Kodak discontinues the DCS SLR line

[etmpasadena]

2) From what I've read about the kodak bodies the 350D could trash them in almost everything but sensor size and pure resolution.


You forgot: magnesium body, dual media slots, tethered operation, vertical release button, FF viewfinder (obviously), one week repair service, loaner programs, telephone support, and the best OEM software for processing and tethered operation. (Notice I didn't say best software around. Just best OEM software.) Not bad for 3500.  All in all, the Kodak was too much of a niche product. But overall the product was good value for the money. It really was a digital replacement for medium format, in that it was somewhat slow handling with not the most sophisticated AF and AE. The D2x and Canon cameras had their high end 35mm body heritage to work off of. But for those of us (like myself) who never shot 35mm, the camera was a nice and not unfamiliar transition to digital.

[Ben Rubinstein]

So don't expect to sling mud and not have me point out where the mud does and does not stick!

There were two smileys after it, I wasn't being serious and not slinging mud, why don't you chill instead of taking offense at my usage of a phrase which is commonly used however much you object to it? So I used the phrase 'crop sensor' which doesn't mean anything except in this context of consumer cameras, why do you have to be so uptight about it?

I'm so sorry I was wrong......

[BJL]

... people seem unaware that Kodak was number one in full frame dSLR sales by a considerable margin.

Lin, I think I have read the same argument for that claim. I am not completely sure that the reasoning is valid, but I can imagine that Kodak achieved higher unit sales than Canon (through niches like studio photography?), at the expense of prices so low that they never achieved adequate profitability. What is worse, they gave up profits on most of the components: to sensor maker FillFactory, body component maker Nikon for the SLR/N and body maker Sigma for the SLR/C, and did not get the folow-on benefits of lens and accessory sales either.

So even if they were selling 80,000 SLRs per year as claimed, at low profit margins, their growing sales of compact digicams, about ten million per year, probably made this of little significance to their bottom line. If the DCS SLR's had had a great image, they might still have been worthwhile as "flagships", but the very mixed reactions might instead have been hurting their prestige.

[BJL]

As Michael has reported, Kodak is no longer making either digital SLRs or digital backs for medium format SLRs. Kodak did say that "this does not mark the end of Kodak digital SLR's but that they wished to concentrate on market segments which are more profitable."

I did expect that the Nikon D2X was going to be a big blow for them.


I would like to point out that Kodak is still active in the digital SLR market as a "digital film maker", meaning as the sensor maker for various digital backs, the planned Pentax 645 format DLSR, the at last arriving Leica R module, and the two current Olympus Four Thirds digital SLRs.

If Kodak does, as hinted, re-enter the digital SLR market in a more profitable market segment, any ideas at to what that segment would be? Something smaller than the old 24x36mm format it seems.

[BJL]

1) That segment i.e. the 1.5/6 crop market is getting pretty saturated already with every major player fielding a DSLR or more aimed at the proam/amatuer market.
...
2) From what I've read about the kodak bodies the 350D could trash them in almost everything but sensor size and pure resolution.
...
3) As I said unless they pull a magic rabbit out of the hat any crop sensor body ...

1) This is topsy-turvy logic, like what Yogi Bera once said of a restaurant: "nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded".  Every SLR maker is pursuing that sector because it is one of those "more profitable market sectors" that Kodak says they are seeking.


2) The Kodak DCS SLR series bodies were aimed specifically at very high resolution and using a large sensor size while staying far cheaper than the Canon 1Ds models, which clearly required compromises in many other aspects of performance. It makes no sense to assume that the weaknesses produced by those compromises would persist in a new digital SLR using a smaller sensor and a less extreme pixel count.

By the way, those Kodak SLRs have one other advantage over the 350D, as do the Pentax, Olympus and Konica-Minolta DSLRs, one that would please both you and your optician: bigger and generally brighter viewfinder images. Compared to your 20D, the 350D VF image is even smaller (0.8x instead of 0.9x), and probably dimmer since it uses a pentamirror instead of prisms.


3) What on earth do you mean by a "crop sensor body"? It does not apply to a 4/3" format sensor used with 4/3" format lenses. The best candidates for the name "crop sensor body" are (a) the Canon 1D models, for which there are no specifically 1.3x format lenses available, and ( the Canon 1.6x crop bodies, for which no professional grade Canon 1.6x format lenses are available.

[Ben Rubinstein]

You really have a bee in your bonnet about the FF/crop naming thing don't you?    

OK so you're right about the kodak cameras, I still think that they would have a heck of a lot of catching up to do in a somewhat saturated market. No one in the consumer world has heard of kodak SLR's whereas almost everyone knows someone who has a Rebel 2000...

I'm going to the specialist tomorrow, if he says that it's nothing to do with the viewfinder then I'll have an uphill struggle explaining why I still need a 1Ds to my wife!  :p

[BJL]

No one in the consumer world has heard of kodak SLR's whereas almost everyone knows someone who has a Rebel 2000

Due obviously to massive price differences. On the other hand, lots of people in the consumer world have heard of Kodak consumer level cameras, with their digital cameras now I believe the top sellers in the USA and third worldwide.

So for consumers planning to step up from a P&S digicam to a relatively cheap and small entry level DSLR, there could be an attraction to the familiarity of a "Kodak Easy Share SLR", maybe complete with a dock that offers the option of computer free previewing, printing and oFoto internet uploading. (Kodak owns oFoto, and is rebranding it as a Kodak service.)


But after all, what you or I know is nothing compared to the expertise at a company like Kodak; they really do not need our sage advice as to how to conduct their business!

[BJL]

taking offense at my usage of a phrase which is commonly used however much you object to it?

The fact that a phrase reflecting an ignorant and hostile attitude is commonly used has never been much of a defence. Nor is smiling while you say it. Nor did you use smileys when you originally slung the mud.

Perhaps I should ask why you are so uptight and dogmatic about your format preferences that you use clearly demeaning epithets for the ones you don't like, along with the suggestion that it would take "a magic rabbit" for Kodak to succeed with such a format.

(Given your strange world view, one would think that 35mm format were outselling smaller ones like Four Thirds instead of being by far the smallest selling DSLR format, by unit sales or gross revenues.)

[Lin Evans]

Yes, people seem unaware that Kodak was number one in full frame dSLR sales by a considerable margin. The popular notion seems to be that Canon sales of 1DS and now 1DS Mark II have been and are leading in that segment is far from accurate. Kodak actually sold far more full frame dSLR's than Canon who only produces about 24,000 units yearly.

Whatever their reasons for leaving the full frame digital slr market, I sincerely believe that we will continue to see dSLR's from Kodak in the future, just not full frame dSLR's. Nikon has shown that it's quite possible to compete with a 1.5x crop factor camera for which, with the exception of wide angle shooters, actually replaces the Canon 1DS Mark II, 1DS and 1D Mark II models. One camera, lower production costs, does the job of three Canon models.

Perhaps Kodak sees some utilty here. Actually though I have a strong base of Canon products (5 Canon dSLR's) I'm considering a D2X myself for the convenience of being able to have one instrument which can shoot sports at 8 frames per second in a six megapixel mode (plenty of resolution) and shoot wildlife and landscapes in 12 megapixel mode and still maintain 5 frames per second.

Who really knows what Kodak has in mind?  They may have several "rabbits" left.

Best regards,

Lin

[BJL]

Perhaps I should ask why you are so uptight and dogmatic about your format preferences that you use clearly demeaning epithets for the ones you don't like, along with the suggestion that it would take "a magic rabbit" for Kodak to succeed with such a format.

Who said that I'm uptight about 1.6X crop cameras?

... the phrase 'crop' is ... just a name for a sensor that is ... a 'crop' from the usual FF size sensor of a DSLR (in that the vast majority of DSLR's are 35mm I stand by using the phrase FF when referring to 35mm DSLR's).

Not me! Note that the words of mine you quote say nothing about "1.6x". You just might possibly be uptight about Four Thirds format though.

Given your idea that 24x36mm format is still the point of reference, why not just refer to smaller formats as being "smaller"? Something like the "1.5x to 1.6x" that you did use, or "digital only" formats, as used in some lens advertising, or the well established description "APS-C", used by Canon in particular.

The word "crop" has a well established meaning, quite different from how you (and many others) wish to use it: it means discarding part of the image formed by the camera, traditionally by discarding part of the image recorded on the film, but with digital SLR's also by discarding part of the rectangular image that the lens is designed to produce.

It arose as a legitimate description with digital SLR's because all digital SLRs "cropped" like this before the Nikon DX lenses, the Canon 1Ds, and the Olympus Four Thirds lenses. It has nothing to do with one format simply being a different size from another: size mis-match is the key. No-one called 35mm film a crop format just because it was smaller than previous film formats; not even "single frame" or "half frame" was described that way.

There are two main places in the digital SLR world where it is absolutely clear that no such cropping occurs: with 35mm format lenses used with 24x36mm format sensors, and with Four Thirds format lenses used with Fout Thirds format sensors. (By the way, if Kodak does produce a new digital SLR, my bet is that it wil be in Four Thirds format rathen than 1.5x to 1.6x")  I will leave for now the trickier cases like 1.6x to 1.5x format sensors in cameras that are used with a mixture of lenses, some for that format and others for the larger 35mm film format.

Your last sentence is a little strange, since surely "format" refers to the size and shape of the image produced: the vast majority of digital SLRs use formats less than half the size of 35mm, and I would guess that the majority of DSLR lenses being bought these days also use these smaller formats. But I know what you mean, and will not bother further with your anachronistic, inaccurate and yet still somewhat common choices of words.

[Lin Evans]

Yes, actually neither Canon nor Kodak probably get much in the way of overall gross margin percentages from the full frame sensor dSLR's. Canon's meat and potatoes in dSLR's come primarily from prosumer models where sales figures are legendary. Even though dSLR sales are now contributing a substantial amount to Canon's overall gross from camera sales the consumer camera sales are their mainstay. When you consider relevant costs it's always better to make even mediocre margins on huge volume sales of consumer products than huge margins on a few full frame dSLR's.  

If one looks at Sony history there are lessons to be learned. A few years ago Sony produced one of the first feature rich professional digital cameras (the DKC-ID1) which attempted to carve out a niche in the low resolution pro-market. It had some success, and the very small (comparatively) Sony Professional Products Division followed with an innovative but flawed model the DCS-D700 which was quickly replaced by the nearly identical but improved DSC-D770. Traditionally, the Professional Products Division cameras carried the DKC moniker rather than the DSC prefix so those wise in the ways of Sony products knew something was not quite right. What had happened is that the very large and powerful Sony Consumer Products Division decided that they liked the idea of this camera (the DSC-D770) and wanted to take over distribution and sales. This camera competed with the Canon Pro-70 model and Canon was perhaps testing the waters to see which way to position future products (pro or consumer) of this type. Both the Sony and Canon instruments were found to be overpriced for the consumer market at around $1800. Sony allowed the Professional Products Division a consolation prize of the DKC-FP3 which was essentially a DSC-D770 with a hand picked sensor, firewire connect, black rather than titanium color body and a $2700 price tag. The DKC-FP3 never caught on and only a few were manufactured. Sony followed with a completely different "consumer" product (DSC-S70), Canon switched gears and once again tried the "Pro" prefix with the Pro-90 but lowered the price to the $1000 consumer/prosumer break point and the megapixel wars began.

The point is that there is a price point of somewhere around $1000 where a much larger number of sales can be expected and when exceeded, sales drop off quickly. Canon has priced all their consumer and prosumer cameras around this model  carefully staying under the magical $1000 barrier.

It would be very interesting to know the gross sales of digital cameras under $1000 broken down by brand. I would suspect that Kodak, Olympus and Sony might probably be clustered near the top and than Canon might be close in the mix. When you throw in dSLR's then Canon's position probably rises due to their strong sales in prosumer models. Nikon is nowhere near these giants and has seemingly never really bought into this $1000 and under pricing strategy in any big way. Perhaps this will all change soon - who knows........

Lin

[jani]

But I know what you mean, and will not bother further with your anachronistic, inaccurate and yet still somewhat common choices of words.

groan...

That's the price you pay for being a brit from the old world, you're just a living anachronism. But at least you don't have to say "great" when you mean "okay". 

[Ben Rubinstein]

That segment i.e. the 1.5/6 crop market is getting pretty saturated already with every major player fielding a DSLR or more aimed at the proam/amatuer market.
To try and compete with the 20D or 350D, D70s or D50, the pentax, minolta and olympus offerings the price would either have to be rediculously cheap, or there would have to be a significant breakthrough in performance.
From what I've read about the kodak bodies the 350D could trash them in almost everything but sensor size and pure resolution. As I said unless they pull a magic rabbit out of the hat any crop sensor body is not even going to pay the development costs when put in competition with Canon and Nikon.

[BJL]

You really have a bee in your bonnet about the FF/crop naming thing don't you?

Even more than FF (which I now like to read as a nostalgic reference to  some obsolescent Film Format), the usage of "crop sensor camera" is unequivocally a disparagement.

So don't expect to sling mud and not have me point out where the mud does and does not stick!

[Ben Rubinstein]

Perhaps I should ask why you are so uptight and dogmatic about your format preferences that you use clearly demeaning epithets for the ones you don't like, along with the suggestion that it would take "a magic rabbit" for Kodak to succeed with such a format.

Who said that I'm uptight about 1.6X crop cameras? I own one, use it professionally almost every day to put bread on my table and am being forced (perhaps) to upgrade to a very heavy and horribly expensive camera due to medical problems.

I didn't use any demeaning epithets for the format unless the phrase 'crop' is demeaning which it is not, just a name for a sensor that is, suprise suprise, a 'crop' from the usual FF size sensor of a DSLR (in that the vast majority of DSLR's are 35mm I stand by using the phrase FF when referring to 35mm DSLR's).

You complain regularly about the usage of  the phrase FF when referring to FF 35mm, would it be fair to say that you had a bee in your bonnet about it? I didn't say that you are unjustified I just used a phrase which implies that the phrase bugs you and was commenting on it. Maybe this is a UK/US language thing? I certainly didn't mean to sling mud hence my confusion.

My comments about Kodaks chances were based on having used the Kodak, albeit only for a short while (rented it for a job). For all it's pluses I still believe that as far as the consumer is concerned they would prefer a 350D unless kodak does some serious catching up in iso noise, ergonomics and features. The Kodak cameras were taken from Nikon/Canon mount models. The Canon mount was a reengineered Sigma body with awful AF. That kind of design strategy must be very seriously overhauled. Non pro consumers do not care about double card slots, they do want fast and accurate multiple AF points and the ability to use a clean iso 800.

As far as competing in the consumer/pro am market is concerned my comments were based on a  recent article in a pro magazine here in the UK. They showed that the sales figures for DSLR's other than Nikon and Canon were low and dropping, especially after the 350D and D70s/50. They commented that for Pentax which has always worked on the margin, the profits were in line with the market area that they were expecting. I can't see Kodak being satisfied with the same market share as Pentax, nor can I see them putting in huge amounts of research to compete for consumers on the level of Canon and Nikon just to find that they are selling along the same lines as Pentax and Minolta.

No doubt the future will tell it's own story...

[Ben Rubinstein]

But I know what you mean, and will not bother further with your anachronistic, inaccurate and yet still somewhat common choices of words.

groan...