Why didn't Kodak try to go digital?

[JDMvW]

They tried, they really did; but prices were set at "Gumm't" levels above ordinary photographer's  ability to buy:

Kodak DCS ProSLRc

Canon EF lens mount

2004

Full frame 14 MP, price ranged widely as time passed, but once ever $4000.

A version with a Nikon-F mount (Pro SLRn) was also offered.

 

Edited February 14, 2023 by JDMvW

[dmanthree]

There was a story, unsubstantiated, that their CEO once said "how can we stop this digital thing." Kodak, obviously, made their living off chemical-based products, and while they did produce some early digital cameras, it was never really serious about it. Just blame it on really, really bad management.

[BeBu Lamar]

16 hours ago, dmanthree said:

There was a story, unsubstantiated, that their CEO once said "how can we stop this digital thing." Kodak, obviously, made their living off chemical-based products, and while they did produce some early digital cameras, it was never really serious about it. Just blame it on really, really bad management.

At one time they had the best sensor. Their early DSLR based on Nikon and Canon bodies were priced in excess of $20,000. 

[John Seaman]

I had a non working Kodak NC200e 1.3MP DLSR, dating from around 1995, based on a Nikon F90X. They cost around $15,000 and mine had obviously been heavily used.

LINK ------ --

It's interesting to remember that this was at the time Kodak were orchestrating the adoption of the failed APS format at huge expense. I recall that APS was defeated not only by the rise of digital, but also by the continuing popularity of increasingly improving 35mm point and shoots.

 

[AlanKlein]

Kodak had most of the earliest patents on digital sensors and photography.  But their heart wasn't in it. 

[gary green]

Here's another alternative analysis:

LINK : Kodak's Downfall Wasn't About Technology

[gary green]

Empty post

Edited February 16, 2023 by gary green
Removed duplicate

[christian_irgens]

There is one issue that has been overlooked.  Kodak stock was widely held by large mutual funds because of its nice cash flow and dividends.  As mentioned above Kodak did most of the basic research on digital imaging.  The research was quite expensive, but a lot of it was funded by the military for use in satellites.  It was certainly clear to a number of Kodak executives that this was a technology that could eventually lead to consumer products.  But going from military cost-no-object research to developing retail devices was still expensive.

The primary players in choking the consumer oriented R&D were major Wall Street mutual funds that objected vociferously to the spending of money with no immediate return in sight.  Kodak had the technology and the resources to bring it forward but was strangled by the finance people.mm 

Cameras were never really important to Kodak, Instamatics by the millions notwithstanding.  The camera was just a tool that people needed so they would by film and printing services.  Pre and post WW II advanced 35 mm cameras were contract manufactured in Germany.  But there was certainly a case for manufacturing and selling digital sensors even though the film, paper, and chemical business would die.  It is possible, though, that the Photo CD and Kodak inkjet paper (and maybe the Kodak printers) could have been a sustainable business, although never of the magnitude of the legacy trade.

And I nevertheless miss Kodachrome 120....

[glen_h]

Reminds me about Leica losing to Canon.

My dad had a story when I was young, about how the first Canons were copies of Leicas.

Including a screw that doesn't do anything.

I only recently learned, though, that as part of the ending of WW2, Germany lost all their patents.

Nikon and Canon could make their 35mm rangefinders without patent questions.

And so they made more and more, and better and better cameras.

That was also about the time that my dad explained the stainless steel focal plane

shutters, and cloth Leica shutters.

[dmanthree]

13 hours ago, glen_h said:

Reminds me about Leica losing to Canon.

My dad had a story when I was young, about how the first Canons were copies of Leicas.

Including a screw that doesn't do anything.

I only recently learned, though, that as part of the ending of WW2, Germany lost all their patents.

Nikon and Canon could make their 35mm rangefinders without patent questions.

And so they made more and more, and better and better cameras.

That was also about the time that my dad explained the stainless steel focal plane

shutters, and cloth Leica shutters.

Yeah, I know of at least three shooters (from way back when) that hyad holes burned in those cloth shutters if the camera was left facing the sun. But I had an M series rangefinder for a while, and it was an absolute brick. Just kept working.

[Ken Katz]

I read most of the articles in business publication about their bankruptcy back in 2012, but this article is quite good highlighting the different paths forward taken by Kodak and Fuji.  Basically, Fuji understood that the digital imaging business would be substantially different in terms of technology, markets, barriers to entry, and competition compared with the chemical imaging business, for which Kodak and Fuji represented a duopoly.  Fuji determined that the potential digital photo business would not provide the same level of cash flow and profitability, and diversified into non photo businesses where their knowhow would be advantageous.   Kodak spent $ billions in the digital photo business and their operating cash flow continued to dwindle to the point where it could not sustain their debt obligations.

https://petapixel.com/why-kodak-died-and-fujifilm-thrived-a-tale-of-two-film-companies/

 

[JDMvW]

Kodak certainly had lots of internal contradictions in re digital, but they were among the first to produce actual working cameras, and the results and specs were respectable even by current standards.

 

Kodak did not succeed, but I think that had to do more with their pricing and target market than with lack of "will".

[glen_h]

Digital cameras are, pretty much, computers and even computer companies had a

hard time keeping up with Moore's law.

 

I suspect Kodak didn't expect sensors, and also the processors that go along with

them, to drop in price so fast.  It is probably even hard for camera companies.

 

And one result was that most of the camera stores that we used to have closed.

One near me still stocks darkroom supplies and film, but the biggest part of the

store is digital cameras and equipment.

[John Crowe]

I bought a used Nikon DCS PRO SLRn in 2008.  I became familiar with it since my pro friend had one.  While it was insanely expensive new, it was the most affordable way of me getting a full frame at the time.   The D1 had just come out and the 1Ds, still commanded four or five times what I paid.

Part of the reason I believe it was so affordable was that it was already being demolished on the internet for it's aliasing problem.  It was completely overblown and one of the major reasons I think Kodak abandoned any further development.  Today manufacturers are not afraid of a bit of aliasing and are willing to accept it to gain resolution.