On 11/02/2014 01:01, nospam wrote:
In article , Dale
wrote:

On 02/10/2014 05:52 PM, Dale wrote:

there is your business case study

and cheap overseas products is not an excuse, they had NAFTA and were
making consumer digital cameras in Mexico

other than the dslr hybrids which cost more than a car and were
basically a technology demo more than a commercially viable product,
kodak's digital cameras were *horrible*.

Have you ever used one? The Kodak DC-120 served me well from the time I
got it shortly after launch until the second generation digital Ixus
came out. It had a wide range of shutter settings and a fast f2.5 lens
of reasonable quality. It was perfectly good enough for website work
back them and it was about as sensitive as the human eye on its 16s
button setting. It did have a warm corner but you could fix that with
darkframe subtraction. It was widely used in early digital scientific
imaging because you could get it to return the raw Bayer sensor array a
feature not present on any other camera at the time or since.

it doesn't matter where they were made (nobody really cares). they were
basically junk.

They were not junk. Mine is still going although an only just a
megapixel camera now is nothing to write home about back in the late
1990's it was impressive (it also cost about £1000 back then).

i remember trying one of them at a trade show, and to change the
shutter speed or aperture, you had to wade through *four* levels of
menus (no joke). who the hell thought that was a good idea?

The only problem I ever had with mine was that batteries didn't last
very long at all in it and it would eat a set a couple of hours use.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown