What if

[mamallama]

Photography has moved beyond chemistry and Kodak did not change fast enough.

 

[OldSchoolNewSchool]

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.

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

Might as well find a Pentax Spotmatic or maybe a Zenit.

 

[Overrank]

Photography has moved beyond chemistry and Kodak did not change fast enough.

I’ve seen it argued that the camera manufacturing market wasn’t big enough to replace the films that Kodak sold. Fuji, for example, didn’t need bankruptcy protection because they’d moved more successfully into speciality chemicals.

 

[mamallama]

Photography has moved beyond chemistry and Kodak did not change fast enough.

I’ve seen it argued that the camera manufacturing market wasn’t big enough to replace the films that Kodak sold.

They should have not been look back and instead looking ahead to see that the film market was going to dry up.

Fuji, for example, didn’t need bankruptcy protection because they’d moved more successfully into speciality chemicals.

 

[Overrank]

Photography has moved beyond chemistry and Kodak did not change fast enough.

I’ve seen it argued that the camera manufacturing market wasn’t big enough to replace the films that Kodak sold.

They should have not been look back and instead looking ahead to see that the film market was going to dry up.

Thrh did, but they were not as successful at moving into specialty chemicals as Fuji. Digital cameras are a footnote for Fuji, the market isn’t big enough to support a company of their size. Although the specialty chemicals part of what was Kodak aftr the breakup us now a $10,000 million+ business.

Fuji, for example, didn’t need bankruptcy protection because they’d moved more successfully into speciality chemicals.

 

[robert1955]

Photography has moved beyond chemistry and Kodak did not change fast enough.

I’ve seen it argued that the camera manufacturing market wasn’t big enough to replace the films that Kodak sold. Fuji, for example, didn’t need bankruptcy protection because they’d moved more successfully into speciality chemicals.

I remember medium / high volume photographers saying that even with 2003 prices of digital cameras they save money and recouped quickly. Their savings were film makers and developers loss. Could Kodak have foreseen the tipping point?

 

[Overrank]

Photography has moved beyond chemistry and Kodak did not change fast enough.

I’ve seen it argued that the camera manufacturing market wasn’t big enough to replace the films that Kodak sold. Fuji, for example, didn’t need bankruptcy protection because they’d moved more successfully into speciality chemicals.

I remember medium / high volume photographers saying that even with 2003 prices of digital cameras they save money and recouped quickly. Their savings were film makers and developers loss. Could Kodak have foreseen the tipping point?

Possibly, but it would likely have been much earlier than the early 2000s. For example spinning out the Eastman Chemical Company in 1994 probably looked like a good idea in 1994, but maybe not so much 10 years later.

Kodak sold the most digital cameras of any brand in the USA fora few years in the early 2000 , but they were losing $60 on each one.

Film as a consumable is good because it’s cheap to manufacturer with a high turnover and a high margin. Cameras as a consumable (as is the case now) doesn’t have any of those things, which is why the digital camera market (other than phones) is not doing so well at the moment. Phone companies have been successful (for the moment) at persuading people that phones are a consumable and need replacing every year, but that’s unlikely to last.

 

[Phil A Martin]

You know that Kodak made the electronics for the Kodak DCS series ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_DCS ) with Nikon and later Canon film bodies ? And that at the time Kodak was the market leader for DSLRs, which was why the Nikon D1 was such a big thing ? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_D1 )

Let me get back to the thread by this post. It addesses other posts as well.

You'll see where I'm coming from with my thoughts.

Kodak was a leader in the early days of digital, indeed they were.

But as the OP implied, they weren't getting state of the art parts that a camera is composed of.

They were closing deals with Nikon and Sigma to use lesser, consumer bodies: F80 from Nikon and Sigma's SD9 / SD10 body.

So with that in mind, you know you're getting worse at everything than your competitors, except for the sensor. Worse VF, LCD, battery, AF, weather sealing, etc.

At this point, the market is not considering anymore if the sensor inside is decent or not (which was also questionable).

When you're charging big $$$$ for a consumer level body, you've lost your pro segment.

Imagine a D850 sensor in a D3400 body for big $$$$. Would that sell? You know the answer.

That's how Kodak lost the battle.

They had amazing sensors (ask anyone who has ever shot with a CCD DMF or Leica M8/M9), but you can't put that in a consumer body and expect to compete with the likes of Nikon's single digit D or Canon's 1Ds.

But wait, there's more.

Kodak folded just before tech was moving to the next level.

You know the difference it made between 2004 and 2007, in the quality you could get for LCDs, processors, sensor fabrication, etc.

Hint: that's the difference between a Nikon D2x and Nikon D3 / D300.

Kodak quit just before the turn of the tide.

A couple more years, and they could have gained access to much better components.

Maybe a SLR/n mark II wouldn't feel like a 5 grand consumer toy, with a big sensor inside, it would feel like an actual competing pro camera.

Just a couple more years, and they would've got competitive for real.

To answer my own question, I'd buy a Kodak pro camera today.

I love the brand, I loved their past sensors (very familiar with them on my MF stuff).

I'd likely buy a new Kodak and not a new Nikon at this point. But maybe that's just my love for the brand speaking too loud, it probably makes no sense now.

It made sense a decade ago, probably not now.

Best regards,

 

[Phil A Martin]

Photography has moved beyond chemistry and Kodak did not change fast enough.

I’ve seen it argued that the camera manufacturing market wasn’t big enough to replace the films that Kodak sold. Fuji, for example, didn’t need bankruptcy protection because they’d moved more successfully into speciality chemicals.

I remember medium / high volume photographers saying that even with 2003 prices of digital cameras they save money and recouped quickly. Their savings were film makers and developers loss. Could Kodak have foreseen the tipping point?

Possibly, but it would likely have been much earlier than the early 2000s. For example spinning out the Eastman Chemical Company in 1994 probably looked like a good idea in 1994, but maybe not so much 10 years later.

Kodak sold the most digital cameras of any brand in the USA fora few years in the early 2000 , but they were losing $60 on each one.

Film as a consumable is good because it’s cheap to manufacturer with a high turnover and a high margin. Cameras as a consumable (as is the case now) doesn’t have any of those things, which is why the digital camera market (other than phones) is not doing so well at the moment. Phone companies have been successful (for the moment) at persuading people that phones are a consumable and need replacing every year, but that’s unlikely to last.

With smartphones its often less of a choice to replace than a necessity. I've yet to have a phone that's lasted longer than the contract.

 

[Overrank]

Photography has moved beyond chemistry and Kodak did not change fast enough.

I’ve seen it argued that the camera manufacturing market wasn’t big enough to replace the films that Kodak sold. Fuji, for example, didn’t need bankruptcy protection because they’d moved more successfully into speciality chemicals.

I remember medium / high volume photographers saying that even with 2003 prices of digital cameras they save money and recouped quickly. Their savings were film makers and developers loss. Could Kodak have foreseen the tipping point?

Possibly, but it would likely have been much earlier than the early 2000s. For example spinning out the Eastman Chemical Company in 1994 probably looked like a good idea in 1994, but maybe not so much 10 years later.

Kodak sold the most digital cameras of any brand in the USA fora few years in the early 2000 , but they were losing $60 on each one.

Film as a consumable is good because it’s cheap to manufacturer with a high turnover and a high margin. Cameras as a consumable (as is the case now) doesn’t have any of those things, which is why the digital camera market (other than phones) is not doing so well at the moment. Phone companies have been successful (for the moment) at persuading people that phones are a consumable and need replacing every year, but that’s unlikely to last.

With smartphones its often less of a choice to replace than a necessity. I've yet to have a phone that's lasted longer than the contract.

I think to date I’ve only had one that’s broken within the contract. And that was a long time ago.

 

[Mika Y.]

You know that Kodak made the electronics for the Kodak DCS series ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_DCS ) with Nikon and later Canon film bodies ? And that at the time Kodak was the market leader for DSLRs, which was why the Nikon D1 was such a big thing ? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_D1 )

Let me get back to the thread by this post. It addesses other posts as well.

You'll see where I'm coming from with my thoughts.

Kodak was a leader in the early days of digital, indeed they were.

But as the OP implied, they weren't getting state of the art parts that a camera is composed of.

They were closing deals with Nikon and Sigma to use lesser, consumer bodies: F80 from Nikon and Sigma's SD9 / SD10 body.

So with that in mind, you know you're getting worse at everything than your competitors, except for the sensor. Worse VF, LCD, battery, AF, weather sealing, etc.

At this point, the market is not considering anymore if the sensor inside is decent or not (which was also questionable).

When you're charging big $$$$ for a consumer level body, you've lost your pro segment.

Imagine a D850 sensor in a D3400 body for big $$$$. Would that sell? You know the answer.

That's how Kodak lost the battle.

They had amazing sensors (ask anyone who has ever shot with a CCD DMF or Leica M8/M9), but you can't put that in a consumer body and expect to compete with the likes of Nikon's single digit D or Canon's 1Ds.

But wait, there's more.

Kodak folded just before tech was moving to the next level.

You know the difference it made between 2004 and 2007, in the quality you could get for LCDs, processors, sensor fabrication, etc.

Hint: that's the difference between a Nikon D2x and Nikon D3 / D300.

Kodak quit just before the turn of the tide.

A couple more years, and they could have gained access to much better components.

Maybe a SLR/n mark II wouldn't feel like a 5 grand consumer toy, with a big sensor inside, it would feel like an actual competing pro camera.

Just a couple more years, and they would've got competitive for real.

To answer my own question, I'd buy a Kodak pro camera today.

I love the brand, I loved their past sensors (very familiar with them on my MF stuff).

I'd likely buy a new Kodak and not a new Nikon at this point. But maybe that's just my love for the brand speaking too loud, it probably makes no sense now.

It made sense a decade ago, probably not now.

In a way I can kind of relate to the sentiment as someone who's a bit into retrocomputing; when Commodore went bankrupt in 90's, I and quite a few people wished for a while for it or at least the Amiga line of computers to make a comeback. That didn't ever happen in any significant way though. And it's not hard to find people with nostalgia about other 80's or early 90's personal computers.

In case of retrocomputing, things are maybe actually somewhat better than in the world of cameras, since there are a lot of indie projects producing spiritual successors to various old computers. You don't get the brand name, but that doesn't really matter for the enjoyment; the experience is still very close to the original, with added bonus of easy connectivity to modern televisions and monitors, loading things from memory cards instead of cassettes or floppies etc.

This doesn't really seem to be a thing for photographic gear to the same extent though.

 

[JustUs7]

My wife and I have replaced our smartphones every couple years, with our kids using our old phones. Apple still supports the old iPhone SE (release just after the iPhone 5. My daughter uses that one no problem. We have three iPhone sevens all no longer under contract as well. We also have an iPhone 5 we don’t use as a phone anymore, but it still works (apps, camera, etc).



They last. People just want to keep up with the Joneses.

 

[Phil A Martin]

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.

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

Might as well find a Pentax Spotmatic or maybe a Zenit.

Funny you should say that but I bought a Pentax SP1000 for £10 in a charity shop this morning. It's cleaned up quite well.

--
My state of confusion has turned into a circle of confusion.

 

[mfinley]

Phone companies have been successful (for the moment) at persuading people that phones are a consumable and need replacing every year, but that’s unlikely to last.

Maybe you're in a foreign country I don't know, but in the US market that has been over with for about 7 years now. The average replacement time now is 3-5 years.

 

[Overrank]

Phone companies have been successful (for the moment) at persuading people that phones are a consumable and need replacing every year, but that’s unlikely to last.

Maybe you're in a foreign country I don't know,

I suspect you might be in a foreign country to me I’m in the UK

but in the US market that has been over with for about 7 years now. The average replacement time now is 3-5 years.

In Europe it’s apparently going to shorten from 40 months to 33 ( https://www.mobilenewscwp.co.uk/New...ne-replacement-cycle-shorten-nearly-20pc-2025 ). But the actual length of time isn’t too important ( the “every year” is more what I’ve seen people doing at the extreme ). How often did people used to replace their house phone ( possibly never ) or their “family camera” ( 10 years ? ).

Once your market growth area is exhausted you can only sell the same thing again and again tothe same people - when the consumable was film Kodak prospered, when it wasn’t then they didn’t do so well. Now the consumable is phones - when people stop replacing them the companies selling them (Apple etc) will need to diversify or they’ll have a Kodak Moment.

In practice they are, e.g. Apple are now pushing a subscription model - news, music, TV etc. to diversify away from their big seller. But, like for Kodak, if the money from this model is not as much as they’re currently making from phones then they may be in trouble.

 

[Phil A Martin]

Phone companies have been successful (for the moment) at persuading people that phones are a consumable and need replacing every year, but that’s unlikely to last.

Maybe you're in a foreign country I don't know, but in the US market that has been over with for about 7 years now. The average replacement time now is 3-5 years.

I'm hoping my phone will last a year or two over the contract ending.

 

[mfinley]

Phone companies have been successful (for the moment) at persuading people that phones are a consumable and need replacing every year, but that’s unlikely to last.

Maybe you're in a foreign country I don't know, but in the US market that has been over with for about 7 years now. The average replacement time now is 3-5 years.

I'm hoping my phone will last a year or two over the contract ending.

I did not even realize people were still 'buying' cell phones via a contract. I've bought all my phones outright as factory refurbished models on Amazon, usually a 2-3 year old model for $200-$300, they work with any carrier you want.

 

[Phil A Martin]

Phone companies have been successful (for the moment) at persuading people that phones are a consumable and need replacing every year, but that’s unlikely to last.

Maybe you're in a foreign country I don't know, but in the US market that has been over with for about 7 years now. The average replacement time now is 3-5 years.

I'm hoping my phone will last a year or two over the contract ending.

I did not even realize people were still 'buying' cell phones via a contract. I've bought all my phones outright as factory refurbished models on Amazon, usually a 2-3 year old model for $200-$300, they work with any carrier you want.

Yes but I didn't want a two or three year used old model, I wanted the latest new model which was far superior to my older one but yes and despite your own personal experience, I think you'll find that quite a lot of people are still getting theirs on contract.

 

[sybersitizen]

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

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.

So the original genes (a chemical company) would need to buy back the brand licensing agreement from JK Imaging, and hire some of the best current camera/lens designers, and use some of the best current camera/lens technology, then begin the process of building cameras and lenses, in order to enter a field that is already crowded and hurting.

Sounds like a winner.

 

[newnorm]

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

Nothing is impossible.