Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,750   Posts: 1,515,776   Online: 987
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Discontinuance

  1. #11
    Neanderman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio River Valley
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    575
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Kodak has gone from about 120,000 world wide to about 50,000 or less

    Income has dropped from $20B for film to $2 B total with film being about $1B.
    Ouch! What is the time frame?

  2. #12
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,872
    Images
    65
    About 10 - 15 years. I don't have an exact time frame, I just know the figures 'then' and now.

    PE

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by PHOTOTONE View Post
    There is a much narrower margin of profit on digital goods. So even with popularity, profits are slim in the point-n-shoot arena that Kodak chooses to participate in. Profits are greater in the Prosumer DSLR field, but Kodak doesn't compete in that arena.
    It's not a matter of Kodak "choosing" to participate in a low-margin area. I believe it's really the only available market for them.

    Right now the DSLR market is the only digital camera segment with healthy margins. But the cost of playing in that market are enormous.

    Konica Minolta who certainly possess a long and generally successful history in the film SLR market could not compete in digital DSLRs. Olympus and FujiFilm are generally failing here, too.

    Even when Kodak competed in this market they were doing so solely with Nikon F mount lenses and Sigma-provided camera bodies. Kodak electronics, yes, but much of the remainder was outsourced. Once Nikon and Canon released full-frame cameras with equiavalent or better electronics - Kodak was clearly a goner here.

    I doubt that Kodak (or anybody else) has the resources to develop the camera bodies and lenses to compete with Nikon, Canon, and Sony at this stage.
    Digital Photography is just "why-tech" not "high tech"..

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Van Buren, Arkansas
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,412
    Images
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by aldevo View Post
    It's not a matter of Kodak "choosing" to participate in a low-margin area. I believe it's really the only available market for them.


    Even when Kodak competed in this market they were doing so solely with Nikon F mount lenses and Sigma-provided camera bodies. Kodak electronics, yes, but much of the remainder was outsourced. Once Nikon and Canon released full-frame cameras with equiavalent or better electronics - Kodak was clearly a goner here.

    I doubt that Kodak (or anybody else) has the resources to develop the camera bodies and lenses to compete with Nikon, Canon, and Sony at this stage.
    That is not quite correct. The only Sigma-provided bodies were for the last Kodak branded Canon mount DSLR, this is because Sigma had a license to manufacture cameras and lenses with Canon mount.

    The last Kodak brand Nikon mount DSLR the SLR/n, and the just previous model the 14/n used A Nikon N80 sub-assembly for shutter and lens mount, in a US made and assembled custom-cast body shell. It was an American built camera with international parts. I know I have a couple of them.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    427
    Kodak is very different from the semiconductor industry. They announce discontinuance, and accept any and all orders. They fill those orders in full, even if it requires manufacturing more parts. Then they scrap the production line that made those chips. (For instance, I remember years ago Signetics shut down the gold-doped 3" wafer line that made the DM8556 integrated circuit.)

    Nobody would be willing to design a "sole source" chip into a product if the semiconductor industry didn't run this way.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by PHOTOTONE View Post
    That is not quite correct. The only Sigma-provided bodies were for the last Kodak branded Canon mount DSLR, this is because Sigma had a license to manufacture cameras and lenses with Canon mount.

    The last Kodak brand Nikon mount DSLR the SLR/n, and the just previous model the 14/n used A Nikon N80 sub-assembly for shutter and lens mount, in a US made and assembled custom-cast body shell. It was an American built camera with international parts. I know I have a couple of them.
    I'll certainly take you at your word regarding the SLR/n and 14/n but it is absoutely true that Kodak used sub-assemblines from Sigma in the DCS-690x series.

    After I got laid off from a dot.com in early 2001 I worked at Draper Labs where they had purchased about a half-dozen of these. Since there was the prospect of these cameras being used for DoD work they had to contact the vendor (Kodak) to find out where they components were sourced (GSA regs require you to specify suppliers providing more than a certain % of content by value). And Sigma Aizu was definitely one of the names provided by Kodak.

    Anyhow, this is neither here nor there, as these are mere toys after all...
    Digital Photography is just "why-tech" not "high tech"..

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4
    I hope a film company picks up the Kodak EIR formula and makes a version of this film. I just started to use this film in a studio setting a year ago.

    Here are two examples:
    Merrie
    Amy

    Hmm...With the aid of my engineering background, I wonder how hard it would be to make this film myself. Hey, I'm desperate!
    One photo out of focus is a mistake, ten photo out of focus are an experimentation, one hundred photo out of focus are a style. ~Author Unknown

  8. #18
    dpurdy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portland OR USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,036
    Images
    38
    A company can announce it's plans but the photographers have to be paying attention. I keep getting caught unaware. I didn't know PlusX 220 was going till it was gone. Also back in the day I was caught completely off gaurd with the discontinuance of Agfa 25 in sheets, my standard film. Soon after I went to the store to buy a box of Portriga and found the label had changed and it was "new and improved". My heart sank and for good reason. The new and improved paper was complete crap. I started phoning all around the country to find unimproved paper in stock and it turned out I was one of the last to know and place after place had no old stock.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    509
    Quote Originally Posted by PHOTOTONE View Post
    There is a much narrower margin of profit on digital goods. So even with popularity, profits are slim in the point-n-shoot arena that Kodak chooses to participate in. Profits are greater in the Prosumer DSLR field, but Kodak doesn't compete in that arena.
    margins on DSLRs are low too. A rebel XT netted my former employer a grand total of $3.50 in profits. An XTI got $12.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by bob100684 View Post
    margins on DSLRs are low too. A rebel XT netted my former employer a grand total of $3.50 in profits. An XTI got $12.
    Was your former employer a retailer or Canon, itself? A retailer may have lousy margins and the manufacturer may fare much better.

    Brick and mortar consumer electronics retailers have wafer-thin profit margins. Most industry analysts have noted that Canon's healthy profit margins are being fueled by the DSLR boom.
    Digital Photography is just "why-tech" not "high tech"..

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin