Posted on 01/13/2004 7:39:37 PM PST by 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.
Which is why it will always remain as a niche market item. Like phonograph needles.
The largest part of the photography market remains unchanged. People taking pictures of each other and places they have been. It requires less quality than even what is available on the low end right now.
Check out the Nikon CoolPix 5700. I like mine.
Bottom line for me: How much do I have to spend for a digital camera that can produce pictures comparable in quality to a standard instamatic type camera?
The thing that bothers me is that I usually only have one photo per roll that's worth keeping. I'd love to be able to shoot and shoot until I get a good picture.
Kodak stock has been a dog for a while. The only argument is over when it will hit bottom.
8 and 12 is already on the market. Starting to get interesting. Some even have SLR features such as interchangeable lenses, and the prices are almost in the range where personal budgets can start thinking about them. Most of the little digital cameras are junk, but I have seen some instamatics that could, under ideal conditions, produce a very nice hi-res picture. These new cameras weight almost nothing even with huge lenses on them. We're almost there.
Film as a mass consumer product is dead, however. The shots most folks take doesn't need the dignity that real film provides, anyway. The advantages of digital photo manipulation are the only possible salvation for these people's snapshots.
I try to do as much as I can at home - I picked up a new Canon printer and they have seperated the ink cartridges/colors (including two blacks - one for text, one for photos), which helps drive down the costs of the ink.
The only bad thing about turning the process over to somebody else is they may not care about the colors and calibration.
Ditto here!! I sent them an email concerning their discrimination but they blew it off. I believe their HR Dept. is 100% homo-promo!
Canon just released a Digital SLR (DSLR) for less than $1000 that takes all of the old and new Canon glass (EOS mount) that worked with their regular film SLR cameras. I picked one up and love it. You get the best of both worlds, and while the price is still high, at least your investments can last for a long time.
Nikon and Fuji and a few others (Pentax, etc.) are releasing DSLRs this spring for under $1000 as well, so by this time next year, you could probably pick up one for @$600 or so.
Pricey I know, but I've spent more on this or that lens, or flash or whatever, than I ever did on my SLR body.
It's nice to be able to control every single little thing and to select the right lens for the right situation. Hopefully my wife won't try to get rid of it (we have been hiking a lot and hitting various caverns and parks on the weekends and she claims I spend %95 of the time taking pics :-) )
Yes, and it's bad. Very bad. Basically the sensor is a lot smaller than a comparable 5MP or 6MP sensor and the noise (film grain if you were looking at a print) in certain situations at ISO64-200 is worse than a comparable 6MP at ISO 400-1600 under the same conditions.
They are catching hell over noise and general image quality on a lot of photo sites. They probably rushed it out the door to make the holiday sales is what I'm guessing, because the $1000 crowd is not the crowd to knowingly upset - they are the ones that recommened the $200-400 Sony cameras to their relatives.
8MP is almost wasted on many people as well (or they could better spend their money elsewhere). A good 5MP or 6MP will do an 8x10 or 11x13 and you can't tell the difference 99% of the time between it and a film camera.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.