Karma for Kodak?

[Timekeeper]

I stand corrected! I still think phones are replacing point-and-shoots for casual photographers, though -- the ones who previously bought cheap point-and-shoot cameras, and who bought disposables or Polaroids before that.

You have a valid point with respect to "cheap" P&S cameras. Having a great smart phone might diminish the desire of some consumers to purchase a separate $75 - $100 P&S. But this is why P&S manufacturers continue to implement some features that are not (yet) effectively available in smart phones. Some examples include:

1. Waterproof and shockproof body.
2. Long optical zoom.
3. Adequate built-in flash.
4. Ability to change batteries and memory cards for high capacity shooting and recording.

Any shutterbug who plans on spending the day at WDW would be foolish to think that their smart phone battery will make it even halfway into their day (if they shoot a lot of photo and video). For the cost of a sophisticated external backup battery (and added cost of inconvenience), one could purchase a P&S camera kit. Same goes for the added price difference between 16 GB and 64 GB smart phone models. That $200 could get a very nice P&S.

Even as technology advances, implementing many traditional P&S features into a smart phone would defeat the purpose of a compact smart phone.

 

[Yankee Mouse]

I was making the point that if you believe in Karma they are getting theirs for destroying one of our beloved attractions.

Wow. Seems kind of harsh to suggest that the loss of thousands of jobs, retirement benefits for a large number of people, and the loss of yet another American industry is karma for not sponsoring an attraction at an amusement park. But hey, if seeing Kodak out of business would make you feel a little better about the current state of Imagination then more power to you. Just remember, karma has a way of coming back to you.

 

[preludevtec01]

Some really great info in here.

 

[twilight mitsuk]

kodak would probably spin-off their commerical lines and go bust

 

[walterdisney]

I wouldn't call thousands of people losing their jobs karma, but im surprised it hasn't happened sooner..

 

[wdwmagic]

Not exactly on topic, but an iPhone can't compete with even high quality point and shoot cameras (think Canon G or S series) and a high quality point and shoot certainly can't compete with a crop sensor DSLR, let alone a full frame sensor DSLR.

Barring some amazing technological breakthrough (which, I suppose, isn't out of the question), the camera phone will never be an adequate substitute for real cameras...for real photographers. It just can't due to sensor-size.

Very true. The problem for the camera manufacturers is that the current iPhone, (and whatever is to come) is getting good enough for the masses. It can't be long before the camera manufacturers have DSLRs or nothing, that will be their only line of sales. This has been really evident in recent times with Sony acquiring Minolta to move into DSLRs, and the push by Nikon and Canon to get people using entry level DSLRs, even if its in full auto mode. I don't thin anyone could have really believed digital photography would have taken off as quickly as it did, or that iPhones would kill the point and shoot market so quickly.

 

[WDWFigment]

Very true. The problem for the camera manufacturers is that the current iPhone, (and whatever is to come) is getting good enough for the masses. It can't be long before the camera manufacturers have DSLRs or nothing, that will be their only line of sales. This has been really evident in recent times with Sony acquiring Minolta to move into DSLRs, and the push by Nikon and Canon to get people using entry level DSLRs, even if its in full auto mode. I don't thin anyone could have really believed digital photography would have taken off as quickly as it did, or that iPhones would kill the point and shoot market so quickly.

You're absolutely right. I'm by no means knocking the iPhone's (and other similar phones) camera, but even the 4S' camera doesn't compete with a lot of point and shoots.

However, reality and perception are too entirely different things. When the 4S first came out, I recall reading remarks that it was (paraphrasing) 'better than any point and shoot' and 'as good as a lot of DSLRs'. The first statement is false and the second statement is ridiculous. However, if this is what the public thinks, that's all that matters.

I think the first step will be narrowing the mid-range P&S market. There are still a lot of people who can't afford expensive phones, but if these people can't afford expensive phones, chances are they can't afford expensive cameras, either--this will mean that the low end camera market stays alive. Then, there are the people who realize the actual benefits of a nice P&S, but don't want to purchase a DSLR due to size--they'll still buy the high end P&S (or EVIL) cameras. However, where does that leave the mid-range cameras? The ones that are expensive-enough that they're typically purchased by the same folks who can afford nicer phones, but aren't purchased by people who really care a lot about cameras?

Regardless of how it plays out, specifically, I agree with you that the market for point and shoot cameras is bound to start shrinking.

 

[scpergj]

You're absolutely right. I'm by no means knocking the iPhone's (and other similar phones) camera, but even the 4S' camera doesn't compete with a lot of point and shoots.

However, reality and perception are too entirely different things. When the 4S first came out, I recall reading remarks that it was (paraphrasing) 'better than any point and shoot' and 'as good as a lot of DSLRs'. The first statement is false and the second statement is ridiculous. However, if this is what the public thinks, that's all that matters.

I think the first step will be narrowing the mid-range P&S market. There are still a lot of people who can't afford expensive phones, but if these people can't afford expensive phones, chances are they can't afford expensive cameras, either--this will mean that the low end camera market stays alive. Then, there are the people who realize the actual benefits of a nice P&S, but don't want to purchase a DSLR due to size--they'll still buy the high end P&S (or EVIL) cameras. However, where does that leave the mid-range cameras? The ones that are expensive-enough that they're typically purchased by the same folks who can afford nicer phones, but aren't purchased by people who really care a lot about cameras?

Regardless of how it plays out, specifically, I agree with you that the market for point and shoot cameras is bound to start shrinking.

As one who has both an iPhone 4S and also shoots with a Nikon (old D80), I can tell you that my iPhone takes amazingly good pictures.....BUT...not even close to a 'real' camera. It will do the job when I have nothing else, but won't come close to replacing my Nikon...or my wife's Sony...or son's Nikon...or even daughters Samsung...

 

[Master Yoda]

Looks like the end will be coming sooner rather than later.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120104/11593617280/kodak-planning-to-file-bankruptcy-order-to-sell-off-its-patents.shtml

 

[PhilharMagician]

Looks like the end will be coming sooner rather than later.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120104/11593617280/kodak-planning-to-file-bankruptcy-order-to-sell-off-its-patents.shtml

Yeah, I saw that this morning. I hope this is not the begining of the end, but Kodak certainly has not stepped up to the plate in the past decade to more into the 20th century.

When they discontinued manufacturing Kodachrome the writing was on the wall.

 

[Master Yoda]

The inevitable has happened.

http://gizmodo.com/5877428/kodak-goes-belly-up-and-files-for-bankruptcy

 

[lebeau]

The inevitable has happened.

http://gizmodo.com/5877428/kodak-goes-belly-up-and-files-for-bankruptcy

Sad news. It's a shame. In a lot of ways, it was very evitable (what? that's not a word? okay, avoidable) But, yeah, given how Kodak misread the tea leaves, it became inevitable. Tough to see an American institution fall so hard.

 

[ddbowdoin]

they are the manufacturers for the digital censor in the 7,500 dollar LEICA M9... whoopsies

 

[Master Yoda]

Sad news. It's a shame. In a lot of ways, it was very evitable (what? that's not a word? okay, avoidable) But, yeah, given how Kodak misread the tea leaves, it became inevitable. Tough to see an American institution fall so hard.

It is a shame. There is no question that evolve or die extends beyond the biological world.

 

[PhilharMagician]

Sad news. It's a shame. In a lot of ways, it was very evitable (what? that's not a word? okay, avoidable) But, yeah, given how Kodak misread the tea leaves, it became inevitable. Tough to see an American institution fall so hard.

They have not fallen off the edge yet, but there is not much more room. Bankruptcy has saved many american companies and they have emerged stronger and better. Unfortunately I believe they will have to sell off their patents and technology to make that happen, but what will that leave Kodak for the future to build upon?

 

[janoimagine]

they are the manufacturers for the digital censor in the 7,500 dollar LEICA M9... whoopsies

A colleague of mine has the M9 ... that chip is superior to anything out there but a Phase One P-Series, it's a shame.

 

[Polydweller]

The comments about today's digital cameras and smartphones not competing with DSLRs are almost an exact copy of statements made about early digital cameras versus film. Many said that digital would never create sufficient quality to compete with film. Hmm, ask Kodak about film.

The lesson from the early digital era is that you can't look at current technology and think that's as good as it gets. Technology will improve. Just because the current technology doesn't compete doesn't mean it won't in a few years. Actually, the best bet is that it will. Kodak bet wrong on early digital technology vs film and they are almost gone.

 

[disney fan 13]

does Kodak still sponser anything. since i thought they sponsered maps?

 

[fractal]

Figment's Revenge

 

[ddbowdoin]

The comments about today's digital cameras and smartphones not competing with DSLRs are almost an exact copy of statements made about early digital cameras versus film. Many said that digital would never create sufficient quality to compete with film. Hmm, ask Kodak about film.

The lesson from the early digital era is that you can't look at current technology and think that's as good as it gets. Technology will improve. Just because the current technology doesn't compete doesn't mean it won't in a few years. Actually, the best bet is that it will. Kodak bet wrong on early digital technology vs film and they are almost gone.

well, honestly... the conversation is a lot deeper than that.

1.) Kodak invented the digital camera...

In 1975 Kodak engineer Steven Sasson invented the first digital still camera, which used a Fairchild 100 x 100 pixel CCD

In 1986, Kodak scientists invented the world's first megapixel sensor, capable of recording 1.4 million pixels that could produce a 5x7-inch digital photo-quality print. In 1987, Kodak released seven products for recording, storing, manipulating, transmitting and printing electronic still video images. In 1990, Kodak developed the Photo CD system and proposed "the first worldwide standard for defining color in the digital environment of computers and computer peripherals." In 1991, Kodak released the first professional digital camera system (DCS), aimed at photojournalists. It was a Nikon F-3 camera equipped by Kodak with a 1.3 megapixel sensor.

2.) film is superior in every way... a standard 35mm negative is equivalent to a 33MP file, which would be a Nikon D3X (roughly 7,000 dollars). Medium Format 120 film is equivalent to an 88mp file... so yes, film IS better

The key point in this argument is convenience and cost. Your average person has some automatic point and shoot, doesn't know a thing about photography, and has a rather low brow outlook on image making. This is what killed film... when the day came that cheap 100 dollar point and shoot digital cameras were marketed to those very same people who no longer had to buy 4 dollar rolls of film and spend x dollars on processing and printing to ultimately still take crappy pictures regardless of the medium.