I thought the same thing when I was browsing the Consumer Reports digital camera reviews and saw Kodak digital cameras getting lots of high scores. Good for them!
Interesting how things work out sometimes. In the same year that Polaroid won it’s patent suit with Kodak over instant cameras (1986), Kodak developed the first megapixel sensor. Now Kodak seems to be doing reasonably well and Polaroid exists in name only.
1080p video with a tiny, fixed-focus lens is not very useful.
Kodak was the premier chemical-imaging company, and now it’s just another company selling commodity digital cameras. It’s nice that they are still in business, but I’m not sure what this fact means in the scheme of things.
I once had a temp job with Kodak here in Rochester, NY. Injection molded plastics, including the 35mm film containers (of which I had used many, prior to that).
While their need for those has not yet fallen to zero, it’s interesting to note that it’s being addressed somewhere else, and that entire building (along with a number of others in the facility here known as Kodak Park) no longer exists…
I’m pleased to see these positive reviews, as well. But mostly because it’s nice to see Kodak finally get a digital camera right. It’s a sad fact that most of their point-and-shoots are profoundly mediocre when compared to Canon, Fuji, and other similarly priced models. They’re ok, but not the sort of equipment that gains the respect of hobbyists who recommend cameras to their less technically-inclined friends and family. I have heard that their new line of photo printers is pretty good, though.
(And, just to be picky, Kodak hasn’t really made a transition away from film and probably won’t do so for some time yet. It’s true that good ol’ Kodachrome is no more, and that photographic film is not the mass-market product it once was, but Eastman Kodak still makes lots and lots of film for sale both under their own name and under private labels, especially for the motion picture industry.)
I thought the same thing when I was browsing the Consumer Reports digital camera reviews and saw Kodak digital cameras getting lots of high scores. Good for them!
Interesting how things work out sometimes. In the same year that Polaroid won it’s patent suit with Kodak over instant cameras (1986), Kodak developed the first megapixel sensor. Now Kodak seems to be doing reasonably well and Polaroid exists in name only.
1080p video with a tiny, fixed-focus lens is not very useful.
Kodak was the premier chemical-imaging company, and now it’s just another company selling commodity digital cameras. It’s nice that they are still in business, but I’m not sure what this fact means in the scheme of things.
I once had a temp job with Kodak here in Rochester, NY. Injection molded plastics, including the 35mm film containers (of which I had used many, prior to that).
While their need for those has not yet fallen to zero, it’s interesting to note that it’s being addressed somewhere else, and that entire building (along with a number of others in the facility here known as Kodak Park) no longer exists…
I’m pleased to see these positive reviews, as well. But mostly because it’s nice to see Kodak finally get a digital camera right. It’s a sad fact that most of their point-and-shoots are profoundly mediocre when compared to Canon, Fuji, and other similarly priced models. They’re ok, but not the sort of equipment that gains the respect of hobbyists who recommend cameras to their less technically-inclined friends and family. I have heard that their new line of photo printers is pretty good, though.
(And, just to be picky, Kodak hasn’t really made a transition away from film and probably won’t do so for some time yet. It’s true that good ol’ Kodachrome is no more, and that photographic film is not the mass-market product it once was, but Eastman Kodak still makes lots and lots of film for sale both under their own name and under private labels, especially for the motion picture industry.)