[pure-silver] Re: Kodak Film

  • From: Sauerwald Mark <mark_sauerwald@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 04:33:54 -0800 (PST)

I hesitate to dive into this very off topic
discussion, and so I will put in one comment, and then
shut up.

I would disagree about the mass marketing of larger
image sensors.  For the consumer a FF (35mm) sensor is
not necessarily an attribute.  A smaller size sensor
allows them to have greater depth of field, which
means that the kids will be in focus more often, a
smaller physical size camera and better optics per $
spent.  Pros and serious amateurs will be interested
in larger sensors for lower noise, greater light
gathering capacity etc, but for the average consumer,
cost, size and sharp focus are more important than the
lower noise and faster speeds.

--- afterswift@xxxxxxx wrote:

>   Hi Everyone,
>  
>  Re digital, I think the last big bite in the
> consumer wallet will be the marketing of Full Frame
> 35mm digitals at the end of this year. We film
> people know all about FF because we use it all the
> time. So what else is new? Canon got the drop on
> Nikon et al with their 5D FF, which folks are crazy
> about, particularly pro's.
>  
>  If R&D people inside or outside Kodak could deliver
> film that is easy and fast to develop and print,
> digital will not monopolize photography. Kodak has
> been sleeping on this front for almost 100 years.
> They got a rude awakening. 
>  
>  Bob
>     
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: zentena@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>  To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  Sent: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 3:37 PM
>  Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Kodak Film
>  
>   On Wednesday 07 February 2007 18:04, Mark
> Blackwell wrote:
> 
> >
> > I greatly appreciated that kind of help and
> support companies that have
> > that attitude toward customer service.
> >
> 
>        I think this would the sort of stuff that
> would disappear if somebody 
> did a leveraged buyout of the film division. That
> plus any products that 
> din't make money. I'm sure Kodak still has the odd
> item that isn't cash flow 
> positive.
>   
> >
> > Personally I don't see the end of film anytime
> soon.  Just as digital gets
> > better and better, film can too if research and
> development continues.  Who
> > knows, there may be a process just over the
> horzion that is cheap, uses
> >
> 
>     Supposedly digital camera sales **dropped** 3%
> last year. Look at things 
> like 
> the Nikon D40 or the Pentax 100[Or is it 110?].
> They're being forced to drop 
> prices. I can't see a big push for digital R&D. The
> market has already 
> matured. The big question is how much damage will
> the non-camera cameras 
> cause? Cellphone cameras,video cameras etc. Many
> people find those good 
> enough still cameras. Camera sales weren't robust
> prior to digital. All 
> digital did was create an new cycle that may already
> be over.
> 
>     Nick
>
=============================================================================================================
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to
> www.freelists.org and logon to your account 
> (the same e-mail address and password you set-up
> when you subscribed,) and 
> unsubscribe from there.
>    
>
________________________________________________________________________
> Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of
> free safety and security tools, free access to
> millions of high-quality videos from across the web,
> free AOL Mail and more.
> 



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never Miss an Email
Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile.  Get started!
http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your 
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) 
and unsubscribe from there.

Other related posts: