Nails in P&S coffins (and DSLRs?)

In rec.photo.digital ray wrote:
| On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 08:18:20 +0000, Bruce wrote:
|
| ray wrote:
|So, in other words, you've not tried a P series or any other recent
|Kodak camera. You've simply decided they are all junk without any
|personal experience at all.
|
|At least that puts yours remarks in perspective.
|
|
| I'm a professional photographer. Kodak doesn't offer any digital
| cameras that are suitable for professional work.
|
| Why on earth would I be interested in trying any of Kodak's
| consumer-grade junk?
|
| So, as a professional photographer, why are you wasting time in
| rec.photo.digital? I had assumed 'rec' implied recreation rather than
| profession.

There isn't a "pro" top level group. So we had to crash the party on "rec".

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In rec.photo.digital Bruce wrote:
| wrote:
|In rec.photo.digital Bruce wrote:
|
|| But Kodak's digital products are extremely disappointing. At one point
|| they were ahead of the curve, with good quality products such as the
|| DC210, but since then their standards have dropped to rock bottom.
|
|That's the effect of "going consumer". Price matters to consumers. But the
|quality doesn't seem to. So lower the quality to 1/4 of what it was before,
|then lower the price by 15% Profit!
|
|
| That's how it is supposed to work.
|
| But Kodak has never made a penny profit out of digital. Go figure.

Lots of business executives are completely incapable of a "paradigm shift"
in business markets and models. Unfortunately, it seems, Kodak has many of
them. There are a few products in many areas. Didn't they make a photo
printer for a computer? Or did Canon steal that whole market?

I remember a very early digital camera Kodak was about to sell. I contacted
them about getting raw image data from it. They didn't want to do that for
the reason that "they would have to reveal their proprietary secret on how
they arranged the various color subpixels".

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

wrote:

Lots of business executives are completely incapable of a "paradigm shift"
in business markets and models. Unfortunately, it seems, Kodak has many of
them. There are a few products in many areas. Didn't they make a photo
printer for a computer? Or did Canon steal that whole market?


It was still available late last year, in the UK at least.

It got some reasonable reviews, winning praise for its low ink costs.

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 07:47:05 +0000, phil-news-nospam wrote:

In rec.photo.digital ray wrote: | On Sat, 07 Mar 2009
00:44:58 +0000, phil-news-nospam wrote: |
| In rec.photo.digital ray wrote: |
| | So, in other words, you've not tried a P series or any other recent
| Kodak | camera. You've simply decided they are all junk without any
| personal | experience at all.
|
| It's based on how they are marketed, who they are marketed to, |
specifications, and reviews. No ONE person can try all cameras. That's
| what these methods of making decisions are for. Once Kodak earns a
| reputation for good cameras, and makes models that serve my needs,
then | I will look again.
|
| I see. I guess that makes perfect sense - to you. So no one looks at |
Kodak until they earn a good reputation. How are they supposed to earn a
| good reputation if no one will look at them?

I'd hear about it, I'm sure. Some reviews would be reporting "Kodak
Komeback".

If no one looks at them, who is going to report it?

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 07:48:45 +0000, phil-news-nospam wrote:

In rec.photo.digital ray wrote: | On Sat, 07 Mar 2009
08:18:20 +0000, Bruce wrote: |
| ray wrote:
|So, in other words, you've not tried a P series or any other recent
|Kodak camera. You've simply decided they are all junk without any
|personal experience at all.
|
|At least that puts yours remarks in perspective. |
|
| I'm a professional photographer. Kodak doesn't offer any digital |
cameras that are suitable for professional work. |
| Why on earth would I be interested in trying any of Kodak's |
consumer-grade junk?
|
| So, as a professional photographer, why are you wasting time in |
rec.photo.digital? I had assumed 'rec' implied recreation rather than |
profession.

There isn't a "pro" top level group. So we had to crash the party on
"rec".

Well and good. I just don't appreciate being told that all Kodak cameras
are junk because they don't make a 'professional' level camera - that
seems to be the argument here.

In rec.photo.digital ray wrote:
| On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 07:47:05 +0000, phil-news-nospam wrote:
|
| In rec.photo.digital ray wrote: | On Sat, 07 Mar 2009
| 00:44:58 +0000, phil-news-nospam wrote: |
| | In rec.photo.digital ray wrote: |
| | | So, in other words, you've not tried a P series or any other recent
| | Kodak | camera. You've simply decided they are all junk without any
| | personal | experience at all.
| |
| | It's based on how they are marketed, who they are marketed to, |
| specifications, and reviews. No ONE person can try all cameras. That's
| | what these methods of making decisions are for. Once Kodak earns a
| | reputation for good cameras, and makes models that serve my needs,
| then | I will look again.
| |
| | I see. I guess that makes perfect sense - to you. So no one looks at |
| Kodak until they earn a good reputation. How are they supposed to earn a
| | good reputation if no one will look at them?
|
| I'd hear about it, I'm sure. Some reviews would be reporting "Kodak
| Komeback".
|
| If no one looks at them, who is going to report it?

I would expect reviewers would look.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In rec.photo.digital ray wrote:
| On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 07:48:45 +0000, phil-news-nospam wrote:
|
| In rec.photo.digital ray wrote: | On Sat, 07 Mar 2009
| 08:18:20 +0000, Bruce wrote: |
| | ray wrote:
| |So, in other words, you've not tried a P series or any other recent
| |Kodak camera. You've simply decided they are all junk without any
| |personal experience at all.
| |
| |At least that puts yours remarks in perspective. |
| |
| | I'm a professional photographer. Kodak doesn't offer any digital |
| cameras that are suitable for professional work. |
| | Why on earth would I be interested in trying any of Kodak's |
| consumer-grade junk?
| |
| | So, as a professional photographer, why are you wasting time in |
| rec.photo.digital? I had assumed 'rec' implied recreation rather than |
| profession.
|
| There isn't a "pro" top level group. So we had to crash the party on
| "rec".
|
| Well and good. I just don't appreciate being told that all Kodak cameras
| are junk because they don't make a 'professional' level camera - that
| seems to be the argument here.

The bottom half of consumer cameras are junk ... by definition. Junk cameras
go to the bottom ... by definition.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |