Kodak cameras versus the world...

[juan_c.]

<p>Hey<br>

This is more of a curiosity thing than anything else. Why is it that Kodak cameras seem almost relegated to "junk" status, especially when compared to Japanese or German cameras? I mean, from many of the posts on here, a lot of them produce excellent results. I guess I am asking more in a marketplace kinda thing. Why are Kodaks (sometimes literally) a dime a dozen? Did they flood the market with them? <br>

And a related question: did Kodak ever release an SLR?</p>

 

[photo5]

<p>One word: Retina...</p>

[rod_larson]

<p>Kodak made low cost cameras for the general population so they could sell more film. The<br>

only high quality cameras with the Kodak name were the Retinas, which were made at the<br>

Kodak plant in Germany and yes they did make an slr called the Retina Reflex in various<br>

models. Kodak did have some US made models such as the Signet 35, Medalist, Chevron, etc.,<br>

that were very good cameras. Maybe some of the historians on this site can shed more<br>

light on the Kodak cameras.</p>

 

[craigd]

<p>While Kodak did make some very nice cameras, they also made a lot of semi-junk models to be sold cheap to the hoi polloi. When you do that, your whole brand suffers.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Kodak began as a company marketing an affordable box camera, that would be loaded at purchase by the dealer, with a roll of film that could hold 100 photos. The first photos were round. This was when all cameras at the time were plate cameras, and required a tripod and long exposures. "You take the photo - we do the rest" was the first Kodak sales slogan. And of course the camera sold like hotcakes.<br /> Here is a photo taken by the first Kodak camera of George Eastman, taking a photo with the same little box camera that made the round photos, the one that began the Kodak empire so long ago...</p>

<p><img src="http://www.photomuse.org/media/database/00254.jpg" alt="" width="408" height="500" /></p>

[cliffmanley]

 

<blockquote>

<p>did Kodak ever release an SLR?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I just posted one<br>

http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00YWbC</p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>Um, er, ah, back how about the Folding Pocket Kodak? Made in a variety of sizes with a variety of specifications at a variety of price points. The higher grades were very good and capable cameras for their time.</p>

<p>How about Kodak view cameras? Used by professionals and the designs were sold to, among others, Calumet who made them and sold them to professionals, students too, for decades.</p>

<p>How about Cine Kodaks? Again, many grades. Films shot on 16 mm with some of the better ones made it to theatrical release.</p>

<p>Medalist? Ektra?</p>

<p>The better grade of Instamatic? Back when, doctors and dentists who'd traded in their first wives for lower mileage later models also bought a Mercedes convertible for European delivery, a Nikon F with 50/1.4 and that was it, and toured Europe with the new car and the new arm candy. The better grade of Instamatic took as good pictures and was much more cost effective.</p>

<p>I don't understand the veneration of pedestrian 35 mm cameras with fixed lenses in leaf shutters. Cameras for po' folks. Must be the "its imported, it must be good" syndrome.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Kodak did make some better cameras, but even then they often had annoying efforts at idiot-proofing. But 99% of that they made were the cheapest sort of snapshot cameras, barely good enough to make a tolerable contact print. But that was what the working class could afford, and they filled that niche well.<br>

In the folding era, there were the "Special" cameras. They had good shutters and good lenses, some models even had a coupled rangefinder. They also were covered in exotic leathers, such as Sealskin. These were expensive cameras, $50 and up in the 1920's and 1930's. Thing is, most of the "better" ones were for obsolete film sizes, such as 116, 130, and 122 (postcard, 3A). That's because of the prevalence of contact printing, where a 120 negative makes a pretty dinky contact print.<br>

So what we can easily use today are the cheapest models that used 120 film. The other sizes are mostly shelf queens, or have been thrown out due to film supply issues.<br>

There were other fancy Kodaks, made by the Nagel company they bought in Germany. The Pupille, and the Recomar 18 and 33 folding plate cameras.<br>

Probably the most successful serious Kodak has to be the Medalist and Medalist II. The design was in no way compromised to be friendly for the uneducated photographer. But today they are a frustration due to Kodak making them 620 size instead of 120. Costs big money to have them milled out to use 120 film, or you have to re-spool. But the lens is a stunner.</p>

 

[dan_fromm2]

<p>Um, John, the better grades of Folding Pocket Kodaks, Premos, Hawkeyes, ... were fitted with some of the best lenses of their day in, usually, the best shutters of their day. I use a 1912 vintage CZJ 130/6.3 Tessar in Compound that I extracted from an FPK, have and will eventually use, after I have its shutter overhauled, an 85/6.3 B&L Tessar IIb in Compound that I extracted from a Premo 12. Missed out on a Hawkeye that had a decent Protar a couple of years ago. Also missed out last year on a 100/6.3 CZJ Tessar in Compur that was attached to a Folding Autographic Special.</p>

<p>FPKs came in a limited range of sizes, so have lenses in a limited range of focal lengths. Even so, I view ones found at camera shows as oysters. Some hold pearls, others don't, and looking is worth the trouble.</p>

[jim_jones3]

<p>As Dan and John say, older Kodak professional equipment was, and still is, high quality. Many of us treasure Kodak cameras and lenses from half a century or more ago as everyday working equipment, not as relics. My folding Kodak is limited by its achromat meniscus lens, but makes fairly good contact prints when stopped down. It cost my grandfather $7 a century ago. At the same time a box camera could be as inexpensive as $1, and the most expensive folder in that size, with a Zeiss Tessar lens, cost $78.50. With such a range of prices, some were junk. The best can still deliver better images than many photographers capture with new cameras.</p>

[anirbanbanerjee]

<p><a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/ektra.htm">The one and only Ektra.</a></p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>I will agree that some were cheaply made but not all. The Tourist was very robust with a high end tessar option. I found the optics of the Kodak Signet 40 and 80 so good, I'm still shooting with them.<br>

<strong>Signet 40</strong>:<br>

<a href="00Y5R4">http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00Y5R4</a><br>

<strong>Signet 80</strong><br>

<a href="00YOZc">http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00YOZc</a></p>

[colin carron]

<p>Kodak sold in millions and aimed at the middle market. Both these things tend to make them less than the top bananas of the collecting world. But mostly excellent cameras for the money.</p>

[ant_nio_gomes]

<p>You should look not only at Kodak's strategy for the consumer camera markets but also for the global digital camera industry, and if you look at Kodak's R&D, patents and high market sensors, like medium format camera's sensors, the picture will look a completely different one.</p>

[darin_cozine]

<p>those instamatics were crap though.</p>

<p>I was going through my parents photos. An older album my dad took with what I think was a kodak brownie TLR or duoflex or something looked great.</p>

<p>later photos taken with the instamatis looked like the shooter was drunk, shot the film through the empty beer bottle, then pissed on them for good measure.</p>

 

[ant_nio_gomes]

<p>Hi again Juan<br>

Sorry I didn't answer your question about Kodak's SLR cameras.<br>

Yes, even in digital days Kodak had a professional DSLR that was discontinued in 2005 and used a Nikon F mount. You can see it here:<br>

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/14N/14NA.HTM<br>

Regards</p>

 

[profhlynnjones]

<p>On the other hand, Ektra was easily the best and most remarkable 35 RF camera ever and the lenses were superb, and don't ever forget the Medalists with the greatest MF lens of all time.</p>

<p>Kodak made probably the best 5 element heliar/pentak type lenses ever. So lots of what had Kodak on it was created by outsiders on contract (Kodachrome) or was for rank amateurs but in some case were excellent (such as their LF lenses).</p>

<p>Lynn </p>

[User_2019667]

<p>John Pender<br>

Juan I can't speak for the old Kodak Film cameras but my first digital camera was a Kodak P850. It is a 5.1 megapixel 12x optical zoom camera with a Schneider Kreuznach lens. That camera took awesome photos and I would put them up against the photos that my Nikon D90 takes any day. And I never had to do any tweaking at all. The pictures were great straight out of the camera. I look back in my archives and some of the better pictures I have were taken with the Kodak P850.<br>

Since I had plenty of 35mm SLR cameras I thought I'd give a DSLR a try. I wasn't crazy about the lag time on the Kodak point and shoot. Schneider Kreuznach makes a heck of a good lens though. </p>

[chuck_foreman1]

Everything is relative... they started in cameras to promote their film through thick and then and ups and downs they made great and not so great stuff but almost always it was a means of producing a product. Sure they went for quality instead of quantity sometimes and tried to deliver to the discerning user a good product. Maximize or enhance the use of the their main product the film. Like any company they want to address every market segment spreading themselves too thin and then pulling back and concentrating on core products. I can remember buying a big yellow box of 10 360K 5 1/4 floppy disks in 1986. And remember the "disc" camera? If there's money to be made, they're in it. There were times when they made exclusive professional products and at times the everyman products. My colleagues have mentioned a few real winners very d desirable as well as collectible items so like the son who received a pile of s--t, was still optimistic as there has to be a horse here somewhere!! Right?!?

[richard_chalfan]

<p>Eastman actually received a patent for a plate coating machine in 1879. He commercially manufactured plates in 1880 and formed a partnership called the Eastman Dry Plate Company in 1881. That was followed by the Eastman Dry Plate and Film Company in 1884. <br>

While the so called "string set" Kodak camera of 1888 was a landmark product, it was predated by quality view cameras bearing the Eastman Dry Plate and Film Company label.<br>

SLR's? Kodak bought Folmer and Schwing in 1905 and owned the company until they divested it in 1927. During that time they offered many various large format single lens reflex camera models under the name "Graflex". While I realize that is NOT the kind of SLR you were asking about, it is historically accurate that Kodak made many early SLR's.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6506393">António Gomes</a> , Apr 21, 2011; 04:37 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You should look not only at Kodak's strategy for the consumer camera markets but also for the global digital camera industry, and if you look at Kodak's R&D, patents and high market sensors, like medium format camera's sensors, the picture will look a completely different one.<br>

Kodak's sales and their R&D are two different departments. Actually, I think they may be two different companies, legally. Either way something invented by Kodak has nothing to do with something designed by Kodak and then built by the lowest bidder.</p>

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2019667">John P</a> , Apr 21, 2011; 05:45 p.m.</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>John Pender<br /> Juan I can't speak for the old Kodak Film cameras but my first digital camera was a Kodak P850. It is a 5.1 megapixel 12x optical zoom camera with a Schneider Kreuznach lens. That camera took awesome photos and I would put them up against the photos that my Nikon D90 takes any day. And I never had to do any tweaking at all. The pictures were great straight out of the camera. I look back in my archives and some of the better pictures I have were taken with the Kodak P850.<br /> Since I had plenty of 35mm SLR cameras I thought I'd give a DSLR a try. I wasn't crazy about the lag time on the Kodak point and shoot. Schneider Kreuznach makes a heck of a good lens though.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sorry mate, but I have trouble believing this. First off, the lens isn't made by Schneider. I mean the employee might technically be a Schneider employee, but that lens is no more a Schneider than the Sony camera have Zeiss lenses. Typically the multicoating is licensed from Schneider (and sometimes just the front element), and that lets them use the name.</p>

<p>Second ... as good as the D90? Really? Because to my eyes, the Leica point-and-shoots aren't even as good as the D90. Either the lens on your D90 is awful, or the place that does your printing is awful, or you've never printed larger than 4x6", or you're just plain exaggerating here.</p>

 

 

[richard_chalfan]

<p>Eastman actually received a patent for a plate coating machine in 1879. He commercially manufactured plates in 1880 and formed a partnership called the Eastman Dry Plate Company in 1881. That was followed by the Eastman Dry Plate and Film Company in 1884. <br>

While the so called "string set" Kodak camera of 1888 was a landmark product, it was predated by quality view cameras bearing the Eastman Dry Plate and Film Company label.<br>

SLR's? Kodak bought Folmer and Schwing in 1905 and owned the company until they divested it in 1927. During that time they offered many various large format single lens reflex camera models under the name "Graflex". While I realize that is NOT the kind of SLR you were asking about, it is historically accurate that Kodak made many early SLR's.</p>

[Nick D.]

<p>Kodak Professional DCS Pro 14n, The Kodak Professional DCS Pro SLR/n is a 13.5 megapixel (4500x3000 pixels) full-frame 35mm digital SLR. Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c.</p>

[paul_noble]

<p>SLR's? In the post-war era, Kodak made, I believe, several models of the Retina Reflex, which were and are considered very good cameras. Unfortunately, they were made in Germany and were relatively expensive, even by the standards of the fifties and sixties. When the Japanese SLR's, such as Nikon, Pentax, etc. appeared, they pretty much killed off the Retinas.</p>

<p>Then, too, Kodak made the Instamatic Reflex, an SLR that used the 126 Instamatic Cartridge. Contrary to what many believe, there was nothing wrong with the 126 cartridge. It held the film flat, in spite of what some people say. The Instamatic Reflex, again, was a pretty good camera, but was too expensive to compete. It suffered from the reputation that 126 had, that it was a crappy format. The format was fine. Its just that most of the cameras made for it were crappy cameras.</p>

<p>What really killed 126 was the plethora of inexpensive, easy to load, 35mm point and shoot cameras that came along in the seventies and eighties. They were generally better cameras, with real glass in the lenses, motor drives and other features. Instamatic's big virtue (and its reason d'etre) easy loading, was no longer and exclusive advantage.</p>

<p>Paul Noble</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p ><a name="00YbRB"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=478782">Dave Lee</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 21, 2011; 01:27 a.m.</p>

<p >Here is a photo taken by the first Kodak camera of George Eastman, taking a photo with the same little box camera that made the round photos, the one that began the Kodak empire so long ago...<br>

<img src="http://www.photomuse.org/media/database/00254.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>A little aside. Considering this was the first photo, the composition is pretty good. Look how the boat on the right and porthole on the left are not cut off and how they balance the picture. Whoeve took this photo had natural talent from the start.</p>