If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good
"John Turco" wrote in message ... their ship has sailed. Nay, I say! Kodak's "ship" was a submarine, and it has now resurfaced. Nah, it's still full of holes. Trevor. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good
On 2/23/2014 1:40 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , John Turco wrote: C'mon, man; try to be more positive about Kodak, please. how? Just have a little faith. in what? what can kodak bring to the table? seriously. their ship has sailed. Nay, I say! Kodak's "ship" was a submarine, and it has now resurfaced. the problem is that nobody wants submarines anymore. kodak was king of film but film is for all intents, dead. they may have pioneered digital and had the first dslrs, but they weren't a market leader, which is why they went bankrupt. their digital cameras were crap. Yeah, that same, old myth keeps being regurgitated: "Kodak was slow to commit to digital photography." This conveniently omits the fact Kodak was the earliest company to introduce DSLR's, and had an extensive line of "EasyShare" P&S models. If any outfit is behind the times, it's FujiFilm -- it still has the word "film" in its very name! John |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good
In article , John Turco
wrote: Nay, I say! Kodak's "ship" was a submarine, and it has now resurfaced. the problem is that nobody wants submarines anymore. kodak was king of film but film is for all intents, dead. they may have pioneered digital and had the first dslrs, but they weren't a market leader, which is why they went bankrupt. their digital cameras were crap. Yeah, that same, old myth keeps being regurgitated: "Kodak was slow to commit to digital photography." This conveniently omits the fact Kodak was the earliest company to introduce DSLR's, it doesn't omit anything nor is what i said a myth. read what i wrote. i said they pioneered digital and that they also failed to succeed in the market. kodak's early slrs were hybrids made by nikon/canon, with additional kodak electronics. they could never be competitive with that strategy. kodak then tried again with the 14n and slr/n (which were built from nikon parts) and the slr/c (which was made by sigma). they were all horrible and that's being kind. nikon/canon and other companies made much better slrs for less money. kodak lost. and had an extensive line of "EasyShare" P&S models. easyshare was crap, something i also said. when a company sells crap that nobody buys, they often go bankrupt. some companies do manage to succeed by selling crap, but kodak wasn't one of them. it's also not a very good strategy. If any outfit is behind the times, it's FujiFilm -- it still has the word "film" in its very name! big deal. if that's the only thing they get wrong then they're doing pretty good. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good
On 2/24/2014 7:15 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , John Turco wrote: Nay, I say! Kodak's "ship" was a submarine, and it has now resurfaced. the problem is that nobody wants submarines anymore. kodak was king of film but film is for all intents, dead. they may have pioneered digital and had the first dslrs, but they weren't a market leader, which is why they went bankrupt. their digital cameras were crap. Yeah, that same, old myth keeps being regurgitated: "Kodak was slow to commit to digital photography." This conveniently omits the fact Kodak was the earliest company to introduce DSLR's, it doesn't omit anything nor is what i said a myth. read what i wrote. i said they pioneered digital and that they also failed to succeed in the market. kodak's early slrs were hybrids made by nikon/canon, with additional kodak electronics. they could never be competitive with that strategy. kodak then tried again with the 14n and slr/n (which were built from nikon parts) and the slr/c (which was made by sigma). they were all horrible and that's being kind. nikon/canon and other companies made much better slrs for less money. kodak lost. and had an extensive line of "EasyShare" P&S models. easyshare was crap, something i also said. when a company sells crap that nobody buys, they often go bankrupt. Think Aston-Martin; Rolls Royce, etc As usual your statements don't stand up. But there is no reason to give you a business lesson. However, Kodak went out partially because of exactly the opposite mentality. the refused to adopt the current mentality of "make it, sell it, fix it. We all know you will never admit being wrong, but Iam posting this authoritative link, written by somone who knos a lot more about business than you. http://www.economist.com/node/21542796 some companies do manage to succeed by selling crap, but kodak wasn't one of them. it's also not a very good strategy. If any outfit is behind the times, it's FujiFilm -- it still has the word "film" in its very name! big deal. if that's the only thing they get wrong then they're doing pretty good. -- PeterN |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good
In article , PeterN
wrote: This conveniently omits the fact Kodak was the earliest company to introduce DSLR's, it doesn't omit anything nor is what i said a myth. read what i wrote. i said they pioneered digital and that they also failed to succeed in the market. kodak's early slrs were hybrids made by nikon/canon, with additional kodak electronics. they could never be competitive with that strategy. kodak then tried again with the 14n and slr/n (which were built from nikon parts) and the slr/c (which was made by sigma). they were all horrible and that's being kind. nikon/canon and other companies made much better slrs for less money. kodak lost. and had an extensive line of "EasyShare" P&S models. easyshare was crap, something i also said. when a company sells crap that nobody buys, they often go bankrupt. Think Aston-Martin; Rolls Royce, etc aston martin and rolls royce are crap? where do you come up with this ****? seriously, wtf? i hope you're not suggesting kodak should have made ultra-high end cameras, because that would have been very, very stupid. ask hasselblad how well that worked out for them. As usual your statements don't stand up. But there is no reason to give you a business lesson. However, Kodak went out partially because of exactly the opposite mentality. the refused to adopt the current mentality of "make it, sell it, fix it. We all know you will never admit being wrong, but Iam posting this authoritative link, written by somone who knos a lot more about business than you. http://www.economist.com/node/21542796 further proof you are a nothing more than an argumentative idiot. that link is just one person's opinion, but regardless, it basically says the same thing i did, but with some additional details. i summed it up in a couple of lines. that link is many, many paragraphs. here's a snippet: Kodak sold cheap cameras and relied on customers buying lots of expensive film. (Just as Gillette makes money on the blades, not the razors.) That model obviously does not work with digital cameras. and with even fewer words: move to where the puck is going. not to where was. and apparently i know more about business than those who ran kodak, because i know that selling at a loss is not sustainable: http://www.hindustantimes.com/busine...d-to-bankruptc y/article1-800633.aspx Kodak was losing $60 for every digital camera it sold by 2001 and it was trying to quell a war that had erupted between its digital and film staff, according to the Harvard case study. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good
On 2/24/2014 6:15 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , John Turco wrote: Nay, I say! Kodak's "ship" was a submarine, and it has now resurfaced. the problem is that nobody wants submarines anymore. kodak was king of film but film is for all intents, dead. they may have pioneered digital and had the first dslrs, but they weren't a market leader, which is why they went bankrupt. their digital cameras were crap. Yeah, that same, old myth keeps being regurgitated: "Kodak was slow to commit to digital photography." This conveniently omits the fact Kodak was the earliest company to introduce DSLR's, it doesn't omit anything nor is what i said a myth. read what i wrote. i said they pioneered digital and that they also failed to succeed in the market. It's a wrong to say that Kodak ignored digital technology. It was a major player in the P&S market and also, had already paved the way for Canon and Nikon, where DSLR's were concerned. kodak's early slrs were hybrids made by nikon/canon, with additional kodak electronics. they could never be competitive with that strategy. kodak then tried again with the 14n and slr/n (which were built from nikon parts) and the slr/c (which was made by sigma). they were all horrible and that's being kind. nikon/canon and other companies made much better slrs for less money. kodak lost. Kodak was never a manufacturer of SLR bodies or lenses, naturally. and had an extensive line of "EasyShare" P&S models. easyshare was crap, something i also said. Not crap, and I own quite a few EasyShare cameras. when a company sells crap that nobody buys, they often go bankrupt. Then, using a frequent target of your scorn (i.e., "Sigma"), why hasn't that questionable firm folded, yet? some companies do manage to succeed by selling crap, but kodak wasn't one of them. it's also not a very good strategy. It works for Sigma, does it not? If any outfit is behind the times, it's FujiFilm -- it still has the word "film" in its very name! big deal. if that's the only thing they get wrong then they're doing pretty good. They get a lot of things wrong (e.g., qualty control), it seems. John |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good
On 25 Feb 2014 in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, John Turco wrote:
Kodak was never a manufacturer of SLR bodies or lenses, naturally. They did, from 1957 - 1967: http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kodak_Retina_Reflex A cousin had one. I was contemplating buying it from him when I was looking for my first camera around 1973. (I wound up with an FTb.) Note the rapid wind lever on the bottom of the body! -- Joe Makowiec http://makowiec.org/ Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/ |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good
In article , Joe
Makowiec wrote: Kodak was never a manufacturer of SLR bodies or lenses, naturally. They did, from 1957 - 1967: http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kodak_Retina_Reflex A cousin had one. I was contemplating buying it from him when I was looking for my first camera around 1973. (I wound up with an FTb.) Note the rapid wind lever on the bottom of the body! which is an incredibly dumb place to put it. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good
In article , John Turco
wrote: This conveniently omits the fact Kodak was the earliest company to introduce DSLR's, it doesn't omit anything nor is what i said a myth. read what i wrote. i said they pioneered digital and that they also failed to succeed in the market. It's a wrong to say that Kodak ignored digital technology. what's wrong is to say i said that, because i didn't say anything close to that. It was a major player in the P&S market not really. early on they had a reasonable share, but that didn't last all that long. other companies made more compelling products and their share dwindled. i gave a link in another post that kodak was losing $60 per camera sold. that's almost never a good idea. and also, had already paved the way for Canon and Nikon, where DSLR's were concerned. and then kodak wasted a ****load of money on the 14n, slr/n and slr/c. those were *awful*. complete waste of money. kodak's early slrs were hybrids made by nikon/canon, with additional kodak electronics. they could never be competitive with that strategy. kodak then tried again with the 14n and slr/n (which were built from nikon parts) and the slr/c (which was made by sigma). they were all horrible and that's being kind. nikon/canon and other companies made much better slrs for less money. kodak lost. Kodak was never a manufacturer of SLR bodies or lenses, naturally. incorrect. kodak made film slrs long ago, such as the retina reflex, which was not particularly good. then there was the instamatic slr, a *really* dumb idea. the film in an instamatic cartridge could not be kept flat enough to obtain the full quality of an slr. http://www.bvipirate.com/Kodak/IReflex-1.html kodak was trying to push instamatic film, which might have been fine for the consumer market, but it certainly was not for the slr market. whose bright idea was that?? more recently, the kodak 14n and slr/n were built by kodak using nikon parts. it was mostly a nikon n80 but not entirely so. what kodak didn't do with those was buy a nikon shell and stuff kodak electronics into it, as they did with earlier cameras. the slr/c version of the slr/n, however, was outsourced to sigma, of all people. yet another mistake. and had an extensive line of "EasyShare" P&S models. easyshare was crap, something i also said. Not crap, and I own quite a few EasyShare cameras. they were crap compared to other options available. the user interface was not particularly good, they didn't offer anything compelling over other cameras, most of which cost less, and the sharing thing was bizarre. they were trying to target a specific niche, with a commodity product. when a company sells crap that nobody buys, they often go bankrupt. Then, using a frequent target of your scorn (i.e., "Sigma"), why hasn't that questionable firm folded, yet? because sigma makes a ****load of money on lenses and their lenses aren't complete crap. they're certainly not as good as nikon/canon, but they're not total junk. sigma's older lenses, the ones that used cellophane tape to hold them together (no joke) were crap, but they don't do that anymore. the problem i have with sigma is that they are one of the sleaziest companies around, intentionally lying about the foveon sensor to the point of violating the laws of physics and mathematics. who wants to do business with liars? anyway, if you want crap lenses, look no further than this gem: http://www.casciola.com/pics/opteka_2705.jpg notice how well it maintains a parallel axis when extended. if that camera were any heavier, it would probably snap right off. the difference with that company is that they sell a *lot* of products, so a couple of crappy ones aren't a big deal. they're not betting the farm on that type of product, which is what kodak was doing. some companies do manage to succeed by selling crap, but kodak wasn't one of them. it's also not a very good strategy. It works for Sigma, does it not? not a good analogy. sigma's lens sales aren't going away the way film was for kodak. if sigma's main source of revenue was going away to be replaced by their cameras, then sigma would have a serious problem. their camera division loses a lot of money, which means if they were relying on it, sigma would ultimately go away. with kodak, film was going away (and kodak knew it), but their cameras weren't good enough to replace it, especially when they were losing money on them. If any outfit is behind the times, it's FujiFilm -- it still has the word "film" in its very name! big deal. if that's the only thing they get wrong then they're doing pretty good. They get a lot of things wrong (e.g., qualty control), it seems. not really. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good
On 2014-02-25 16:45:26 +0000, nospam said:
aston martin and rolls royce are crap? Huh!! So you have personal experience with both? -- Regards, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon Launches Two New Wireless Cameras: Coolpix S50 and S50c | rishil | Digital Photography | 20 | March 4th 07 01:27 AM |
Nikon Launches Two New Wireless Cameras: Coolpix S50 and S50c | rishil | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 1 | February 21st 07 09:43 PM |
Nikon Launches Two New Wireless Cameras: Coolpix S50 and S50c | rishil | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 0 | February 21st 07 06:23 PM |
Samsung launches it's first (Pentax) DSLR | Rich | Digital SLR Cameras | 10 | February 12th 06 11:29 PM |