Jat & Art, the pros and cons on Kodak are interesting and could have a great affect on companies such as SNDK. From what I have seen and experienced, the film industry is vastly more mature than that for digifilm and the transition will take time.
I own a nice digicam (a Nikon 990) that is capable of taking hundreds of pictures per CF card but the camera insists on making me wait 5-10 seconds between pictures. Press the button, hold it down while it focuses, wait for the flash unit to recharge and then ... THEN ... it takes a picture. Sometimes I think that we were better off with flashcubes and Kodachrome. :-(
It's all too easy to call people dumb but KODAK is not dumb. They may be old and staid but dumb ... no. They know that pros are better served by Hasselblads and that most people are well-served by their $15 "discardable" cameras.
Not to mention the surprise many people will get a few years from now when they have deleted their digicam photos only to see their inkjet prints turn to dust (most inkjet photos will last 2-3 years at best). I was a whole lot happier when I used a far cheaper SLR, clicked when I wanted, sent the film off, waited a week, and got back negatives that would probably live beyond my lifespan.
If I ever make more money than I could possibly spend, I will buy the best Hasselblad available and $50K more in accessories ... and take some really great pictures with a camera that offers 12+ megapixels, instant recycling, a useful manual focus mode, and takes incredibly sharp pictures that will last a century or more. If the Hasselblad weighs 3 pounds and the best digicam just 3 ounces, it's still no contest.
In a few years the Nikon D's will have 8+Mpixels and my sister will have finally bought her first digicam. Between then and now KODAK will have a lot of time to reposition their thinking.
Craig |
