Reading mode: Light Dark

What if

Go to last post
marcio_napoli

marcio_napoli

Veteran Member
Messages
2,206
Solutions
1
Reaction score
2,827
Location
São Bernardo do Campo, BR
Just out of curiosity, would you think powerful brands long dead (or sort of) could come back if they wanted?

Two examples in mind: the other day I made a paralel with the gaming industry, so if you know anything about that, you know Sega could easily come back now as powerful as they were when they folded in the early 2000s.

They sort of gained cult status since then.

The second example: Kodak.

When Kodak folded, it was hard to make a decent DSLR.

Unless you sold in the right volume, you did not have the best selection of dozens of important pieces that a camera is made.

Kodak was using subpar LCDs, batteries, AF module, image processor, etc.

The best engineers were all working at Nikon and Canon.

Developing a great camera was orders of magnitude harder in 2005 than it is now.

Nowadays, it's a whole different story.

You have to be pretty good at being bad nowadays to develop a terrible camera, considering how much tech has advanced, and how easily you can hire the people you need that will bring inside the state of the art know how.

Simply put, when Kodak got out, you needed to be Canon and Nikon to develop a great camera.

Fuji was in the exact same position as Kodak.

The only difference is that before quitting the game, Fuji stopped their DSLR line (the S5 was amazing, but too little sales), and tried the retro card with the immensely popular X100, which saved them, honestly.

Having a powerful brand name, and being so much easier to develop a good camera now, what if Kodak tried it again today?

DSLR or mirrorless, not going into that, you chose your camp.

Just curious.

BTW, I'm talking the real, actual Kodak, down to its original genes.

Not some Chinese brand that has bought the rights to use Kodak's name.

Best regards,
 
I don't mind. I give my permission to Kodak to phoenix up from the ashes. Probably they don't care about my permissions, but it's always better to have a permission than not.
 
marcio_napoli said:
Just out of curiosity, would you think powerful brands long dead (or sort of) could come back if they wanted?

Two examples in mind: the other day I made a paralel with the gaming industry, so if you know anything about that, you know Sega could easily come back now as powerful as they were when they folded in the early 2000s.

They sort of gained cult status since then.

The second example: Kodak.

When Kodak folded, it was hard to make a decent DSLR.

Unless you sold in the right volume, you did not have the best selection of dozens of important pieces that a camera is made.

Kodak was using subpar LCDs, batteries, AF module, image processor, etc.

The best engineers were all working at Nikon and Canon.

Developing a great camera was orders of magnitude harder in 2005 than it is now.

Nowadays, it's a whole different story.

You have to be pretty good at being bad nowadays to develop a terrible camera, considering how much tech has advanced, and how easily you can hire the people you need that will bring inside the state of the art know how.

Simply put, when Kodak got out, you needed to be Canon and Nikon to develop a great camera.

Fuji was in the exact same position as Kodak.

The only difference is that before quitting the game, Fuji stopped their DSLR line (the S5 was amazing, but too little sales), and tried the retro card with the immensely popular X100, which saved them, honestly.

Having a powerful brand name, and being so much easier to develop a good camera now, what if Kodak tried it again today?

DSLR or mirrorless, not going into that, you chose your camp.

Just curious.

BTW, I'm talking the real, actual Kodak, down to its original genes.

Not some Chinese brand that has bought the rights to use Kodak's name.

Best regards,
Click to expand...
Flogging a dead horse...the camera business at present will hardly produce anything like that in the near future, unless they come up with something totally revolutionary!

-M
 
I sometimes think what if Samsung made a comeback and introduced the NX2? I'll keep dreaming..
 
"When Kodak folded, it was hard to make a decent DSLR.

Unless you sold in the right volume, you did not have the best selection of dozens of important pieces that a camera is made.

Kodak was using subpar LCDs, batteries, AF module, image processor, etc.

The best engineers were all working at Nikon and Canon."

not sure if you are aware that Kodak never made any DSLRs. They were modified Nikon and Canon products. What is different now ?

In fact many of their compact digital cameras were made by Chinon.
 
Kodak has made a few cameras in recent years, including a MILC S1 a few years ago using the M43 format?

In fact Kodak had sold its camera operation to the Chinese based JK Imaging in 2012. If K9dak will come back for camera business, it has to change its name...
 
Kodak was never really a camera company. They were primarily film and chemicals. They made some cameras to sell film and chemicals, but that wasn’t their focus. Also, Eastman-Kodak still exists and trades on the NYSE under the symbol KODK. They are a part of the Russell 2000 index (small companies). They did $1.02B in revenue and posted a loss of over $500MM in 2020. They have $77MM in book equity. All financial info per Wikipedia, so feel free to fact check.



I disagree that it would be easy to hire the engineers and acquire the manufacturing capabilities to compete with other manufacturers. And, as stated previously, they sold the brand name rights for cameras. There would be a significant cost to reacquire

And what is the real actual Kodak in a publicly traded company? It’s whomever owns the most shares. George Eastman and Henry Strong are long gone.
 
The extent that the Kodak name still holds power it is largely nostalgic - something people once loved - but that wouldn't necessarily extend to continuing power in the current market. And the power also rests primarily with film and simple cameras for the masses.

Sure Kodak had a very important part to play in the development of digital cameras but I just don't see the brand name having much power today (other than perhaps in a line of nifty, affordable retro styled compacts which might just have a small chance of succeeding).
 
Kodak died because of it's complacency. Other than the early days before the 60's, they had ceded the camera business to Germany and Japan. They made so much money with chemicals (film, paper and processing chemicals) they didn't paid attention to the hardware. Their engineers were the first to come up with digital camera but it never got off the ground because it never got the needed support. Their top honchoes looked at that as the enemy that would kill their golden goose.

And sure enough, the digital revolution is an infraction point for Kodak. Today, we don't need film and we don't print our photo. Kodak is a brand name which got sold for its past glory.
 
Last edited:
JK Imaging is an American company, not Chinese, although the production is outsourced to a Taiwanese company, IIRC. And they didn't acquire the former Eastman Kodak camera business, only a license to sell Kodak-branded cameras.
 
Brand is about public perception as much or more than it's about a product being delivered. There is no brand value in long-defunct company names. None. If anything, those names have negative value, "Oh, that's the brand that failed miserably X years ago."

The building of a brand is about the people running the show and making all the right decisions that lead to public perception of the company as a maker of products people want. That's why the people who headed companies that were built into valued brands but failed, are sometimes able to have a second career act building another company into a valued brand.

But the second act brand always has another name. Why saddle yourself with old baggage when you can start fresh and build anything the public desires?
 
marcio_napoli said:
Developing a great camera was orders of magnitude harder in 2005 than it is now.

Nowadays, it's a whole different story.

You have to be pretty good at being bad nowadays to develop a terrible camera, considering how much tech has advanced, and how easily you can hire the people you need that will bring inside the state of the art know how.
Click to expand...
Given your interest in the field, you might want to invest in Reflex SLR, since they seem to be having trouble with the easy task of making a new camera. They've run out of money and would probably appreciate your assistance:

https://www.dpreview.com/news/12372...have-brought-the-reflex-slr-project-to-a-halt

Kodak did well with snapshots, so maybe they should develop a phone instead :-D
 
Last edited:
marcio_napoli said:
The second example: Kodak.

When Kodak folded, it was hard to make a decent DSLR.

Unless you sold in the right volume, you did not have the best selection of dozens of important pieces that a camera is made.

Kodak was using subpar LCDs, batteries, AF module, image processor, etc.

The best engineers were all working at Nikon and Canon.

Developing a great camera was orders of magnitude harder in 2005 than it is now.

Nowadays, it's a whole different story.

You have to be pretty good at being bad nowadays to develop a terrible camera, considering how much tech has advanced, and how easily you can hire the people you need that will bring inside the state of the art know how.

Simply put, when Kodak got out, you needed to be Canon and Nikon to develop a great camera.

Fuji was in the exact same position as Kodak.

The only difference is that before quitting the game, Fuji stopped their DSLR line (the S5 was amazing, but too little sales), and tried the retro card with the immensely popular X100, which saved them, honestly.

Having a powerful brand name, and being so much easier to develop a good camera now, what if Kodak tried it again today?

DSLR or mirrorless, not going into that, you chose your camp.

Just curious.

BTW, I'm talking the real, actual Kodak, down to its original genes.

Not some Chinese brand that has bought the rights to use Kodak's name.

Best regards,
Click to expand...
"Kodak" is just 5 letters combined of the alphabet.

Brand only gets you in the door and gives you a little time, the photo community will still evaluate whatever camera they would produce, the market will embrace it or not based on its merits.

So nothing has changed for "Kodak" they still have to compete in 2021 and there are even more competitors now, Sony is a major player today that wasn't competition back in Kodak's day. Kodak would be almost starting from scratch, with a huge technology gap to overcome and catch up.

That said could Kodak become a major force in digital? Of course, the possibility exists, as I said Kodak is only a name, the company's products would be dependent on the people that would work on them and the management that would manage the process and guide the company.

However, "Kodak the camera company" why re-enter a shrinking marketplace, where half the problem is people are turning away from everyone's products in that market?

"Kodak the cell phone company" would have a lot more potential and run, they could be in a growing market, a market exponentially larger and one where they could focus their 'brand' or what is left of it at becoming known for the cell phone with the best camera.

That would be leveraging their past brand in a new focused way.

--
Thanks,
Mike
https://www.instagram.com/mikefinleyco/
 
Last edited:
Revenant said:
JK Imaging is an American company, not Chinese, although the production is outsourced to a Taiwanese company, IIRC. And they didn't acquire the former Eastman Kodak camera business, only a license to sell Kodak-branded cameras.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter whether it's the Chinese or Japanese or Korean if you take off that polical blind. Manufacturing (production) has a very simple rule. The more you make, the better you get. The volume lowers the cost and induces innovation. The result is better quality and lower price, further capturing the market.

Back in the 50's, Japan made a lot products people considered junks. No one doubts a Nikon, Canon, Lexus, Sony or Honda these days.

In the gimbal business, 99% of them are from China, by Chinese companies, bearing Chinese names.People (yes Americans included) would buy a product if it is of good quality, fills the need and being affordable. You can't get more Chinese than a brand named Zhiyun or Feiyu, can you? And DJI (Da-Jiang Innovations) is also Chinese and it owns Hasselblad.

You may think Lenova is the only Chinese computer in the US because they bought out IBM's PC business. But the truth of the fact is, 99% of the laptops or PC's in the US are made in China. Don't argue with me about technology because all the innovation comes from chips, which are available to everyone.

And look around your household, you have to live a life like Ted Kaczynski to not have purchased anything made in China. Do you?
 
Last edited:
While I do think there is a large hole -- and opportunity -- in the camera market, I'm not sure Kodak would be the company to exploit it.

Kodak was a film company. While they made a few professional grade cameras over the years most of their cameras were simple mass market family cameras -- Brownies, Instamatics and the like. They made cameras to sell film.

That market has long since gone to smart phones -- Apple, Samsung and the rest.

In the earliest days Kodak was the leader in digital, but they didn't move fast enough. Why not? Best answer I've seen was a few years back from a former executive. He said in effect: We all knew digital was the future, we just didn't realize it would happen so fast.

So maybe just the inherent inertia of any large business.

Where I see an opening is between smart phones and ILC cameras. I think there is room for a semi-pro quality camera with full cell connectivity. That could be a natural for journalists, travel photographers, bloggers, vloggers, and more. IMO, Samsung was on the right track with their camera line, they just didn't stick with it long enough to get it really right.

Gato
 
Iain G Foulds said:
… Any company that builds a modern camera based on an early CCD sensor and CFA, marketing their images next to any modern images, will prosper and renew a passion for photography.
Click to expand...
 
Theres to much quality used gear going cheap, especially from sony.

Don
 
I'm not sure why you're writing all that in reply to my post, which wasn't political at all. All I did was to point out a couple of factual errors in the post I replied to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top