger sensors are big and heavy.

5 upvotes
caver3d
By caver3d (Jan 18, 2013)

What have you been smoking? And what utter nonsense. You clearly don't have any m43 cameras or lenses. The cameras are great and getting even better, and there are already some exceptional m43 lenses out there, easily surpassing some of the mirrorless lens offerings from Sony, Canon, Nikon, and Samsung.

22 upvotes
tbaker
By tbaker (Jan 18, 2013)

@mchnz Fuji showed us you can make a superzoom with a 1/2" and even 2/3" sensor. Sure they have problems, like ORB issues, and IQ isn't as clean or sharp as the FZ line, but point is they made it. They(Kodak/Panasonic) could keep it small-ish by keeping it a power zoom, vs the manual zoom of the Fuji cameras.

0 upvotes
tbaker
By tbaker (Jan 18, 2013)

@caver3d I had a GF2 with the 14-42mm lens, Olymps 40-150mm, and the 14mm prime. My FZ150 was consistently producing better shots for my taste than the GF2 was. Even from the pictures I have seen of the GX1 and Sony sensor m4/3 camera weren't much better than the GF2, and still lacks that something the FZ lines images produce.

0 upvotes
bunfoolio
By bunfoolio (Jan 18, 2013)

Did you see that a M4/3 camera won camera of the year award on Dpreview?

4 upvotes
SaltyCDogg
By SaltyCDogg (Jan 18, 2013)

Yeah all the FZ cameras and especially your FZ150 have a super special magic to them that nothing else can really touch.

I can certainly understand why you're really disappointed that the essentially defunct Kodak brand has teamed up with a company none of us had previously heard of to make this MFT camera, rather than just trying to ape your mighty FZ150.

3 upvotes
mchnz
By mchnz (Jan 18, 2013)

'... they have problems, like ORB issues, and IQ isn't as clean or sharp as the FZ line' - if Fuji could not do it well, how is a new company going to? Engineering is just not that easy. What we have here is an outfit that wants to grab a chunk of a growing segment. Their innovation is to use established manufacturers to assemble a unit for them, and to market it via a trusted brand name, thus avoiding much of cost of R&D and branding. It has always seemed to me that superzooms greatly benefit from having small sensors - for example, very good DOF for macro and ease of focus - as a result I think better small sensors are the key to better superzooms.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
sean000
By sean000 (Jan 18, 2013)

So you wrote off m4/3 because you had a 2nd generation (barely) GF2, and did not own a single top-tier m4/3 lens? (the 14mm is compact, but hardly top-tier) The GX1 is way ahead of the GF2, and the E-M5 and GH3 are better still. As someone who owned a GF1, passed on a GF2, and bought an E-M5; I can tell you that the 3rd gen Sony sensor m4/3 cameras are a huge jump over the GF2. Combine that with some better m4/3 lenses and legacy glass and you would see why m4/3 is gaining in popularity.

4 upvotes
tbaker
By tbaker (Jan 18, 2013)

Why do I need to pair it to legacy glass just to get the max out of the IQ? Shouldn't the lens I had do that? Like I said I am more happier with my FZ150 than I ever was with my m4/3 camera. It was a dumb purchasing mistake I made in order to have a compact camera with my, but it turns out the best compact camera for me was and is the FZ150 I already had.

0 upvotes
ElginC
By ElginC (Jan 19, 2013)

m4/3 are not Compact Cameras.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/compact-vs-digital-slr-cameras.htm

0 upvotes
SirSeth
By SirSeth (Jan 19, 2013)

FZ200 + great constant f2.8 lens = cake.
Same lens on larger sensor = eat it too.

What you don't understand is that the FZ200 has a 4.5mm-108mm lens. It's only an equiv. field of view of a 25-600mm lens because it's on such a tiny sensor. To get that field of view without losing f2.8 speed on a larger sensor is not feasible without throwing down serious cash for a much larger than FZ200 total package. You simply can't have it both ways, and that's one of the pros of the FZ200. Tiny sensor = lens with very versatile field of view. There are other areas in which CSCs are clearly superior. IQ for example--but who really cares about that?

1 upvote
tbaker
By tbaker (Jan 19, 2013)

No, I get it that it has something like 5.something crop factor. But, I still prefer the images I get out of my FZ than my GF2 ever really gave me. Even at 1/2" sensor Kodak and Panasonic could still keep the F2.8 lens as crop factor would be in the 4.x range, which still means that excellent lens will still be compact.

As for the cake and eating it. I am already doing that with my FZ150, and I am sure with the FZ200, or what ever the next gen brings I will be getting a even better slice. That's what Kodak here is failing to realize, and Panasonic refuses to market. No, Panasonic wants you buy lenses that at best a little better than average just to make more money off you instead of telling users the FZ200 is the king of their cameras!

1 upvote
Xellz
By Xellz (Jan 19, 2013)

Kit lenses are better than average, especially when compared to canon/nikon ones. Kit options are rather good for this kind of system.
And it's just silly to say, that if you don't get better results, others do same. What it's just means for your purposes and how you process photos it is like this. With small sensor less possibility of user mistake.

0 upvotes
gandulfc
By gandulfc (Jan 19, 2013)

IMO the GH3 and the OM-D are the only cameras with M43 sensors that impressed me for pictures. I own a gh2 with several lenses, and I have to agree that the kit lens with the M43 sensor produce very average pictures. Still better than the kit lenses of Canon but thats nothing to call home about. I have a Sony Nex 5 and in terms of stills quality, it just blows the
gh2 away, and the kit lens is much better too. I understand the consumer wants something that takes good pictures right out of the box, especially when they pay several times the price of a compact camera, so I understand tbaker's frustration.

M43, and more specific, the gh2 and gh3 produce, awesome video though, and that is the main reason that I bought it.

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
sean000
By sean000 (Jan 19, 2013)

@tbaker: I never said you had to buy legacy glass. I only mentioned it because legacy lenses extend the versatility of the format. The FZ150 may very well be a nice camera, but not as versatile or as good as a GX1 or E-M5 with excellent lenses like the Panny 14-45mm, 20mm f/1.7, 25mm f1.4, 100-300mm, Oly 45mm f/1.8, 12mm f/2, etc. The FZ150 is a fine option for general photography under favorable conditions, but not in the same league as m4/3 when the lighting gets lower. Even in daylight the super zoom lens isn't going to deliver the sharpness and microcontrast of the lenses I mentioned.

1 upvote
Xellz
By Xellz (Jan 19, 2013)

2gandulfc
GH2 produces also amazing stills even with kit lens if processed from raw, jpg engine need to be tweaked to your liking, since it's quite neutral out of the box, compared to most other brands. And nex5 hardly blows away gh2 in stills, difference is rather small and when compared with em-5 or gh3 becomes quite difficult to spot even on large prints, if possible at all.

0 upvotes
SirSeth
By SirSeth (Jan 19, 2013)

Your arguing with straw men. No is disagreeing with you about the FZ series being very good. It's obvious that it's the best for you. You get the better pictures with your FZ. But to argue that your experience makes the FZ better for everyone and that CSC are poor because they are poor for you is narcissistic. The kit lenses with Micro4/3rds are measurably better than what Canon has been selling for years, but that's besides the point because you can take the kit lens off. You might say that with the FZ200 you never want to take it off because it's so good. Sorry bro. For some people, changing lenses is what it's all about. Working with macro primes, portrait primes, dedicated super wide angle, tilt-shift, legacy gems, video with legacy and large sensor... is true freedom that for many turns out much better pictures (not to mention IQ advantages of larger sensors). Besides, this is all a moot point because I'm a polycameraist. This ain't marriage. Collect them all!

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Revenant
By Revenant (Jan 19, 2013)

I don't understand what this m4/3 camera has to do with super zooms at all. So every time someone announces a new CSC or DSLR, you get disappointed and think that the manufacturer has failed to realize that they should make a super zoom instead?

A super zoom can never be "the perfect camera for everyone, in every situation", because there's too many compromises involved, as already explained by several posters here. Especially with a "Forven" sensor (I suppose you mean Foveon?), which is definitely not ideal for every situation.

Use the camera that suits you best, that's fine, but realize that we all have different needs and priorities.

2 upvotes
tbaker
By tbaker (Jan 19, 2013)

@sean000 just use the FZ150 or better yet FZ200(for that amazing constant f2.8) then compare it with 100-300mm or the highly talked about 40-150mm and you will see what quality glass and lens is. Even the 35-100mm won't come close, cause the FZ lens is using Panasonic's best lens and glass combo, and they won't tell you that because they want to get more money out of you for lenses.

Sadly DXO has not tested yet(FZ200), but even the Canon SX50(which isn't as good as the FZ, nor offers the lens quality), gets a DXO score about the same as your typical m4/3 camera(hell DR and low ISO noise are pretty close enough according to DXO and the samples I have seen). The FZ200 surely will get a DXO score better than SX50, and paired with it's soaring lens better IQ than your m43 camera. Hell most FZ200 low ISO shots are better than what I have seen out of a m4/3 camera in all lighting situations.

1 upvote
pdelux
By pdelux (Jan 21, 2013)

FZ150/200 are no doubt good versatile cameras, but you really must be joking when you say that at low ISO's it takes better pictures than m4/3 cameras. Maybe if you are comparing to kit lenses (40-150 is a kit lense)

I very much doubt it can take a portrait better than an OMD with 45mm 1.8 or 75mm 1.8. Or even com close to the PL25 at normal FL.

0 upvotes
tbaker
By tbaker (Jan 21, 2013)

I had the 40-150mm and it was a bit soft at 150mm. Can't say I used the 45mma(either model), but from what I have seen that lens wasn't for me or worth the price of entry for portraits. With the background, the FZ200 I can guarantee you will take better portraits than the a m4/3 camera with the 45mm 1.8. Hell, just look at all the former DSLC owners who are extremely happy with their FZ, and taking better pictures than they ever were with their DSLC camera.

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Jan 18, 2013)

Put this right next to the polaroids. It's just businessmen trying to make a buck (or a yuan). No interest in real photography whatsoever. (just my prejudice, educated guess, enlightened vision, take your pick).

1 upvote
Greynerd
By Greynerd (Jan 18, 2013)

Presumably all the other manufacturers make cameras just for the love of it. All the directors of the existing camera companies are just a band of dedicated photographers without any interest in making money and just wanting to give us all cameras because they care. That is nice to know.

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting
10 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Jan 18, 2013)

yeah you're right. Don' t ever buy a camera. They all suck. g'day Mickey.

1 upvote
Cane
By Cane (Jan 18, 2013)

Don't you have an OWS movement somewhere to attend?

0 upvotes
gandulfc
By gandulfc (Jan 19, 2013)

still, you can see there is a love and a passion for photography in the "real" photo brands, in the designs and the innovation.

These are just OEM products.

2 upvotes
PhotoPhart
By PhotoPhart (Jan 20, 2013)

I think bean-counters have a heavy influence on all of them. The large number of models of cameras that are simply missing firmware features and maybe some minor extras makes it look like these companies are run by accountants who took some engineering classes :)

0 upvotes
ProfHankD
By ProfHankD (Jan 18, 2013)

China? California? They at least could have registered the company name in Rochester, NY. ;-)

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Thomas Kachadurian
By Thomas Kachadurian (Jan 18, 2013)

There was a time when DPReview was the source of news, now they just report what we've already seen elsewhere to have content on their page. Maybe they need to pay attention to what's happened to Kodak.

#1 is something you have to earn everyday.

1 upvote
Juck
By Juck (Jan 18, 2013)

Bye then

16 upvotes
Nerval
By Nerval (Jan 18, 2013)

Yeah... Right... and if they did not post something about it we'd have complained DPReview lacked content...

4 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jan 18, 2013)

In fairness, Thomas, we don't have an office in China so we don't get invited to press conferences there. Kodak hasn't made any public statement about this.

11 upvotes
Shinigami84
By Shinigami84 (Jan 18, 2013)

I, for one, like DPreview the way they are now - I don't read other photography resources, DPreview often posts things I didn't read about yet.

10 upvotes
NZ Scott
By NZ Scott (Jan 19, 2013)

Dpreview is the largest camera website on the 'net, if I am not mistaken. It would be great if Dpreview had the resources to open an office in China, Japan or Southeast Asia. Perhaps Dpreview could just hire some stringers to attend these press conferences on its behalf. There's so much going on here in Asia in terms of product launches, reviews, etc.

2 upvotes
Hannu108
By Hannu108 (Jan 18, 2013)

Let's see if they manage to make IBIS. This way their new S1 could be more attractive in terms of the lenses for stabilized shooting.

0 upvotes
chopsteeks
By chopsteeks (Jan 18, 2013)

So with the wi-fi, could I surf the internet with this ?

0 upvotes
Greynerd
By Greynerd (Jan 18, 2013)

Not if it is a mock up.

1 upvote
IrishhAndy
By IrishhAndy (Jan 18, 2013)

So its not really a kodak, ita a JK.

1 upvote
ElginC
By ElginC (Jan 19, 2013)

Who are the major shareholders of JK?

0 upvotes
Pal2012
By Pal2012 (Jan 19, 2013)

And so your 43 is not really an Orly its a Sony?

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Jan 19, 2013)

@Pal2012
Not the same thing at all. All camera manufacturers use some components from other companies. But Kodak no longer makes cameras; this is another company which has licensed the Kodak brand.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 18, 2013)

So it is micro four thirds as the title says, or "Mirrorless" regular 4/3 mount and the body of text suggests?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jan 18, 2013)

What part of the text are you interpreting to mean full Four Thirds without a mirror?

Everything points towards Micro Four Thirds - discussed below.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/1/18/JK-Imaging-shows-Kodak-branded-Micro-Four-Thirds-camera-for-Q3-2013-launch?comment=8318535388

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 18, 2013)

Not sure which part of the text now that I reread it. Probably poor comprehension skills on my part. Sorry.

2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jan 18, 2013)

No problem - just wanted to make sure it wasn't ambiguous.

0 upvotes
BJN
By BJN (Jan 18, 2013)

Just what Micro Four Thirds doesn't need – a seedy start-up leveraging the eviscerated Kodak legacy with what I predict will be cheap, low quality products.

2 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 18, 2013)

I don't know, Micro four thirds does have pretty expensive lenses. Some cheap alternatives could help get people into the system.

6 upvotes
larsbc
By larsbc (Jan 18, 2013)

Possibly. Or maybe (who knows?) it might turn out like Cosina when they bought Voigtlander's brand. This early in the game, I won't write them off as a bad thing for the format.

0 upvotes
MJ Jones
By MJ Jones (Jan 18, 2013)

Low quality products? Your guess reminds me of what was said of Lenovo when it bought IBM PC division. Outcome? Lenovo turned out quality products. Moreover it passed Dell and HP as the no 1 worldwide supplier of PC last year...

3 upvotes
jimoyer
By jimoyer (Jan 18, 2013)

I see it still has that ridiculous bundled flash that Oly insists on using. God I hate that flash on my E-Pl5 and prefer the pop up of my E-PL2.

6 upvotes
Greynerd
By Greynerd (Jan 18, 2013)

+1 . All the inconvenience of a separate flash coupled with the low power and inflexiblity of a built in flash. The EPL-2 flash is great and will make me reluctant to upgrade.

0 upvotes
Takagi
By Takagi (Jan 18, 2013)

Great news. Fantastic for the micro four thirds system. The more real cameras out there as opposed to lenses attached to smartphones the better.

3 upvotes
Joachim Gerstl
By Joachim Gerstl (Jan 18, 2013)

It's a sad story. Kodak was once the leading company of the photo industry and also the top inventor in digital imaging.

6 upvotes
skytripper
By skytripper (Jan 18, 2013)

Same story as Sony, only Sony has managed to stay in business. Ultimately, failure to grasp the importance of major technology shifts is a fatal mistake for big companies that once ruled the roost.

1 upvote
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Jan 18, 2013)

This isnt Kodak. Both Polaroid and Kodak are gone as camera makers. Its only a name. Bought by someone. If this camera eventually will be released and it is not totally cr@p, then it is good for u43 with more options.

3 upvotes
Ulfric M Douglas
By Ulfric M Douglas (Jan 18, 2013)

It's only sad if it's crap.
It looks to me like a GF2/3/5 with a white Oly 14-42IIR on the front, and even if this is the only thing that exists ... a WHITE m4/3rds lens is something interesting.
I'm just worried it is vapourware.

0 upvotes
JaFO
By JaFO (Jan 18, 2013)

I'd disagree.

It is a brilliant story, because instead of wasting money on reinventing the wheel they chose a proven system with a wide array of lenses available from the start.

4 upvotes
Total comments: 192
12