Kodak to stop selling traditional cameras in U.S.

Reuters | January 13, 2004

[HAL9000]

Eastman Kodak said Tuesday it will stop selling traditional film cameras in the United States, Canada and Western Europe, another move by the photography company to cut lines with declining appeal in favor of fast-growing digital products.

With sales of digital cameras poised to overtake film cameras for the first time this year, Kodak is redefining itself in an effort to keep pace. But the No. 1 maker of photographic film will continue to sell one-time use cameras in the West and expand its sales of these and other film-based cameras--and film--in emerging markets where demand is on the rise.

Shares of Kodak eked out narrow gains Tuesday after the announcement, and was one of the few blue chip stocks to close higher on the New York Stock Exchange.

The move comes amid Kodak's controversial plan to focus on high-growth digital products, such as medical imaging systems and production printing, and reduce dependence on its declining film business. Late in 2003, Kodak said it would stop making slide projectors, but still manufactures color slide films.

"Every one of these steps indicates more and more the strength of Kodak's conviction of moving toward digital," said analyst Shannon Cross of Cross Research. "However, the jury is out on whether (the digital strategy) will work."

Blaming declining demand, the Rochester, N.Y.-based company said it would by the end of this year quit making reloadable cameras that use 35-millimeter film, including those in the Advanced Photo System (APS) format.

In 1996, when it was unveiled, Advantix was hailed by Kodak as the "most important photographic announcement since Instamatic cartridge-loading cameras were introduced in 1963."

Kodak will still make film for existing Advantix and other cameras, and intends to introduce new high-performance 35mm and APS films next month.

Camera makers typically make little profit--or lose money--on hardware, but enjoy strong margins from sales of supplies such as film and paper, which must be replaced frequently.

Kodak said that it plans to continue making reloadable cameras that use 35mm film for emerging markets, such as China, India, Eastern Europe and Latin America and that it will introduce six new cameras in those markets this year.

"(We) estimate that there are 60 million Chinese consumers who have the purchasing power to participate in photography, but have not bought their first camera," Kodak spokesman Charles Smith said.

Under Kodak's new strategy, unveiled in September, it will shift its investments into digital markets with greater growth potential than the waning film market. But film still provides ample revenue for Kodak--more than 120 million rolls of film are sold each year industry-wide.

According to estimates by InfoTrends Research Group, global film camera shipments in 2004 will shrink to 36 million units from 48 million in 2003, while digital camera shipments will rise to 53 million from 41 million units.

Other companies that helped develop APS--Canon, Fuji Photo, Minolta and Nikon-- will continue to make APS cameras.

"The consumer who has APS likes it a lot, but the growth potential is probably tapped out from Kodak's standpoint,'' said Gary Pageau, spokesman of the Photo Marketing Association, an industry organization.

[egarvue]

We recently discovered digital developing at our local Walgreens; before I was using a ton of ink on our inkjet. I won't go back to film cameras again. I love new technology...

[Revolting cat!]

"You'll be back! And you! And you!"

[Paleo Conservative]

I have a digital camera, but for serious photos, I love to get out my old SLR.

Digital cameras will have to reach 10 megapixels to match the resolution of 35mm still film cameras. Even so, film handles reciprocity failure better and is able to record more contrast than CCDs.

[MediaMole]

No big loss. Kodak hasn't made a quality film camera since the Retina.

They do make the DCS Pro 14n, a 14 megapixel SLR.

...and they sell a lot of consumer digital cameras.

[Revolting cat!]

[Paleo Conservative]

They do make the DCS Pro 14n, a 14 megapixel SLR.

Why would anyone in the market for a professional digital SLR buy a Kodak rather than a Nikon. Nikon has a huge collection of high quality lenses that can be used with their cameras.

[spyone]

Kodak. What a shame. Consider all that goodwill and brand value gone to hell. Picture McDonald's in 20 years, or Goodyear Tire, or Tupperware, or....add a name

[Bogey78O]

Dollar for dollar film beats digital in the high quality arena.

[Paleo Conservative]

Dollar for dollar film beats digital in the high quality arena.

It probably will for quite a while. I seriously doubt digital camerals will match the resolution of 4"x5" or 8"x10" view cameras anytime soon.

[arly]

I guess I will then have to buy fuji film for my 35mm.

[George from New England]

I stopped buying Kodak when they fired a Christian employee ONLY because he was confronted with pro-homosexual memos and sent some memos of his own.

[Revolting cat!]

Their digital cameras seem better than their analog cameras ever attempted to be anyway.

[Paleo Conservative]

Kodak. What a shame. Consider all that goodwill and brand value gone to hell.

Kodak is a very PC company. It is almost as bad as Disney. It doesn't deserve much goodwill. The only Kodak film Fuji doesn't match is Kodachrome, but color reversal film is getting less popular. It is no longer necessary to make color separation negatives to publish photographs. Color negative film is cheaper and has a wider exposure latitude.

[jaz.357]

What is it with digital photos? I was going to buy an H/P 3.2 megapixal last year but the guy at Circiut City said "wait till next year"!

NOW Sony has an 8 mexapixal on the market!

What are we gonna do?

Why do we need that?

[Paleo Conservative]

I guess I will then have to buy fuji film for my 35mm.

The article didn't say Kodak was going to stop selling film just cameras. On the other hand, there are excellent reasons for not buying Kodak film.

[MarkL]

I have a digital camera, but for serious photos, I love to get out my old SLR.

I would really love to get back into photography with a digital camera, but I would like the sort of control that I had with my old SLRs (an Olympus OM-2n for day to day general photography, and a Nikon FM-2 for "serious" work and sports photos. Thank goodness for the old Tamron "Adaptall" lenses!). It seems that the only cameras that allow manual focus and complete control over exposure are the semi-pro and pro cameras that sell for about $800 and over! I'm hoping that in a year or two, there will be some "hobbiest" cameras that are more affordable.

Right now, I've got a Sony Mavica CD-1000 that I bought used, and really like it, but it's only 2.1 MP, and for all intents and purposes, it's a point and shoot camera, with minimal controls. I'd like something in the 5 MP range with full manual control.

Mark

[JoeSchem]

I seriously doubt digital camerals will match the resolution of 4"x5" or 8"x10" view cameras anytime soon.

Remember Moore's Law, which is really an observation, that computing power tends to double every eighteen months. So even if film beats digital by a factor of ten, they will be even in five years, and film will become as extinct as vinyl records in ten.

[Psycho_Runner]

"I have a digital camera, but for serious photos, I love to get out my old SLR."

For serious photos, I love to get out my newest Digital SLR, the Canon Digital Rebel. With 6 megapixel resolution its a winner. Even though I doled out 1000 bills I am quickly recovering the costs by not buyimg film.

I don't mean to brag, and I am usually not on the cutting edge, but in this case I made a wise decision in acquiring the Digital SLR. And here is my opnion on image quality:

For 8x10 printouts, there is no difference between film and digital. I don't know if its the high pixel or Canon noise reduction, but the images are stunning.

In complimentating the Canon Digital Rebel, I also bought a Epson 2200 Printer. Believe everything Epson advertises about its ink. Anyway, I can print 11x14 photos that look just as stunning as film.

And finally I have been told that many professional photographers use 6 megapixel images for 24x36 prints(poster size). I can't verify but from what I can see, I think its possible.

Want to lower costs? Costco offers digital printout for 19 cents for a 4x6 prints.

[MarkL]

Why would anyone in the market for a professional digital SLR buy a Kodak rather than a Nikon. Nikon has a huge collection of high quality lenses that can be used with their cameras.

I don't know if it's still the case, but Kodak used to use Nikon bodies to base their cameras on, and I know that they used to have some of the best imaging technology and software for their pro cameras.

Mark

[Paleo Conservative]

I understand Moore's Law, but there's more to picture quality than just resolution. Film handles high contrast better. Video transferred from film even looks better than video shot directly onto digital video.

[MarkL]

It probably will for quite a while. I seriously doubt digital camerals will match the resolution of 4"x5" or 8"x10" view cameras anytime soon.

I miss my old Speed Graphic... I know, not quite a view camera, but still, it was great! And it was cool using that sort of camera...

I've heard that Kodak has medium format 14MP backs for different cameras.

Mark

[DCPatriot]

Don't get rid of your standard camera. You never know.

A power failure here. An electro magnetic field there, and you're going to need the powder tray of Jesse James' Day.

[Psycho_Runner]

Yah I am pretty enthusiatic about digital photography. By going digital you gain so much more control. From Cropping the photo to lightnening up a photo, it is really unbelievable.

One thing I have notice from the die hard film users, they pooh, pooh digital. I think the reason being is the emotional attachment to tradition.

Well I beleive in traditional values, I just don't beleive in traditional consumer products like Black and white television, network television, Typewriters, Polaroids, and even regular phone lines.

Oh and by the way, my first digital was Kodak 4.0 megapixel. I still use for work, as now I consider it somewhat disposable.

Anyway, just my humble opinion

[luvbach1]

Digital SLRs cost a small fortune. Older, auto-exposure film SLRs still do a great job and on a budget.

[luvbach1]

Nikon has a huge collection of high quality lenses that can be used with their cameras.

So does Pentax (though not as large as Nikon)and at a lower cost.

[Johnny_Cipher]

What Kodak should consider doing is to develop and market an inexpensive home 35MM film processing kit. They could push the (still) higher resolution and better quality contrast of "real" film, while designing the processor so it could be connected to your computer and be used to produce digital images as well.

High-end users already either develop their own or send exposed film to a lab, while everybody else still using 35MM film has to send it off to the drugstore to get it developed. It would be nice to have a printer-sized box of some sort, perhaps even used with a home computer, that did this for you at home.

[MediaMole]

The 14n is based on a Nikon body and takes Nikon lenses.

[JoJo Gunn]

His name was Rolf Szabo.

"Diversity" wasn't so inclusive of him. I'll never again touch anything Kodak if I can help it.

Michael miserable failureMoore

[Beck_isright]

Kodak took 10 years to figure this out? Join the trasheap gang. Fuji is not far behind.

[MediaMole]

It isn't very hard to develop 35mm film. Even color film needs nothing more than the right chemicals and a heater to control the temperatures. Automatic processors do exist, but they cost a couple thousand dollars.

The problem is that you have to mix your chemicals, heat them to the right temperature, load the film into a tank in the dark then develop the film, taking care to observe the 3:15 second developing time within 5 seconds, then bleach the film, fix the film, wash and stabilize the film. Then it must be dried.

Oh, the used chemistry can't be dumped. It first has to be processed to remove the residual silver from the silver halides in the film.

The happiest day of my professional life was when I got my first digital camera.

It is worth learning how to develop film, but it is a PITA.

[Psycho_Runner]

"Digital SLRs cost a small fortune. Older, auto-exposure film SLRs still do a great job and on a budget."

Dropping $1000 for the Canon Digital rebel was real expensive. Here is what I see for the future. firat of all I live in Silicon valley and so I am price sensitive on High tech gadgets, from memory to proceesing power.

Canon is currently capturing the Digital SLR market. By the time the other makers match the digial rebel, they will come out with even a higher Megapixel SLR. The other makers such as Nikon and Kodak will try to outdo the rebel by a slightly higher Pixel count but by then Canon will come out with a 11 megapixel camera for $1000. This should happen within three years.

It's real hard to imagine what is next for Digital SLR's, but one thing is for sure, Price will come down and Pixel count will go up. God bless this country.

[Johnny_Cipher]

Every time I look at my bread machine, I wonder why nobody has tried to build and market a film development device.

[avenir]

"No big loss. Kodak hasn't made a quality film camera since the Retina."

My grandparents had two of those, and I had a lot of fun with them. If I recall they had a Carl Zeiss lens.

[HAL9000]

Kodak is a very PC company. It is almost as bad as Disney. It doesn't deserve much goodwill. The only Kodak film Fuji doesn't match is Kodachrome, but color reversal film is getting less popular.

Sorry, I will never buy Fuji film while Kodak is still in business. Kodak is a 123-year old American company.

[HAL9000]

Buy American!

[zarf]

I seriously doubt digital camerals will match the resolution of 4"x5" or 8"x10" view cameras anytime soon.

That's what we said 5 years ago in the audio field.

At 24 bits +, it's gotten hard to tell the difference. In the hands of engineers with great ears, it's anyone's guess.

Digicams, in 10 yrs, will be indistiguishable from film.

[Paleo Conservative]

Buy American!

What is American about an Orwellian bureaucracy?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Studebaker, Packard, Stanley Steamer, Fatimas, Digital Equipment, Red Dot potato chips, Duncan Heines Chocolate Chip Cookies, Sambo's Restaurants, Howard Johnson's Restaurants, the Cunard Line, Kaypro, Morrow, Osborne, Sinclair, Tandy, Wang, Union Carbide, Eastern Air Lines, North Central Airlines, Braniff, Southwestern Bell, Oldsmobile, Nash, Henry J, IG Farben, De Soto, Furr's Supermarkets, Du Mont TV Network, Dallas Texans, Boston Braves, Popular Dry Goods, Washington Senators.\

[roadcat]

"Canon is currently capturing the Digital SLR market."

I bought my Canon 2 megapixel camera three years ago and still love it. I've taken over 10,000 pictures with it and I shudder to think what that would have cost me in 35mm format. I've already made plans to buy a Canon 5 megapixel replacement next month, at a cost less than what I paid for the old one. They have more features for the cost than other makes. But I also still use my Minolta 35mm, when I need high quality pics.

Some things to remember about digital photos - Save them in raw uncompressed format. Compression loses quality, and you can always use software to compress copies from the originals. Also, store multiple copies on DVDR or CDR disks as well as on your computer. I've heard lots of stories of crashed hard drives and lost pictures. And not all DVD and CD media are equal quality - some can lose your data, so do at least two copies on different types. Stay away from those stick-on round printed labels - the chemicals in the adhesive can leach down into the DVD or CD media and lose data (okay on copies, not okay on your only original). Have fun!

[Psycho_Runner]

"Save them in raw uncompressed format."

I have been told of this. TIFF Files are typically the best format. JPEG is the worst as each time you open the file and save it the JPEG will continually compress data. Kinda like compressing the compressed and so forth.

[Polybius]

Right now, I've got a Sony Mavica CD-1000 that I bought used, and really like it, but it's only 2.1 MP, and for all intents and purposes, it's a point and shoot camera, with minimal controls. I'd like something in the 5 MP range with full manual control.

I've been pretty happy with the Minolta DiMAGE 7i .

The lens has a focal length equivalent range from 28mm to 200mm (with the digital croppping you get the 400mm effect.) Settings are Aperture preferred , Shutter-speed preferred , full Manual control and full Program mode. It has average weighted and spot metering.

It is a power hog but that problem is solved by getting a Digipower DPS9000 rechargeable battery pack.

[July 4th]

NOW Sony has an 8 mexapixal on the market!

Yeah, and it's pretty much a piece of crap. The CCD noise and chromatic aberrations are pretty bad. The new Canon Digital Rebel (based on a CMOS sensor, not the CCD) is only 6 megapixel, and takes far better pictures. And a clean 6 megapixel image can be "blown up" to at least an 8.5 x 11" print and have it look the same as a regular film picture. The technology gets better all of the time.

[Sunnyvale CA Eng.]

Every time I look at my bread machine, I wonder why nobody has tried to build and market a film development device.

It certainly could be done but I doubt there is a significant market for one. It would be a hard sell to all but a few percent of the picture taking population. Even if you could make it half the size of a toaster people would still go for the memory stick that is half the size of a book of matches. There are several design issues (as mentioned in a post above) regarding chemicals, disposal, maintenance that might be required..etc. While the resolution and contrast may still be better from film images it's still a hard sell.

Look at the advances in digital photography in the past 10 years - I remember buying one of the first consumer digital cameras for PC's in '93 - no memory sticks yet, if I recall correctly. It had a serial port connection to download the black and white images from onboard memory and the resolution was poor. Kodak has been making high resolution CCD cameras for a long time for the industrial market. They had developed megapixel CCD's long ago but they cost a small fortune. It will be interesting to see if Kodak can make the transition to being primarily an electronics manufacturer from primarily a film and chemical company.

[Johnny_Cipher]

If I had come up with that idea 10 years ago, I might have had something. Oh well.