What if

[Phil A Martin]

Just out of curiosity, would you think powerful brands long dead (or sort of) could come back if they wanted?

Nothing is impossible.

To be pedantic, I think you'll find that lots of things are impossible, many more are improbable and I have to ask is it desirable? What would Kodak bring to the table that isn't already provided by our existing camera manufacturers?

--
“The enemy of art is the absence of limitations.” - Orson Welles

 

[BrentSchumer]

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

I strongly disagree with this sentence. Hardware and software are far more complicated - and the bar is far higher - than when Kodak stopped trying to compete in the camera space. To take one example, think of how rudimentary autofocus was then versus the machine-learning-enabled subject and eye-tracking modes that are considered the baseline today versus AF.

And the industry is far harsher now, with lower unit sales and more premium price points/expectations.

In the current environment, trying to resurrect Kodak cameras as anything beyond their current "$200 WalMart special" would be disastrous, and no one would invest in such a risky venture given the low returns.

 

[Huntin4photos]

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

I strongly disagree with this sentence. Hardware and software are far more complicated - and the bar is far higher - than when Kodak stopped trying to compete in the camera space. To take one example, think of how rudimentary autofocus was then versus the machine-learning-enabled subject and eye-tracking modes that are considered the baseline today versus AF.

And the industry is far harsher now, with lower unit sales and more premium price points/expectations.

In the current environment, trying to resurrect Kodak cameras as anything beyond their current "$200 WalMart special" would be disastrous, and no one would invest in such a risky venture given the low returns.

I absolutely would prefer not to agree with you. However, things being what they are with or without certain other comsiderations u failed to mention, you are very correct. No one rational who had any common sense would invest in such a risky venture.

Well perhaps someone like Musk would, since people jump full in on his mere texts and even more so when he actually puts some crypto or real money into something regardless of logic. That might float....then he floats it out with a public offering and makes bags of $$%$%$. Then cashes out.

Assuming that he fails to see what u see is the key. But what do u say to someone who is building his own space ships faster and better than NASA has for years?

Kodak? The name and it's history might turn him off.

Crypto anyone? Who would have ever thought...

 

[marcio_napoli]

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

I strongly disagree with this sentence. Hardware and software are far more complicated - and the bar is far higher - than when Kodak stopped trying to compete in the camera space. To take one example, think of how rudimentary autofocus was then versus the machine-learning-enabled subject and eye-tracking modes that are considered the baseline today versus AF.

And the industry is far harsher now, with lower unit sales and more premium price points/expectations.

In the current environment, trying to resurrect Kodak cameras as anything beyond their current "$200 WalMart special" would be disastrous, and no one would invest in such a risky venture given the low returns.

I absolutely would prefer not to agree with you. However, things being what they are with or without certain other comsiderations u failed to mention, you are very correct. No one rational who had any common sense would invest in such a risky venture.

Well perhaps someone like Musk would, since people jump full in on his mere texts and even more so when he actually puts some crypto or real money into something regardless of logic. That might float....then he floats it out with a public offering and makes bags of $$%$%$. Then cashes out.

Assuming that he fails to see what u see is the key. But what do u say to someone who is building his own space ships faster and better than NASA has for years?

Kodak? The name and it's history might turn him off.

Crypto anyone? Who would have ever thought...

Guys, I admited a few posts above it makes zero sense today, but there was a clear window 10 years ago.

It appears the market is entirely covered, but it isn't now. and it definitely wasn't in, say, 2011.

How many here have experience with Kodak sensors?

Have you ever seen the files from a P45+? The Pro back 645? Leica M8, M9? To name just a few.

If you think a high resolution D850 produces great images, you haven't seen what a P45+ (Kodak sensor) does with much older tech, oh boy you haven't.

There were plenty of niche opportunities.

Kodak could easily grab that pro oriented market with a scaled back FF sensor from their MF line, selling based on super clean ISO 50 files, amazing colors, no AA filter, high res, much before Nikon or Canon ever did or ever made that concept affordable to the masses.

A dream camera for studio shooters. It could even be CCD (believe it or not, a ton of studio shooters would buy it for that 1 reason)

I don't think it would have been impossible.

As for the body, they could get someone as partners to develop the body (Olympus, Pentax, anyone friendly for a deal) and use a broader appeal lens mount, like the F or EF mount, just like they did before.

Yup, they did that. It just needed to be better than the bargain bin feeling of the F80 or SD-9 bodies.

Any 2010 body would have felt different than those.

In short, I just described the mark II of SLR/n and c.

But to clarify, this is a 10 year too late thread.

For today, absolutely never mind.

Best regards,

--
Marcio Napoli _ fashion photographer . indie filmmaker
.
NEW video posted - Bikini shoot with Aline Zermiani (Miss Santa Catarina):

.
check it out my You Tube channel:

.
Aliens (acclaimed short film_near 700K views on YT):

.
Instagram:
@marcio_user

 

[Huntin4photos]

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

I strongly disagree with this sentence. Hardware and software are far more complicated - and the bar is far higher - than when Kodak stopped trying to compete in the camera space. To take one example, think of how rudimentary autofocus was then versus the machine-learning-enabled subject and eye-tracking modes that are considered the baseline today versus AF.

And the industry is far harsher now, with lower unit sales and more premium price points/expectations.

In the current environment, trying to resurrect Kodak cameras as anything beyond their current "$200 WalMart special" would be disastrous, and no one would invest in such a risky venture given the low returns.

I absolutely would prefer not to agree with you. However, things being what they are with or without certain other comsiderations u failed to mention, you are very correct. No one rational who had any common sense would invest in such a risky venture.

Well perhaps someone like Musk would, since people jump full in on his mere texts and even more so when he actually puts some crypto or real money into something regardless of logic. That might float....then he floats it out with a public offering and makes bags of $$%$%$. Then cashes out.

Assuming that he fails to see what u see is the key. But what do u say to someone who is building his own space ships faster and better than NASA has for years?

Kodak? The name and it's history might turn him off.

Crypto anyone? Who would have ever thought...

Guys, I admited a few posts above it makes zero sense today, but there was a clear window 10 years ago.

It appears the market is entirely covered, but it isn't now. and it definitely wasn't in, say, 2011.

How many here have experience with Kodak sensors?

Have you ever seen the files from a P45+? The Pro back 645? Leica M8, M9? To name just a few.

If you think a high resolution D850 produces great images, you haven't seen what a P45+ (Kodak sensor) does with much older tech, oh boy you haven't.

There were plenty of niche opportunities.

Kodak could easily grab that pro oriented market with a scaled back FF sensor from their MF line, selling based on super clean ISO 50 files, amazing colors, no AA filter, high res, much before Nikon or Canon ever did or ever made that concept affordable to the masses.

A dream camera for studio shooters. It could even be CCD (believe it or not, a ton of studio shooters would buy it for that 1 reason)

I don't think it would have been impossible.

As for the body, they could get someone as partners to develop the body (Olympus, Pentax, anyone friendly for a deal) and use a broader appeal lens mount, like the F or EF mount, just like they did before.

Yup, they did that. It just needed to be better than the bargain bin feeling of the F80 or SD-9 bodies.

Any 2010 body would have felt different than those.

In short, I just described the mark II of SLR/n and c.

But to clarify, this is a 10 year too late thread.

For today, absolutely never mind.

Best regards,