No more Kodak 35-mm film!

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by slideshow, Jan 13, 2004.

  1. slideshow

    Redrod Guest

    I would of just stop making the Kodak Gold 200 . Oh yes it's a good
    alternative to making a trouser belt in need but otherwise... UGgg
     
    Redrod, Jan 14, 2004
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. slideshow

    jones Guest

    Canon
     
    jones, Jan 14, 2004
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. slideshow

    stacey Guest

    I guess kodak wants to file bankrupsy as film is the only thing they are
    making money on right now.
     
    stacey, Jan 14, 2004
    #23
  4. slideshow

    stacey Guest

    And a positive cash flow at that, unlike their digital which they are
    losing money on.
     
    stacey, Jan 14, 2004
    #24
  5. slideshow

    stacey Guest

    Too late IMHO. They made so many shitty cameras in the last 40 years, they
    have nobodies respect. They did this to themselves..

    As far as using schneider lenses, are they actually schneider lenses or did
    they just buy the rights to use the name? And how many "consumers" have
    ever heard of schneider anyway!
     
    stacey, Jan 14, 2004
    #25
  6. Film is the staple of Fuji and Agfa too.
    All manufacturers will cut margins on equipment just to get the profits from
    film wether it be photographic or medical imaging. In either areana digital
    is making head way when long term cost becomes an issue.
     
    Martin Riddle, Jan 14, 2004
    #26
  7. slideshow

    Ron Andrews Guest

    If you count the number of cameras sold, Kodak ranks very high. They
    are almost all low-end cameras. (I'm not counting single use cameras.)
     
    Ron Andrews, Jan 14, 2004
    #27
  8. slideshow

    Skip M Guest

    When George Eastman produced the first Brownie, his intent was to sell the
    cameras at a loss, or at least break even, and make money on the film.
     
    Skip M, Jan 14, 2004
    #28
  9. slideshow

    AT Guest

    dispos will remain.


     
    AT, Jan 14, 2004
    #29
  10. I am sorry to see that APS is losing its popularity. - I was kind of hoping
    that the film manufacturers would apply the APS technology to a 35mm system.
    IOW, put 35mm film into an APS style cartridge, so you never had to bother
    with the leader, and could tell from the outside whether it was exposed or
    not....Sort of an upgrade for 35mm format cameras.....
     
    William Graham, Jan 14, 2004
    #30
  11. slideshow

    Duncan Ross Guest

    From: stacey
    Wasn't that the new name for Amstrad <gag>..?
     
    Duncan Ross, Jan 14, 2004
    #31
  12. slideshow

    Nick C Guest

    As concerns the continued flow of 35mm film, perhaps the subject of todays production of 35mm
    cameras is not so important. Design/production plateau's will be reached even with digicams.

    The 35mm film subject should be better viewed as that which was the general photographic
    mainstay for the past 60 or so years. Todays camera sales or comparative sales should not cloak
    the useful existence of many types of 35mm film cameras made throughout the 60 years; cameras
    stored on closet shelves awaiting temporary use by photographically indifferent owners who also
    are indifferent to digicams.

    Nick
     
    Nick C, Jan 14, 2004
    #32
  13. slideshow

    Matt White Guest

    Agreed, and I'd argue that film is the only quality product they make at
    all. Their P&S digitals are junk; pretty much every other company makes
    better P&S digitals for the same prices.

    I'm tired of the name games Kodak plays; it seems almost every other
    month, when we put in an order to restock film, batteries and lab
    supplies, half the film has a different name. We have to spend hours on
    the phone with the Kodak rep, tracking down what the new name and cat
    number is for the rebranded stuff.

    (Fun retail fact: In rural New Brunswick, "Kodak" is slang for "camera". I
    have people come to my store daily asking for "Canon Kodaks" and "Nikon
    Kodaks". Well, it amuses me. My lame excuse for posting offtopic junk like
    that is because my coffee hasn't kicked in yet, and the -45C weather
    outside is affecting my brain.)
     
    Matt White, Jan 14, 2004
    #33
  14. slideshow

    Ryan Guest

    Off-topic, but where in New Brunswick is your store? (Fiancee's from
    Moncton, and we're moving back that way from here in even-colder
    Winnipeg in a couple of months)

    Ryan
     
    Ryan, Jan 14, 2004
    #34
  15. slideshow

    pioe[rmv] Guest

    The "Zeiss" lenses on Sony cameras are of course not genuine Zeiss, as
    you should know.

    Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
     
    pioe[rmv], Jan 14, 2004
    #35
  16. slideshow

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Judging by my Kodak Duaflex, it amazes me that they could lose money on these
    things. Perhaps the company lunches were really nice back then.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    Alliance Graphique Studio
    <http://www.allgstudio.com>
     
    Gordon Moat, Jan 14, 2004
    #36
  17. As far as using schneider lenses, are they actually schneider lenses or didOne of the most discouraging things about brand name identification is the
    propensity that manufacturers have for selling out their own reputations and
    leaving the scene with their pockets full of money that really belongs to
    the thousands of poor fish that will be duped in the future into buying
    pieces of junk that they assume is of the same quality that the original
    maker's product had. I have seen $120 McIntosh amplifiers in drug store
    windows, and sat behind the wheel of junky plastic cars with the name,
    "Porsche" on their cheap plastic dashboards. One just can't trust anything
    anymore......
     
    William Graham, Jan 14, 2004
    #37
  18. slideshow

    Matt White Guest

    Up in Bathurst, on the north shore. Small independant place called Golden
    Image Center. It's pretty much your average mid-range retail store, with a
    semi-pro minilab. We carry mostly film and digital P&S with a few
    entry-level SLRs for spice. There's just not enough of a market to carry
    high-end gear in regular stock. Oh, and we've got more damned frames than
    we know what to do with.

    If you're going to Moncton, check out Ivan's Camera on St. George Street.
    Good place, with a competent staff that won't try to sucker you. There's
    also a new place called Carsand-Mosher, but I haven't been down to Moncton
    since they opened, so I couldn't honestly tell you much about them. Rumour
    has is that they've got limited stock, but a good lab.
     
    Matt White, Jan 14, 2004
    #38
  19. slideshow

    stacey Guest


    Exactly. Leica sold their name for use on miniDV video cameras and have
    nothing to do with the manufacture of the optics. Zeiss is doing the same
    thing. I'm betting these schneider lenses are the same way and schneider
    knows that the people buying the high end stuff won't be put off by them
    selling their name for use on some cheap platic optics..
     
    stacey, Jan 15, 2004
    #39
  20. slideshow

    stacey Guest

    Yep and nowadays you really have no idea if anything is what it claims it
    is. In the past if a lens said zeiss, it was made by zeiss. Now these
    comapnies sell the right to use their name on almost anything for enough
    money. And other comapnies will put their name on something made by someone
    else if they can make some cash doing it.
     
    stacey, Jan 15, 2004
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.