The D100 was based on the F80 body, so they are very similar. Looking at photos of the D100 beside the Kodak, they look very similar.
(Kodak & The Kodak Pro SLR/n)
(44 posts) (16 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Kodak makes the image sensors for the Leica M9 and S2. Perhaps they even make the D3 and D700 sensor! Maybe that's why Nikon keeps it a secret. They thought people would look negatively at the D3 if they knew it had a Kodak sensor :^)
(It's not, but just say'n)Posted 2 years ago # -
With the good name and photographic heritage of Kodak, I can't see why anybody would feel that a sensor designed/made by them would be a bad thing? It seems to me that it would be a good idea for them to become market leaders in sensor technology, and be commissioned to make them for all camera manufacturers? I don't think they have any great aspirations for leading the world in camera design and manufacture, it would seem to me that this would be a partnership made in heaven. Am I missing something?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Because the name Kodak isn't associated with quality. It either stands for a very old film company or you think of cheap point & shoot cameras. Or you think of inkjet printers. Leica doesn't even mention Kodak when they talk about the M9 or S2. However Kodak holds several patents on digital technology. Their patents are probably worth more then the company itself.
Posted 2 years ago # -
NikoDoby said:
Because the name Kodak isn't associated with quality. It either stands for a very old film company or you think of cheap point & shoot cameras. Or you think of inkjet printers. Leica doesn't even mention Kodak when they talk about the M9 or S2. However Kodak holds several patents on digital technology. Their patents are probably worth more then the company itself.But when it runs out Kodak can't do anything right?
I think Kodak is still a prestigious company. It makes crap digital products, but the brand name has got to worth a little bit.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Kodak has been on the high end side of sensors for years building them for LEICA S2, the HASSELBLAD H3DII-50, and the SINAR Hy6-65. They also have full professional workflow systems and software that leagues are beyond what anyone else has. The consumer stuff we see the most of is sadly garbage for sure.
Since Kodak was such a large and dominant player at the beginning of digital cameras, patents are the name of the game for them and that is why you see them suing for infringement all the time. Licencing and royalties go on for 20 or more years and it is more likely technology will change before the patents run out. Last year they received an additional $500 million from one settlement alone. They are currently fighting a $1 billion dollar case now that is going quite well. From what I can tell it is not over a single sensor, but a base backside design (covers all sensors from various companies). I believe they about about $3.5 billion in law suits currently in court. Their track record shows they don't settle for any amounts less than what they sue for as well.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Kodak stock took a nose dive and is junk now. It was worth close to $100 a share and now it's less then $10. The company is barely staying afloat. Nobody puts a sticker on their camera that says sensor by Kodak for good reason. They are on the verge of becoming the next Minolta or Polaroid. Their inkjet printers are crap too!
Posted 2 years ago # -
Opinion don't mean much when they have $1.8 billion of cash on their balance sheet and 40% increase in sales of consumer products year over year - I wouldn't call that barely staying afloat. It's not their Golden days but not bad at all.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Their stock price is not my opinion.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Kodak-4Q-profit-drops-95-pct-apf-4152187953.html?x=0&.v=6
That's an article from January. Their stock has kept falling. You can play the numbers game all you want but you can't hide the fact they are hurting.Not sure why you keep throwing jabs at me dude.
Posted 2 years ago # -
It's funny how the name evokes different feelings and thoughts to different people. I look at the name quite fondly, and I think most people in the UK would feel the same. It's strange that that doesn't seem to be the case in the US, if your responses are representative of the general population. Especially strange as I would have expected a US firm to have it's strongest advocates in the US. (It is a US firm right)? I agree with the comments though that say that they have a reputation for film and pretty average consumer products, this is one reason why I thought becoming prominent in sensor design and manufacture would be good for them.
Posted 2 years ago # -
SkintBrit said:
I agree with the comments though that say that they have a reputation for film and pretty average consumer products, this is one reason why I thought becoming prominent in sensor design and manufacture would be good for them.They are a US based firm but do or did have operations all over the world. Among the general public here in the US I would say people still look at it as a trusted name. I see a lot of friends who are not tech followers buy a lot of Kodak photo items.
They have had quite a few bad executive decisions in the last 10 - 15 years and changed direction and focus almost every year for some time. Newer team is in place and they seem to be turning some things around and focusing on markets that have proven growth potential and their real strength - knowledge and development designs hence why you see a ton a patent law suites. Unfortunately, without the patent and royalty payments, I think they are toast as their debt left from years of bad decisions is beyond their stock value. They had $900 million from settlements last year and are looking at a good possibility of a $1 billion settlement this year.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I still think well of Kodak. My first digital camera was a Kodak point and shoot, which was made back when they were half decent. I've almost always shot with Kodak film as well, although I have dabbled with Fuji film on a few occasions.
Posted 2 years ago # -
PB PM said:
I still think well of Kodak. My first digital camera was a Kodak point and shoot, which was made back when they were half decent. I've almost always shot with Kodak film as well, although I have dabbled with Fuji film on a few occasions.Yes when I was knee high to a grass hopper I had one of their instant cameras that looked like a pyramid with a full length handle down the left hand side, and a winding handle on the right to eject the picture, (can't remember what it was called, just remember them offering to buy it back from me for some reason), and a bottom of the range disc camera. Oh the shame of it! Sorry for taking this thread of topic, but it seemed not to be going the way the OP had planned anyway. Maybe it should be re-named the rise and fall of the Kodak corporation?
Posted 2 years ago # -
We never did hear back from N1DQU to find out what he thought was misleading about the Pro SLR/n sale. I guess he was just mad that he lost the bid and needed to vent? :^)
Most if not all of Kodak's digital point & shoot cameras aren't even their own design. The rebadged and slightly modified cameras are made by others. Even the Pro SLR/n, as was already pointed out, was based on a Nikon film camera. I love Kodak's film but unfortunately their film division might disappear entirely or at least get sold off. Imagine Kodak only being known as an inkjet printer company in the future!
Posted 2 years ago # -
NikoDoby said:
Most if not all of Kodak's digital point & shoot cameras aren't even their own design.Now who might be the designer(s)? got any references to this kind of information?
(I'm just curious who they might be, is all).
EDIT: Found the answer ... Chinon and Flextronics (according to Wikipedia anyway).
Posted 2 years ago # -
Even some of Nikon's COOLPIXes are made by them. Some models like the super zooms are almost identical except for a few spec and cosmetic changes between Kodak, Nikon, Pentax, Samsung, etc...
Posted 2 years ago # -
That's why they are all crappy ;)
They all look like Schneider lens designs as well.
Posted 2 years ago # -
TaoTeJared said:
That's why they are all crappy ;)They all look like Schneider lens designs as well.
I was just going to say that after looking at Niko's pictures above, I thought it strange that Nikon, Pentax & Kodak/Samsung would each go to the trouble of designing their own lens, for an otherwise identical camera. Would they realy do this, or is someone telling fibs?
Posted 2 years ago # -
SkintBrit said:
It's funny how the name evokes different feelings and thoughts to different people. I look at the name quite fondly, and I think most people in the UK would feel the same. It's strange that that doesn't seem to be the case in the US, if your responses are representative of the general population. Especially strange as I would have expected a US firm to have it's strongest advocates in the US. (It is a US firm right)? I agree with the comments though that say that they have a reputation for film and pretty average consumer products, this is one reason why I thought becoming prominent in sensor design and manufacture would be good for them.It is interesting to hear indeed. I didn't grow up with the brand at all- my family, even when we shot film point and shoots didn't use much Kodak, we tended to go for Fuji. I still hold the brand in high regard, even if their digital products might be crap.
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
