If Kodak came back with a Camera tomorrow, what would you be awaiting from a company like them?
-
-
-
Tupperware also is in the same position as Pyrex right mow
-
From Wikipedia:
The company has licensed the Kodak brand to several products produced by other companies, such as the PIXPRO line of digital cameras manufactured by JK Imaging. https://petapixel.com/2013/01/23/kodak-brand-license-holder-jk-imaging-shrouded-in-mystery/
-
Holy crap, there is actually a market of 4k video doorbells, why do you need so much pixels for a doorbell
ain't 2k good enough or even 1080p -
so i can zoom in
-
I really like this idea, although knowing Kodak and looking at their olders products in the 00's they would try to make an ergonomic product, but in a very specefic way to them. Kind of the Xperia route
-
A dice size SLR with optional USB C, so you can attach it to phones and drones.
-
If the question is how do you revive a company with a dead reputation and little sales like Kodak, but tailored to that case specifically:
Kodak, and every other retail company, creates products that rely on not only their product, but also their brand. Companies with semi useless products sell them all the time
K-cups, somehow took an infinitely reusable thing like a coffee maker and turned it into a tiny plastic trash cup
Dasani water is awful tasting, terrible for the environment, and expensive, but they go where they're neededAnd a million other examples, selling a product isn't about being the best or even having something good. It's really a matter of branding and marketing strategy.
Rebrand kodak to a bespoke camera with a bunch of little camera accessories, a small preview screen but a bunch of little knobs, lean into the fact that it's not a smart phone. Print on the device like those urban outfitter cameras, make a snapchat style camera that will only keep photos for a day, do something different and target a specific audience and they could be revived as something different. Work on making a camera that can't be reproduced by ai, human authenticity fingerprints for images or something.
Kodak as it was will very likely never make a comeback. They didn't keep up.
-
i had sigma cameras and their color interpretation was incomparably better thanks to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveon_X3_sensor
i would expect, not gimmicks, but a fundamentally better sensor. An invention about light and not about phones
-
Like a Fancy GoPro with an alternative usebase?
-
I'd like a hybrid camera. Digital and film options. Also, I think you could get people interested in developing their own pictures. Here's a quick link to developing film photographs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_processing
This is off the top of my head, but I could see retirees and young people being sold on a new hobby. Sell a camera with darkroom equipment.
Good luck with the project.
-
Shooting film is actually a growing market again these days, so I would want them to release an affordable new film camera.
They already license out the Kodak brand for the Kodak H35, which is a fun half-frame 35mm point-and-shoot, but it’s cheaply made and very light on features, so there’s still a gap in the market for something more advanced.
Pentax has recently reentered that exact market with the Pentax 17, but at ~£500 retail I believe another company could undercut them and gain a following.
-
I get what you're saying, but records are still sold today, despite Spotify and lossless audio files. Retro games are having a resurgence.
Don't just continue selling a worse version of something that exists, be unique and special, even if it's technically... uh, worse.
-
Canon's recent paywalling behavior if other companies start copying them, would be a good argument for picking up film again if you don't care about video capabilities and only need stills - due to film's analog nature, it and the gear that uses it, is immune to paywalls/DRM, and you actually own hard copies of your shots to digitize at will to boot.
-
Kodak existed to make and sell film. Film is very cheap to make, But the technology and details behind it are very difficult. They had a great formula and tech for film worked out. This gave them an edge over competition.
Kodaks camera designs were simply to get more cameras in the hands of the people. This old cameras lasted forever and there was no resolution difference from camera to camera, since it was all in the film.
The question, is kind of loaded. Are we looking for the company to come back and operate as if it was a time machine and the management move forward in time, is it just what would happen if you loaded down a camera company full of engineers. Is it both.
They died because film was replaced by digital and there is no consumable there.
They got in on the digital camera scene and made some cameras but they could never compete price wise because as a company they were designed as a consumable vendor.
For a while the professional lens scene was pretty hopping. Canon, Nikon, and Sigma have that market mostly wrapped up. Canon would have had to come back around then and make their own lense line, probably prosumer level at a lower price. There was probably some room for competition in between the cheap digital lenses and the pro lenses where they could have made a superior product for just a little more money.
When mirrorless cameras came on the scene, They could have came back and probably managed to muscle into that scene. Again prosumer. Manufactured in China to save money.
Right now there's not enough market for point and shoot. There's almost no market for film. There's still room to be made putting larger sensors lenses and better focal options on cell phones. But honestly, there getting so much done with software and AI that that would be a very difficult proposition.
To be honest, Kodak was pushed out by a bunch of companies that could do it cheaper and then by their expertise and edge evaporating as the products they had, became completely obsolete and were replaced by entirely different things outside their wheelhouse.
The only chance to come back would be to wedge themselves into professional photography in the middle of Nikon, Canon, and Sony. They need to add some features that haven't been done yet. There's enough processor in cameras now to do in-camera background removal. Maybe they could show you in a mask what in the scene is in focus, eliminating accidental wrong picks on f-stops or poor lighting causing soft shots. Maybe they could make the pipeline fast enough to take multiple automatic raws around each shot a lot like cell phones are doing now to help you catch people blinking.
Maybe they could drop into the 360 camera realm there's not a lot of good competition there at high resolution. Matter of fact there's not great competition or innovation on the really big 360 rigs that matter port and the like are using.
-
Almost all compact cameras lack a viewfinder. They are competing with phone-photography, which they are losing.
The weak point of taking photos with mobile phones is the screen. In bright sunshine, you can not make good photos. So I would say: make a simple, small viewfinder camera with software- & sensor- technology similar to phones, with a slightly better lens. Keep it really cheap for almost throw-away price so everyone can afford it and a lot can be sold. It would have a small screen and a viewfinder so taking pictures in bright light is easier. It can cast a slideshow to TVs and computers (the small screen would work as a remote control, swipe for next). An accessory like HDMI to Wifi (Chromecast-like) stick can be sold.
It could be the modern implementation of the iconic Kodak Instamatic.
-
Ah, I know a bit about Kodak, being a resident of Rochester, NY (and a former employee). Go back 100 years, and George Eastman was the Steve Jobs of his day. Kodak was just like Apple, bringing the obscure technology of photography to the masses.
But that tech was very much dependant on chemical processes, specifically the Silver Halides used in film. Although Steve Sasson invented the digital camera whike at Kodak, Management basically told him "Great job! Here's a bonus. We're not gonna sell it, though, this will ruin our business".
Ridge Road in Rochester is full of factories with large roll coating machines to make film which are now functionally obsolete. As far as I know many of those buildings arw still there, but in teuth its been a while sin pce I've been up there. Kodak sold off bits and pieces of that factory space over the years, even before the bankruptcy. But they tore down much more factory space, entire buildings, because the property taxes were cheaper on vacant lots than on buildings. Yet they haven't gotten around to divesting it all.
Kodak still technically exists after the bankruptcy, but is far less relevant to the local economy now. Back in the day, when Kodak Park ran 3 shifts making film, local car dealers timed their promotions around Kodak's "Wage Dividend" bonus. But it turns out their technological advantage had an expiration date.
George Eastman's influence is seen all over Rochester, though. His name is all over various buildings in town, as well as the University of Rochester and the Eastman School of Music. And when he decided his health was declining and his work was done, he shot himself to end it all in the most efficient matter possible. Even most Lemmings, who abhor the rich, might have a soft spot for an insanely rich person who not only gave back to his community, but also took it upon himself to end it without being a burden to anyone.
