A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 24th 14, 04:28 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Trevor[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 874
Default Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good


"John Turco" wrote in message
...
their ship has sailed.


Nay, I say! Kodak's "ship" was a submarine, and it has now resurfaced.


Nah, it's still full of holes.

Trevor.




  #22  
Old February 25th 14, 12:47 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
John Turco
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,436
Default Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good

On 2/23/2014 1:40 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , John Turco
wrote:

C'mon, man; try to be more positive about Kodak, please.

how?


Just have a little faith.


in what?

what can kodak bring to the table? seriously.

their ship has sailed.


Nay, I say! Kodak's "ship" was a submarine, and it has now resurfaced.


the problem is that nobody wants submarines anymore.

kodak was king of film but film is for all intents, dead.

they may have pioneered digital and had the first dslrs, but they
weren't a market leader, which is why they went bankrupt. their digital
cameras were crap.



Yeah, that same, old myth keeps being regurgitated: "Kodak was slow to
commit to digital photography."

This conveniently omits the fact Kodak was the earliest company to
introduce DSLR's, and had an extensive line of "EasyShare" P&S models.

If any outfit is behind the times, it's FujiFilm -- it still has the
word "film" in its very name!

John
  #23  
Old February 25th 14, 01:15 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good

In article , John Turco
wrote:

Nay, I say! Kodak's "ship" was a submarine, and it has now resurfaced.


the problem is that nobody wants submarines anymore.

kodak was king of film but film is for all intents, dead.

they may have pioneered digital and had the first dslrs, but they
weren't a market leader, which is why they went bankrupt. their digital
cameras were crap.


Yeah, that same, old myth keeps being regurgitated: "Kodak was slow to
commit to digital photography."

This conveniently omits the fact Kodak was the earliest company to
introduce DSLR's,


it doesn't omit anything nor is what i said a myth.

read what i wrote. i said they pioneered digital and that they also
failed to succeed in the market.

kodak's early slrs were hybrids made by nikon/canon, with additional
kodak electronics. they could never be competitive with that strategy.

kodak then tried again with the 14n and slr/n (which were built from
nikon parts) and the slr/c (which was made by sigma). they were all
horrible and that's being kind.

nikon/canon and other companies made much better slrs for less money.
kodak lost.

and had an extensive line of "EasyShare" P&S models.


easyshare was crap, something i also said.

when a company sells crap that nobody buys, they often go bankrupt.

some companies do manage to succeed by selling crap, but kodak wasn't
one of them. it's also not a very good strategy.

If any outfit is behind the times, it's FujiFilm -- it still has the
word "film" in its very name!


big deal. if that's the only thing they get wrong then they're doing
pretty good.
  #24  
Old February 25th 14, 12:25 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
PeterN[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,246
Default Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good

On 2/24/2014 7:15 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , John Turco
wrote:

Nay, I say! Kodak's "ship" was a submarine, and it has now resurfaced.

the problem is that nobody wants submarines anymore.

kodak was king of film but film is for all intents, dead.

they may have pioneered digital and had the first dslrs, but they
weren't a market leader, which is why they went bankrupt. their digital
cameras were crap.


Yeah, that same, old myth keeps being regurgitated: "Kodak was slow to
commit to digital photography."

This conveniently omits the fact Kodak was the earliest company to
introduce DSLR's,


it doesn't omit anything nor is what i said a myth.

read what i wrote. i said they pioneered digital and that they also
failed to succeed in the market.

kodak's early slrs were hybrids made by nikon/canon, with additional
kodak electronics. they could never be competitive with that strategy.

kodak then tried again with the 14n and slr/n (which were built from
nikon parts) and the slr/c (which was made by sigma). they were all
horrible and that's being kind.

nikon/canon and other companies made much better slrs for less money.
kodak lost.

and had an extensive line of "EasyShare" P&S models.


easyshare was crap, something i also said.

when a company sells crap that nobody buys, they often go bankrupt.


Think Aston-Martin; Rolls Royce, etc
As usual your statements don't stand up. But there is no reason to give
you a business lesson.

However, Kodak went out partially because of exactly the opposite
mentality. the refused to adopt the current mentality of "make it, sell
it, fix it. We all know you will never admit being wrong, but Iam
posting this authoritative link, written by somone who knos a lot more
about business than you.

http://www.economist.com/node/21542796


some companies do manage to succeed by selling crap, but kodak wasn't
one of them. it's also not a very good strategy.


If any outfit is behind the times, it's FujiFilm -- it still has the
word "film" in its very name!


big deal. if that's the only thing they get wrong then they're doing
pretty good.



--
PeterN
  #25  
Old February 25th 14, 05:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good

In article , PeterN
wrote:

This conveniently omits the fact Kodak was the earliest company to
introduce DSLR's,


it doesn't omit anything nor is what i said a myth.

read what i wrote. i said they pioneered digital and that they also
failed to succeed in the market.

kodak's early slrs were hybrids made by nikon/canon, with additional
kodak electronics. they could never be competitive with that strategy.

kodak then tried again with the 14n and slr/n (which were built from
nikon parts) and the slr/c (which was made by sigma). they were all
horrible and that's being kind.

nikon/canon and other companies made much better slrs for less money.
kodak lost.

and had an extensive line of "EasyShare" P&S models.


easyshare was crap, something i also said.

when a company sells crap that nobody buys, they often go bankrupt.


Think Aston-Martin; Rolls Royce, etc


aston martin and rolls royce are crap?

where do you come up with this ****? seriously, wtf?

i hope you're not suggesting kodak should have made ultra-high end
cameras, because that would have been very, very stupid.

ask hasselblad how well that worked out for them.

As usual your statements don't stand up. But there is no reason to give
you a business lesson.

However, Kodak went out partially because of exactly the opposite
mentality. the refused to adopt the current mentality of "make it, sell
it, fix it. We all know you will never admit being wrong, but Iam
posting this authoritative link, written by somone who knos a lot more
about business than you.

http://www.economist.com/node/21542796


further proof you are a nothing more than an argumentative idiot.

that link is just one person's opinion, but regardless, it basically
says the same thing i did, but with some additional details. i summed
it up in a couple of lines. that link is many, many paragraphs. here's
a snippet:

Kodak sold cheap cameras and relied on customers buying lots of
expensive film. (Just as Gillette makes money on the blades, not the
razors.) That model obviously does not work with digital cameras.

and with even fewer words:

move to where the puck is going. not to where was.

and apparently i know more about business than those who ran kodak,
because i know that selling at a loss is not sustainable:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/busine...d-to-bankruptc
y/article1-800633.aspx
Kodak was losing $60 for every digital camera it sold by 2001 and it
was trying to quell a war that had erupted between its digital and
film staff, according to the Harvard case study.
  #26  
Old February 25th 14, 10:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
John Turco
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,436
Default Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good

On 2/24/2014 6:15 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , John Turco
wrote:

Nay, I say! Kodak's "ship" was a submarine, and it has now resurfaced.

the problem is that nobody wants submarines anymore.

kodak was king of film but film is for all intents, dead.

they may have pioneered digital and had the first dslrs, but they
weren't a market leader, which is why they went bankrupt. their digital
cameras were crap.


Yeah, that same, old myth keeps being regurgitated: "Kodak was slow to
commit to digital photography."

This conveniently omits the fact Kodak was the earliest company to
introduce DSLR's,


it doesn't omit anything nor is what i said a myth.

read what i wrote. i said they pioneered digital and that they also
failed to succeed in the market.


It's a wrong to say that Kodak ignored digital technology. It was a
major player in the P&S market and also, had already paved the way
for Canon and Nikon, where DSLR's were concerned.

kodak's early slrs were hybrids made by nikon/canon, with additional
kodak electronics. they could never be competitive with that strategy.

kodak then tried again with the 14n and slr/n (which were built from
nikon parts) and the slr/c (which was made by sigma). they were all
horrible and that's being kind.

nikon/canon and other companies made much better slrs for less money.
kodak lost.


Kodak was never a manufacturer of SLR bodies or lenses, naturally.

and had an extensive line of "EasyShare" P&S models.


easyshare was crap, something i also said.


Not crap, and I own quite a few EasyShare cameras.

when a company sells crap that nobody buys, they often go bankrupt.


Then, using a frequent target of your scorn (i.e., "Sigma"), why hasn't
that questionable firm folded, yet?

some companies do manage to succeed by selling crap, but kodak wasn't
one of them. it's also not a very good strategy.


It works for Sigma, does it not?

If any outfit is behind the times, it's FujiFilm -- it still has the
word "film" in its very name!


big deal. if that's the only thing they get wrong then they're doing
pretty good.


They get a lot of things wrong (e.g., qualty control), it seems.

John
  #27  
Old February 25th 14, 11:02 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Joe Makowiec
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 175
Default Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good

On 25 Feb 2014 in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, John Turco wrote:

Kodak was never a manufacturer of SLR bodies or lenses, naturally.


They did, from 1957 - 1967:

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kodak_Retina_Reflex

A cousin had one. I was contemplating buying it from him when I was
looking for my first camera around 1973. (I wound up with an FTb.) Note
the rapid wind lever on the bottom of the body!

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
  #28  
Old February 26th 14, 12:06 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good

In article , Joe
Makowiec wrote:

Kodak was never a manufacturer of SLR bodies or lenses, naturally.


They did, from 1957 - 1967:

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kodak_Retina_Reflex

A cousin had one. I was contemplating buying it from him when I was
looking for my first camera around 1973. (I wound up with an FTb.) Note
the rapid wind lever on the bottom of the body!


which is an incredibly dumb place to put it.
  #29  
Old February 26th 14, 12:36 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good

In article , John Turco
wrote:

This conveniently omits the fact Kodak was the earliest company to
introduce DSLR's,


it doesn't omit anything nor is what i said a myth.

read what i wrote. i said they pioneered digital and that they also
failed to succeed in the market.


It's a wrong to say that Kodak ignored digital technology.


what's wrong is to say i said that, because i didn't say anything close
to that.

It was a
major player in the P&S market


not really.

early on they had a reasonable share, but that didn't last all that
long.

other companies made more compelling products and their share dwindled.

i gave a link in another post that kodak was losing $60 per camera
sold. that's almost never a good idea.

and also, had already paved the way
for Canon and Nikon, where DSLR's were concerned.


and then kodak wasted a ****load of money on the 14n, slr/n and slr/c.
those were *awful*.

complete waste of money.

kodak's early slrs were hybrids made by nikon/canon, with additional
kodak electronics. they could never be competitive with that strategy.

kodak then tried again with the 14n and slr/n (which were built from
nikon parts) and the slr/c (which was made by sigma). they were all
horrible and that's being kind.

nikon/canon and other companies made much better slrs for less money.
kodak lost.


Kodak was never a manufacturer of SLR bodies or lenses, naturally.


incorrect.

kodak made film slrs long ago, such as the retina reflex, which was not
particularly good.

then there was the instamatic slr, a *really* dumb idea. the film in an
instamatic cartridge could not be kept flat enough to obtain the full
quality of an slr.

http://www.bvipirate.com/Kodak/IReflex-1.html

kodak was trying to push instamatic film, which might have been fine
for the consumer market, but it certainly was not for the slr market.
whose bright idea was that??

more recently, the kodak 14n and slr/n were built by kodak using nikon
parts. it was mostly a nikon n80 but not entirely so. what kodak didn't
do with those was buy a nikon shell and stuff kodak electronics into
it, as they did with earlier cameras.

the slr/c version of the slr/n, however, was outsourced to sigma, of
all people. yet another mistake.

and had an extensive line of "EasyShare" P&S models.


easyshare was crap, something i also said.


Not crap, and I own quite a few EasyShare cameras.


they were crap compared to other options available. the user interface
was not particularly good, they didn't offer anything compelling over
other cameras, most of which cost less, and the sharing thing was
bizarre.

they were trying to target a specific niche, with a commodity product.

when a company sells crap that nobody buys, they often go bankrupt.


Then, using a frequent target of your scorn (i.e., "Sigma"), why hasn't
that questionable firm folded, yet?


because sigma makes a ****load of money on lenses and their lenses
aren't complete crap. they're certainly not as good as nikon/canon, but
they're not total junk.

sigma's older lenses, the ones that used cellophane tape to hold them
together (no joke) were crap, but they don't do that anymore.

the problem i have with sigma is that they are one of the sleaziest
companies around, intentionally lying about the foveon sensor to the
point of violating the laws of physics and mathematics. who wants to do
business with liars?

anyway, if you want crap lenses, look no further than this gem:
http://www.casciola.com/pics/opteka_2705.jpg

notice how well it maintains a parallel axis when extended. if that
camera were any heavier, it would probably snap right off.

the difference with that company is that they sell a *lot* of products,
so a couple of crappy ones aren't a big deal. they're not betting the
farm on that type of product, which is what kodak was doing.

some companies do manage to succeed by selling crap, but kodak wasn't
one of them. it's also not a very good strategy.


It works for Sigma, does it not?


not a good analogy.

sigma's lens sales aren't going away the way film was for kodak.

if sigma's main source of revenue was going away to be replaced by
their cameras, then sigma would have a serious problem. their camera
division loses a lot of money, which means if they were relying on it,
sigma would ultimately go away.

with kodak, film was going away (and kodak knew it), but their cameras
weren't good enough to replace it, especially when they were losing
money on them.

If any outfit is behind the times, it's FujiFilm -- it still has the
word "film" in its very name!


big deal. if that's the only thing they get wrong then they're doing
pretty good.


They get a lot of things wrong (e.g., qualty control), it seems.


not really.
  #30  
Old February 27th 14, 12:43 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Nikon's retro DSLR launches and it looks good

On 2014-02-25 16:45:26 +0000, nospam said:

aston martin and rolls royce are crap?


Huh!!
So you have personal experience with both?


--
Regards,

Savageduck

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon Launches Two New Wireless Cameras: Coolpix S50 and S50c rishil Digital Photography 20 March 4th 07 02:27 AM
Nikon Launches Two New Wireless Cameras: Coolpix S50 and S50c rishil Medium Format Photography Equipment 1 February 21st 07 10:43 PM
Nikon Launches Two New Wireless Cameras: Coolpix S50 and S50c rishil Medium Format Photography Equipment 0 February 21st 07 07:23 PM
Samsung launches it's first (Pentax) DSLR Rich Digital SLR Cameras 10 February 13th 06 12:29 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.