| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/17/2005 09:19:16 AM · #1 |
Haven't heard much from Kodak lately in regards to anything Pro DSLR. Anybody know what they are up to? Did they just totally get out of the Pro cameras?
|
|
|
|
08/17/2005 09:25:27 AM · #2 |
They did discontinue the Pro DSLR/n and /c, I do believe. Looks like they are "focussing" on the consumer end of digital. Lt's see, they are "out" of film cams, film, pro digital... they keep narrowing their scope of operations. Seems like an ignominious end for the company whose name MEANT photography.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2005 09:27:51 AM · #3 |
They seen to be holding thier own with that Easyshare.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2005 09:36:41 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
They seen to be holding thier own with that Easyshare. |
Yep, they certainly read the market perfectly there. The real question is, how much can really be made in consumer digicams these days? Prices are falling to the point that margins can't be very good.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2005 10:06:28 AM · #5 |
don't overlook the fact though that Kodak has some of the better papers on the market for digital printing.
Message edited by author 2005-08-17 10:06:53. |
|
|
|
08/17/2005 10:12:30 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
They did discontinue the Pro DSLR/n and /c, I do believe. Looks like they are "focussing" on the consumer end of digital. Lt's see, they are "out" of film cams, film, pro digital... they keep narrowing their scope of operations. Seems like an ignominious end for the company whose name MEANT photography. |
They are still making sensors also.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2005 10:15:21 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Yep, they certainly read the market perfectly there. The real question is, how much can really be made in consumer digicams these days? Prices are falling to the point that margins can't be very good. |
They are a lot higher then Kodak ever got for thier film cameras. What were they $20?
|
|
|
|
08/17/2005 10:15:38 AM · #8 |
| i thought they made a lot of high end parts (eq sensors) for like med. format digital backs and stuff like that |
|
|
|
08/17/2005 10:19:50 AM · #9 |
They still have the DCS bodies listed on thier website.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2005 10:24:57 AM · #10 |
Kodak has 23.8% of the USA Digital Camera market ahead of Canon which is at 21.9% of the USA digital camera market. Worldwide Kodak is third behind Sony and Canon.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2005 11:19:04 AM · #11 |
by the looks of it, it seems that kodak is having 12 year olds make their slr bodies, they look terrible
|
|
|
|
08/17/2005 11:37:06 AM · #12 |
| Not that I've been doing a whole lot of B&W darkroom work nowadays, but it was still a little depressing to read this. |
|
|
|
08/17/2005 11:45:54 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by alansfreed:
Not that I've been doing a whole lot of B&W darkroom work nowadays, but it was still a little depressing to read this. |
Thing is, though, that Kodak makes better B&W film than paper. Everyone's better off in the long run using Kodak Tri-X and Ilford paper. I even tend to use Ilford film, too, because it's cheaper and I haven't had any problems with the quality.
Kodak also still has some good color film.
Kodak's removing their products that other companies have beat. Next: T-Max. |
|
|
|
08/17/2005 11:46:26 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
They still have the DCS bodies listed on thier website. |
B & H Still has them in stock. |
|
|
|
08/18/2005 07:53:22 AM · #15 |
Too lazy to find the link, but they make a lot of sensors, including some medium format digital backs for hasselblad type cams. I think in the order of 22MP. Most people in that market still go for the 1ds mk II though.
I dont' personally understand why you would want to use a digital back for a Med format camera. Use a DSLR to test for exposure etc and use that killer film! 22MP compared to Med format is still a joke. |
|
|
|
08/18/2005 08:18:50 AM · #16 |
| read somewhere today Kodak is the top seller of digital cameras in america and has more than 50% marketshare, then Canon, Hewlett packard and 4th is sony. Nikon is last with 4.5% of the American market. |
|
|
|
08/18/2005 08:22:58 AM · #17 |
| It's too bad they discontinued the slr/n line. I think it is a solid camera for the price. Kodak support has been outstanding. Not much alternative to overpriced Cannon and Nikon now. |
|
|
|
08/19/2005 01:28:27 PM · #18 |
I just watched Kodak's new interactive Flash movie on their website and all I can say it's just an amazing marketing promo for the company, bravo
Take the tour! |
|
|
|
08/19/2005 01:35:52 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
22MP compared to Med format is still a joke. |
I wouldn't be so sure. A 22Mp camera produces a 132 Mb 16bit Tiff file. I have no doubt that you would be able to easily blow up and print an 8x10 foot image and still have it looking sharp at a 2 foot viewing distance.
The FF 35mm digital camera bodies are for good reason being compared to medium format film cameras. The medium format digital backs will produce images closer to if not better then those taken with a 4x5 film view camera.
Message edited by author 2005-08-19 13:53:30.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2005 03:00:03 PM · #20 |
I witnessed a commercial last night during something on FX by Kodak with the tagline 'Keep it Digital, Keep it Kodak'...seems tell-tale.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2005 03:06:57 PM · #21 |
Kodak's removing their products that other companies have beat. Next: T-Max.
If you don't love T-Max, you aren't developing it right.
|
|
|
|
08/26/2005 02:23:04 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
[quote=eschelar] The medium format digital backs will produce images closer to if not better then those taken with a 4x5 film view camera. |
not at 22 mp I cannot believe that is true. The scanners I use at school scan my 6x6 slides at 4000 dpi which put in digital terms gives me about a 75-80 megapixel file to work with, which at 100% crop looks like a digital 100% crop, maybe a tad bit worse...but not so bad that it would offset the 50 megapixel information difference.
|
|
|
|
08/26/2005 04:37:40 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by petrakka:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
[quote=eschelar] The medium format digital backs will produce images closer to if not better then those taken with a 4x5 film view camera. |
not at 22 mp I cannot believe that is true. The scanners I use at school scan my 6x6 slides at 4000 dpi which put in digital terms gives me about a 75-80 megapixel file to work with, which at 100% crop looks like a digital 100% crop, maybe a tad bit worse...but not so bad that it would offset the 50 megapixel information difference. |
You left two factors out of the equation:
You're talking about the resolution of the scanner.
At 4000dpi a scanned 6x6 neg should be about be about 74.5 magapixels. The parts you left out were 1)the loss during scanning (and there is always some degree of loss, even with a drum scan), which may or may not be a major factor and 2) the grain size of the original film negative or slide which no scanner can overcome no matter what dpi it scans at.
I think the best thing you can do is to try to print as large as you can from the two mediums and compare for yourself. I had scanned over 2000 35mm slides before I bought an 11Mp 1Ds. At 4000dpi a 35mm slide scans out to a 54.5Mp file. The difference between the files from the scanner and the files from the 1Ds were tremendous - every time in favor of the 1Ds. 16x20 for close viewing was a good print from one of my scans. I can print 40x50 from the 1Ds without a problem.
Message edited by author 2005-08-26 04:47:30.
|
|
|
|
08/26/2005 04:45:58 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
It's too bad they discontinued the slr/n line. I think it is a solid camera for the price. Kodak support has been outstanding. Not much alternative to overpriced Cannon and Nikon now. |
Dang, you've got the top scores on this one sewn up LOL: kodak stats
R.
Message edited by author 2005-08-26 04:47:16.
|
|
|
|
08/26/2005 05:38:10 AM · #25 |
The Kodak is very serious about pro work. A lot of people that I know that have a photo studio for publicity and advertising photos that are used to work in medium format are using kodak backs on their Mamya's and Pentax's cameras. But with the price of the DSC's bodys near the D2X I would surely go for the D2x. I think they should reviw their price politique.
About megapixels comparison, I don't have the experience of medium format, but let me say a few words: in the other day I was reading an article, I'm not shure where, probably at Luminous Landscapes, but a landscape photographer that uses medium format camera and was relutant about facing the quality of digital get to try a digital back for his medium format camera. Sceptic about if he started to like it when in use (it was a kodak back), because he could see in the lcd if the exposition was has he wanted (more or less, has we all know). When he compared the images obtained by the digital back with the film scans he never when back to film again. He said that he never saw such clean images in the film. And that digital back I think it is only 16 MP! The same has canon high resolution right know. After I readed that article I was thinking in getting a used Mamya or so and get a digital back for it, because medium format are very $$$. But then I realized that the digital backs are also very $$$ (please read much expensive!). And the new medium format digital camera from pentax is only 18 MP I think.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/24/2025 04:30:28 PM EDT.
