View Full Version : kodak sells ccd sensor technology
kmallick
11-07-2011, 14:36
I came across this news that Kodak sold the ccd sensor business today to a private equity firm Platinum Equity. I wonder what future holds for the sensor in the next digital M.
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20111107/BUSINESS/111107038
Wow, things are happening fast!
In a conference call last week with Wall Street analysts, Kodak CEO Antonio M. Perez said the company expects to raise a total of $200 million this year by selling what it called “non-strategic assets.”
When a company that bought photography to the masses and is associated with photography generally in most people's minds sells it's sensor technology as a 'non strategic asset' ... I'm not sure what to think! :confused:
Jamie123
11-07-2011, 14:43
I could be worse. They could discontinue Portra films.
Jamie123
11-07-2011, 14:48
If a company that bought photography to the masses and is associated with photography generally in most people's minds sells it's sensor technology as a 'non strategic asset' ... I'm not sure what to think! :confused:
I suppose it just means they're getting out of the camera business. To be fair, whether or not they make sensors that go in cameras of other brands probably has little impact on what most people associate with Kodak.
NickTrop
11-07-2011, 14:50
When you start chuckin' furniture into the fireplace to keep the fire burnin' because you can't afford to go out and buy firewood, it's never a good sign. Sooner or later you run out of furniture.
So will Kodak become the new Benneton ultimately ... just a name that looks good on a scarf? :D
porktaco
11-07-2011, 14:54
wonder what the R&D budget will be?
Jamie123
11-07-2011, 14:59
So will Kodak become the new Benneton ultimately ... just a name that looks good on a scarf? :D
I assume they're just going to focus on the printer business although I sure hope they keep making film.
sepiareverb
11-07-2011, 15:05
It's over. Selling their best connection to the modern photographic dollar. Better stock up on Tri-X now if ya like it.
And I didn't realise that this had already gone in their 'car boot sale!'
OmniVision Technologies Inc. bought Kodak’s CMOS image sensor assets — namely close to 850 sensor-related patents and patent applications — for $65 million earlier this year.
Exactly. Sad news indeed.
It's over. Selling their best connection to the modern photographic dollar. Better stock up on Tri-X now if ya like it.
I assume they're just going to focus on the printer business although I sure hope they keep making film.
But what makes them think we need Kodak printers over and above Canon or Epson, et. al.? Seems like sensors are just as much today's product as printers. As a consumer I might not know why I need a Kodak printer rather than an Epson. As a manufacturer (if I were one) I might know why I need a Kodak sensor. Hope they know what they are doing.
On a slightly related matter.... I hope Leica can talk Sigma into letting them use that new Foveon sensor in a future M10. That would be one heck of a combo, if Sigma/Foveon has the micro lens know how to make it fly.
And now, back to our Kodak wake :(
BillBingham2
11-07-2011, 15:20
When a company that bought photography to the masses and is associated with photography generally in most people's minds sells it's sensor technology as a 'non strategic asset' ... I'm not sure what to think! :confused:
I'm thinking that you should make sure that none of your family ever go to the same business school as the morons who are running the company into the ground went to.
Chop it up and sell the pieces, makes me very sad.
B2
I can't believe the dummies aren't checking in here at RFF regularly to pick up some advice and possible survival tips for our (whoops-sorry) their future!
What's the problem ... maybe they've had their internet cut off? :p
When you start chuckin' furniture into the fireplace to keep the fire burnin' because you can't afford to go out and buy firewood, it's never a good sign. Sooner or later you run out of furniture.
+1
Sounds like the kind of restructuring move one does prior to calling it a day. Were I Kodak, I would be hitting the singles bars looking for someone to pick up my brand in a buyout. Imagine the sparkle a name like Kodak would lend to Ilford.
Chop it up and sell the pieces, makes me very sad.
B2
Yes, now that you mention it, that could be what they are doing. The old Carl Icahn trick? Isn't that what he did (or does)? Maybe they will sell Tri-X to Ilford.
digitalintrigue
11-07-2011, 15:34
Apple ditched their printer division and the Newton (among other things) when Jobs came back. Look at them now. Sometimes simplifying and focusing on only a few products is required. We'll see if they can pull it off.
Kodak should make film scanners.
That building is on the route I used to take home to the house I owned when I worked for Xerox. I should take a pic with my CCD sensor in my (old) Oly C5050 ... made by Kodak. Not sure I would have predicted X would outlast EK.
I'm buying Ilford film now.
That building is on the route I used to take home to the house I owned when I worked for Xerox. I should take a pic with my CCD sensor in my (old) Oly C5050 ... made by Kodak. Not sure I would have predicted X would outlast EK.
I'm buying Ilford film now.
+1 ... I think quite a few of us are now prepared to wave farewell to EK.
+1 ... I think quite a few of us are now prepared to wave farewell to EK.
I've never been concerned with black and white (assuming I continue to shoot film). Ilford makes stuff I like. I am concerned with colour. The new Portra films are wonderful and I have little confidence in Fuji (but could easily be happy using Fuji).
EK will continue colour films as long as the film industry buys them. After that, it's lights out.
Nikon Bob
11-07-2011, 16:27
When you start chuckin' furniture into the fireplace to keep the fire burnin' because you can't afford to go out and buy firewood, it's never a good sign. Sooner or later you run out of furniture.
Don't worry they know what they are doing. There will be new varieties of movie and still film to compensate for all the burnt furniture.
Bob
All this said, Platinum is no slouch. It could be worse vis-a-vis CCD.
I am likely wrong about this but: I thought their losses were from the "digital" part of their business? And if so, wouldn't it make sense to get rid of those parts?
Rob
celluloidprop
11-07-2011, 16:31
On a slightly related matter.... I hope Leica can talk Sigma into letting them use that new Foveon sensor in a future M10. That would be one heck of a combo, if Sigma/Foveon has the micro lens know how to make it fly.
And now, back to our Kodak wake :(
Will never, in a million years, happen. Even if Foveon sensors were wonder tech, Leica has to go CMOS/CCD to appear 'professional' - and the reality of the times is that high-ISO performance is what the market wants anyway.
The M10 will be a CMOS sensor.
There's a fair few companies out there producing black and white film that show no interest at all in colour. I have used colour and went to the trouble of processing it at home but really can't be bothered now. Digital does colour very accurately and grain has never been something that really adds to a colour image ... well not for me personally! At ten dollars per roll I can live without Portra as nice as it may be.
Like Earl says ... the instant the movei industry stops wanting colour film it's all over for colour film still shooters.
Which is sad and not to be celebrated in any way and doesn't change the fact that Kodak is hasty in getting rid of it's sensor technology! :(
EK will continue colour films as long as the film industry buys them. After that, it's lights out.
From what I understand, the movie industry uses different emulsions and chemistry than what your typical consumer uses, so I can't quite grasp why this argument would be true.
Certainly, not many movies are made using, say, Ektachrome or Velvia, yet these emulsions still exist and must produce a small profit for their makers otherwise they wouldn't exist.
Presumably then, the movie industry is what keeps the production lines running in-between runs of consumer film?
A lot of the underlying technology from movie emulsions is used for still film formulations. Where do you think new-ish emulsions such as Ektar 100, Portra 160 and even TMY-2 have come from?
On the bright side we can expect to see Freestyle with a virtually unlimited supply of generic (not Kodak of course) Arista Premium colour film.
Let's think positively here! :D
Jack Conrad
11-07-2011, 17:12
They should simply return to their roots, open factories in the US and make super fine products for all the millions of technologically disaffected (and cheap) film photographers that are inevitable in the coming brave new future. :D
http://i915.photobucket.com/albums/ac358/jackconrad/Cameras/file-36.jpg
Tom Niblick
11-07-2011, 17:16
The Great Yellow Father helped out with film and paper way back 40 plus years ago when I was in college. He gave me a film processor when I opened my first business and a plate processor a year later. Of course, I've used (literally) tons of Kodak film and plates over the years. However, since going digital I must confess having abandoned him more than a decade ago. Still, I will always have fond memories of the hundreds of books, posters and ads we have created together... not to mention the tens of thousands of photos.
Sniff...
Jack, the Retina was made in Germany...
But if they are selling off the "furniture", maybe RFF could buy Ektar? There are 45,000 registered members here and if we each kicked in about $450, that would be a bit over $20 million...
Trius, you're in Rochester, would you mind organizing this? :D
Rob
I'm sure that tomorrow we'll find out that Kodak has spent the money made from selling the CCD and used it to buy some magic beans.
Rob: Absolutely. I suggest a kick-off dinner with you as chef, me as sommelier ... this can work.
Rob: Absolutely. I suggest a kick-off dinner with you as chef, me as sommelier ... this can work.
Can we fit every one into the Redwings' stadium?
Gotta pour enough so their inhibitions are down but not so much that they can't find their checkbooks!
Rob
Yeah ... we can do this. If the Redwings stadium doesn't work, we'll just take over Highland Park ... or Durand-Eastman, or Genesee ... frack the downers
Steve M.
11-07-2011, 17:53
Their film technology will be bought by someone if they do go belly up. Isn't it made in China now anyway? Doesn't matter to me if the box says Kodak, Lucky or Fuji as long as the emulsion is the same.
No, all the films are made in Rochester. And the emulsion being "the same" doesn't mean that any other factory can achieve the same QA.
Pickett Wilson
11-07-2011, 18:09
"I am likely wrong about this but: I thought their losses were from the "digital" part of their business? And if so, wouldn't it make sense to get rid of those parts?"
Their business these days IS digital. Their film division lost money, too, this last quarter.
Chris101
11-07-2011, 18:16
...
Their business these days IS digital. Their film division lost money, too, this last quarter.
The way they have been wildly amputating it, that is no surprise.
I guess the buyer also gets the new Kodak 16Mp full frame CCD sensor announced at the same time, and also the APS-H sensor, both of which are available as B&W-only sensors .
"The KAI-16070 is available in monochrome, Bayer Color, and TRUESENSE Color Filter Pattern configurations".
Monochrome M9, anyone?
More info:
http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2011/11/kodak-announces-new-ccds-seeks-patents.html
wgerrard
11-08-2011, 04:03
But what makes them think we need Kodak printers over and above Canon or Epson, et. al.? Seems like sensors are just as much today's product as printers. As a consumer I might not know why I need a Kodak printer rather than an Epson. As a manufacturer (if I were one) I might know why I need a Kodak sensor. Hope they know what they are doing.
Their inkjet printer line is actually making money, something that can't be said for film, for example. (I don't know why I need an Epson over a Canon over a Brother over an HP over a Kodak printer, but I do buy one eventually. Printers are commodity products, like toasters.)
Remember, the first job of a corporation like Kodak is to turn a profit, not to manufacture and sell products for emotional reasons. Kodak might have leveraged its reputation into a substantial share of the consumer digital camera market, but it chose not to play in that game, for emotional reasons. As a result, Kodak is threatened with extinction.
Per the Rochester newspaper piece, here are the product lines Kodak hopes to lean on: consumer and commercial inkjet printing, packaging printing and workflow software.
Their business these days IS digital. Their film division lost money, too, this last quarter.
That's wrong, their film and entertainment division was profitable last quarter.
And for all this "doom and gloom" nonsense here about movie film production: All digital movies, yes all, without no exception, are archived on film. Because it is much safer and 10x more cheaper than digital storage.
Recently Fuji released new film stock for this ("Eterna") and Kodak this week officially announced new film type for this application, too.
So even if all films would be made digitally in the future (which is quite unlikely due to some other reasons) there will be film production for the movie industry.
For archival purposes.
The sky is not falling.
Cheers, Jan
semordnilap
11-08-2011, 04:12
Kodak should make film scanners.
They'd need to source the sensors somewhere...
I'm sure that tomorrow we'll find out that Kodak has spent the money made from selling the CCD and used it to buy some magic beans.
..to release new film to have to kill it shortly after, in spirit of Kodak.
Nikon Bob
11-08-2011, 04:43
That's wrong, their film and entertainment division was profitable last quarter.
And for all this "doom and gloom" nonsense here about movie film production: All digital movies, yes all, without no exception, are archived on film. Because it is much safer and 10x more cheaper than digital storage.
Recently Fuji released new film stock for this ("Eterna") and Kodak this week officially announced new film type for this application, too.
So even if all films would be made digitally in the future (which is quite unlikely due to some other reasons) there will be film production for the movie industry.
For archival purposes.
The sky is not falling.
Cheers, Jan
Only one question. If the only future use for film in movies will eventually be to archive a movie, that must still be a miniscule amount compared when to all movies being shot and distributed on film. Will the volume of film use for archival only use be enough to support both Kodak and Fuji in production of movie archival film?
Bob
So will Kodak become the new Benneton ultimately ... just a name that looks good on a scarf? :D
To be honest, I thought that's what the "new" Voigtlander was a number of years ago - when Cosina had purchased the rights to the name (at least that's how I understood it, please correct me if I am in the wrong here). Not slighting Cosina's equipment as I rather enjoy it :) just noting that this occurs frequently with brands I think.
That said, I believe it is about time to stock up on a lot of Kodak film, Xtol, and various other accoutrements.
Cheers,
Dave
Only one question. If the only future use for film in movies will eventually be to archive a movie, that must still be a miniscule amount compared when to all movies being shot and distributed on film. Will the volume of film use for archival only use be enough to support both Kodak and Fuji in production of movie archival film?
Bob
Bob, there are lots of other film products with an excellent future as well:
For example microfilm. Most governments and big industrial companies archive important and sensitive data on microfilm.
Then you have PCB films for the computer industry: All computers have film products in it!
Agfa-Gevaert made an official statement last year that they are coating one million m² of different film products every day!
And coating of film related products is increasing for pharmceutical applications.
There are lots of products, and they all can be coated on the existing coating machines.
By the way, also the RA-4 paper can be coated on these machines (Kodak is still using its Denver plant for RA-4, not Rochester; they could keep running Rochester by transferring RA-4 production to Rochester, if it will be needed in the future).
And the RA-4 market is huge, more than 100 million m² p.a.
Most of the digital snap-shots are printed on RA-4.
The future of the coating plants will be a mixture of niche products (e.g. photo film) and mass products (e.g. PCB films, RA-4 paper, archival film) and new applications (e.g. pharmaceutical applications).
Cheers, Jan
To be honest, I thought that's what the "new" Voigtlander was a number of years ago - when Cosina had purchased the rights to the name (at least that's how I understood it, please correct me if I am in the wrong here).
Cheers,
Dave
AFAIK the rights on the "Voigtländer" name belong to the German photo chain "Ringfoto". And they are cooperating with Cosina.
Cheers, Jan
AFAIK the rights on the "Voigtländer" name belong to the German photo chain "Ringfoto". And they are cooperating with Cosina.
Cheers, Jan
Ahh.. ok, thank you :) .. all the same, it's not the "same" camera as the original brand - I wonder how people would feel about that if it were the Leica brand... but that's a topic for another thread :)
Cheers,
Dave
elmer3.5
11-08-2011, 06:18
Wow, hope we don´t get a nasty Xmas present like kodak out of business card!
Quoting the words of the first answer to yhis post:
Things are happenig fast!
Bye!
wgerrard
11-08-2011, 06:50
Wow, hope we don´t get a nasty Xmas present like kodak out of business card!
Kodak wants to sell off a few things like its sensor capacity and about 1000 patents to raise money. Their cash balance is below $1 billion.
Whether or not their film lines are making money, I don't recall seeing anything from Kodak indicating they're marketing them. Whether or not they might do that is anyone's guess, really. Whether or not anyone would buy them is a bigger guess.
All that would change if Kodak actually filed for bankruptcy. Even then, though, there are different kinds of bankruptcy.
Jamie123
11-08-2011, 07:16
But what makes them think we need Kodak printers over and above Canon or Epson, et. al.? Seems like sensors are just as much today's product as printers. As a consumer I might not know why I need a Kodak printer rather than an Epson. As a manufacturer (if I were one) I might know why I need a Kodak sensor. Hope they know what they are doing.
AFAIK Kodak's somewhat unique business model regarding printers is that they charge more for the actual devices and sell cheaper ink instead of subsidising the printers with ink sales. In the long run it's probably more economical so I suppose it's a good buy for people who aren't as influenced by the photography community's focus on Canon and Epson printers.
shadowfox
11-08-2011, 11:21
I can't believe the dummies aren't checking in here at RFF regularly to pick up some advice and possible survival tips for our (whoops-sorry) their future!
What's the problem ... maybe they've had their internet cut off? :p
That comment reminds me of a blurb in a photo-book I saw recently, something along the lines of :
"No wonder our government in Washington are in shambles, those who knew all about running a country are apparently busy cutting hair or driving taxis"
:D:D
shadowfox
11-08-2011, 11:27
One thing we don't see is the top executives saying: "We'll cut 100% of our wages and bonuses for the coming 5 years to save the company"
Will we?
rogerzilla
11-08-2011, 11:31
Is there really any money in the inkjet business? I thought it all got commoditised five years ago, just as PCs did before that.
Kodak should sell the still film business to Maco or, better, Leica.
nonuniform
11-08-2011, 12:21
Kodak sells the ccd business to finance the foray into printers. Printers are a dying business. Maybe that's their strategy, corner the market on dead products.
I am in Business sales, seems to me Kodak is selling what is saleable and what they can get actual CASH for and it seems like the extra bonus is that these are the most costly divisions relating to R&D. The recession means numerous businesses throughout the world are returning lower profits and all have to make decisions on how to survive in current times. Kodak has to do something or they will fail. Not saying I agree with future direction they might be taking but if they do nothing they fail. If they sell of assets to reduce debt they have at least a "possibility" of saving the company. If they did nothing and failed I am sure there would just as much of an outcry as there is now about them selling of assets.
I think they should use some of that cash to embark on a serious advertising campaign for film and see if they can cut into the digital market!
:D
jsrockit
11-08-2011, 12:43
I think they should use some of that cash to embark on a serious advertising campaign for film and see if they can cut into the digital market!
:D
That would be a good way to lose cash... ;)
nonuniform
11-08-2011, 12:45
Totally agree that divestiture is an important part of managing the business. I question the decision to sell the CCD business to finance printers. Yes, CCD technology is an expensive R&D effort, but the upside for licensing is much greater than trying to compete in a very mature volume business where innovation is largely dead.
I am in Business sales, seems to me Kodak is selling what is saleable and what they can get actual CASH for and it seems like the extra bonus is that these are the most costly divisions relating to R&D. The recession means numerous businesses throughout the world are returning lower profits and all have to make decisions on how to survive in current times. Kodak has to do something or they will fail. Not saying I agree with future direction they might be taking but if they do nothing they fail. If they sell of assets to reduce debt they have at least a "possibility" of saving the company. If they did nothing and failed I am sure there would just as much of an outcry as there is now about them selling of assets.
That would be a good way to lose cash... ;)
At least they'd be going down fighting and would earn our total respect! :D
sounds to me same when farmer starts shooting his cows. he eats well for a while, but then nothing.
Nikon Bob
11-08-2011, 12:52
One thing we don't see is the top executives saying: "We'll cut 100% of our wages and bonuses for the coming 5 years to save the company"
Will we?
That particular group in society do not seem to lead by example but expect everyone else to take the hits. Used to be that royalty though that they had "the divine right of kings".
Bob
Never met anybody in my life who would be happy to work for free though.
buzzardkid
11-08-2011, 13:07
Still hoping for Kodak to return to their roots and concentrate on printing, scanning (!?) and film. They'd be stupid to ditch it all after developing new emulsions, having sales channels and a brand name to kill for.
That sensor business sale might give them some funds to R&D printing and scanning.
Fingers crossed.
Related: I'll be developing my first Tri-X @800 soon. See if I like it!
I am in Business sales, seems to me Kodak is selling what is saleable and what they can get actual CASH for and it seems like the extra bonus is that these are the most costly divisions relating to R&D. The recession means numerous businesses throughout the world are returning lower profits and all have to make decisions on how to survive in current times. Kodak has to do something or they will fail. Not saying I agree with future direction they might be taking but if they do nothing they fail. If they sell of assets to reduce debt they have at least a "possibility" of saving the company. If they did nothing and failed I am sure there would just as much of an outcry as there is now about them selling of assets.
I think you're right - they are selling what they can get cash for right away.
There is a thought - if they manage to sell their chemical production, film and paper, basically everything that used to define them, and "survive"...would you care if the company name is not dead (making iPhone covers or printers or whatever)?
wish buyer had been Leica. they are using Kodak's sensors, and now might have similar uncertainty than with DMR's Imacon sensor.
I Love Film
11-08-2011, 13:20
Fiddling while Rome burns:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Kodak_spends_14m_on_private_jets_to_Vegas__news_31 0335.html
Viktor Sebastian
11-08-2011, 13:37
Fiddling while Rome burns:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Kodak_spends_14m_on_private_jets_to_Vegas__news_31 0335.html
What? There is a global recession going on?
What? There is a global recession going on?
Only for you, me and the poor b*****ds that worked for this suit.
I'm yet so see a high level executive cut down on anything, because the times are tough...
hendriphile
11-08-2011, 13:50
I wonder how people would feel about that if it were the Leica brand... but that's a topic for another thread :)
Cheers,
Dave
Now you're talking... a "Leica M" assembled in China with a sensor made in Taipei!
Nikon Bob
11-08-2011, 15:24
Never met anybody in my life who would be happy to work for free though.
Well, I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that senior execs work for nothing. What grinds on most people is how much the wage gap has increased over 30 years between the shop floor worker and the execs. If the change actually is anything like in this article http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2011/08/11/why-ceo-to-worker-pay-ratios-matter-to-investors/ you really have to wonder on what planet that is justifiable and are you really getting good value for your money at the executive level if you invest in a company.
Bob
Kodak sells the ccd business to finance the foray into printers. Printers are a dying business. Maybe that's their strategy, corner the market on dead products.
I believe the focus is on digital presses, a whole different class than desktop printers. That's definitely not a dying business.
Tim Cook (Apple): I'm thinking printers! (http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-apple-ceo-tim-cook-im-thinking-printers,21207/)
Jamie123
11-09-2011, 00:46
There is a thought - if they manage to sell their chemical production, film and paper, basically everything that used to define them, and "survive"...would you care if the company name is not dead (making iPhone covers or printers or whatever)?
I think it's safe to assume that no one here cares much about the Kodak brand name if that was the only thing to remain. It's quite simple. Most people here care about Kodak's film business.* Once they give up film no one's going to be bothered much with the demise of Kodak.
*(Sure, some might be worried about the implications this ccd tech sale has for digital Leica cameras but I think we all know they can find a sensor elsewhere. Leica's not going to close up shop just because Kodak doesn't do ccds anymore)
noimmunity
11-09-2011, 01:21
The M10 will be a CMOS sensor.
This may well assure a cult status for the M9 and even the M8.
myM8yogi
11-09-2011, 03:26
What does this mean for Leica servicing M8 and M9 sensors????
Sure Leica can use a CMOS sensor for the M10.... Sure Kodak can find another business to concentrate on, or maybe they will fold.... What I want to know is how will Leica find the spare parts to service M9s and M8s if their former supply agreement is no longer valid and the new owner chooses not to sell to Leica or decides to charge too much?
You can bet your a$$ that the new owner got all the patent rights to those beautiful curved CCD sensors and will be making sure that other sensor manufaturers don't produce them (even if they have the technological capability and financial motivation).
It's all very well Leica spouting on about how they used standard off-the-shelf components for their digital Ms to ensure long term availability of replacement parts; and at the same time they brag about how the sensor is a technological marvel produced in collaboration with a unique partner. Spot the weak link in the chain?
[Very big sigh of sorrow and despair]
Viktor Sebastian
11-09-2011, 03:55
This may well assure a cult status for the M9 and even the M8.
Why? Because they have inferior color and more noise?
Jamie123
11-09-2011, 03:56
What does this mean for Leica servicing M8 and M9 sensors????
Sure Leica can use a CMOS sensor for the M10.... Sure Kodak can find another business to concentrate on, or maybe they will fold.... What I want to know is how will Leica find the spare parts to service M9s and M8s if their former supply agreement is no longer valid and the new owner chooses not to sell to Leica or decides to charge too much?
You can bet your a$$ that the new owner got all the patent rights to those beautiful curved CCD sensors and will be making sure that other sensor manufaturers don't produce them (even if they have the technological capability and financial motivation).
It's all very well Leica spouting on about how they used standard off-the-shelf components for their digital Ms to ensure long term availability of replacement parts; and at the same time they brag about how the sensor is a technological marvel produced in collaboration with a unique partner. Spot the weak link in the chain?
[Very big sigh of sorrow and despair]
I don't see any reason for sorrow or despair. Firstly, if the new owner continues to make CCD sensors it would certainly make sense for them to service the customers they already have. Secondly, "What if they decide to charge too much?" Leica products or their repair fees have never been known to be cheap. So maybe it'll get more expensive. People who want it will still get it.
Thirdly, if replacing the CCD in a M8 or M9 will not be possible, Leica will simply offer a trade-in upgrade to the newest models. Don't like the newer model? Just too bad.
jsrockit
11-09-2011, 04:15
What does this mean for Leica servicing M8 and M9 sensors????
I'm sure Leica has them stocked up...
Why? Because they have inferior color and more noise?
I don't think you are quite correct on this At base ISO color and image quality are far superior.
^--- I don't think that that word, "far," means what you think it means. It does not mean "incrementally."
^--- I don't think that that word, "far," means what you think it means. It does not mean "incrementally."
:D:D
..........
Having used Olympus 4/3 since the advent of Oly's first pro digital, I still have my E-1 5MP Kodak sensor. In addition my most current OLY kodak sensored DSLR is the European Distro Oly E400 with the Kodak 10 Mp sensor (last kodak for OLY and the only one since the E500.
While the E5 seems a fine offering from OLY, it's color rendition is still only a close second ( or is that an incremental second ) to the E-400 Kodak sensor.
My current keepers are:
E1 Oly
E400 Oly
Fuji S5 Pro
Fuji GL690 w/65 and 100mm lenses
Fuji G690
Home Made Mamiya w/ 75mm Mamiya Sekor Press w/ Linhof 4X5 Graflok back.
Graflex Super Graphic Lite 4X5
With the direction Olympus and Kodak both seem headed, it would be a major coup if the same people bought the Oly camera division and the Kodak sensor division.
They could then proceed to Ass-Whoop most others in the Digital Camera market. IMEO!!
Viktor Sebastian
11-09-2011, 11:52
I don't think you are quite correct on this At base ISO color and image quality are far superior.
Well to each their own. I was just doing a test with the 5D mark 2 and the M8 and the 5d is better at all isos. Absolutely no question. I can even send you the files if you insist.
Being argumentative and trolling on the internet is fun ;)
jsrockit
11-09-2011, 12:10
Well to each their own. I was just doing a test with the 5D mark 2 and the M8 and the 5d is better at all isos. Absolutely no question. I can even send you the files if you insist.
Being argumentative and trolling on the internet is fun ;)
Better with regard to what?
cosmonaut
11-09-2011, 12:54
On a slightly related matter.... I hope Leica can talk Sigma into letting them use that new Foveon sensor in a future M10. That would be one heck of a combo, if Sigma/Foveon has the micro lens know how to make it fly.
And now, back to our Kodak wake :(
Have you read the reviews of Sigmas over priced DSLRs? Maybe you should. I for one would rather Leica go to Sony. They make the best sensors on the market, period.
I think Sigma would be an over priced mistake.
Andy Andrews
11-09-2011, 13:02
If Platinum Equity can't make a go of it, Leica will be in a precarious spot. 48 hours after Kodak's sale of their Sensors Solution Division, I called Tech Support at Leica USA and they had no word on how this event might play out. I was considering going to an M9 but now plan on keeping my trusty M6 for a few more years.
Viktor Sebastian
11-09-2011, 13:58
Better with regard to what?
Colour, noise, detail (obviously) and the ability to extract information from the files. Some call the last aspect dynamic range. The higher the iso the more obvious the difference is.
But I mean cmon, we are talking a full fame cmos sensor with twice the megapixels that is 2 years younger versus a crop sensor! Would anyone expect anything else??
Don’t get me wrong. I like the M8. I use mine everyday, but when it is gone I won’t be missing its sensor performance or lack thereof.
cosmonaut
11-09-2011, 14:31
Well I think the company that bought the sensor didn't intend to stop producing the Kodak sensor. Maybe more as a growing investment. But certainly not to kill it off.
http://www.ovt.com/products/
dave lackey
11-09-2011, 14:56
Well to each their own. I was just doing a test with the 5D mark 2 and the M8 and the 5d is better at all isos. Absolutely no question. I can even send you the files if you insist.
Being argumentative and trolling on the internet is fun ;)
No, it is not.
infrequent
11-09-2011, 15:57
Apple ditched their printer division and the Newton (among other things) when Jobs came back. Look at them now. Sometimes simplifying and focusing on only a few products is required. We'll see if they can pull it off.
Apple sold those businesses because they were: 1) not profitable 2) not their core business going forward. Making digital sensors for cameras is not a core business for kodak? Atleast they stand out in that business while in the printer game they will be another "me too" company.
infrequent
11-09-2011, 16:07
This may well assure a cult status for the M9 and even the M8.
LOL..like they weren't already. :P
RObert Budding
11-09-2011, 16:48
. . . It's all very well Leica spouting on about how they used standard off-the-shelf components for their digital Ms to ensure long term availability of replacement parts; and at the same time they brag about how the sensor is a technological marvel produced in collaboration with a unique partner. Spot the weak link in the chain?
[Very big sigh of sorrow and despair]
No worries - Leica can just substitute in another off-the-shelf component. But this time they should choose something that will be produced in high volume. I hear the new sensor in the iPhone is pretty good . . .
I think that their patents are where their value lies. I read somewhere that they have claims against all the major cellular makers and they have their patent lawyers packaging patents up for sale. My thoughts are we might all be better off if they sold their film assets to a stand alone organisation that only made film. Seen it 100 times before where a company with multiple income streams is pulled down by one under performing arm.
I think that their patents are where their value lies.
Not any more (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74YLwinLT7M).
wgerrard
11-10-2011, 04:06
Apple sold those businesses because they were: 1) not profitable 2) not their core business going forward. Making digital sensors for cameras is not a core business for kodak? Atleast they stand out in that business while in the printer game they will be another "me too" company.
It seems unlikely that Kodak has its own Steve Jobs waiting in the wings to come back and rescue the company.
I doubt Kodak cares whether it's seen as a "me too" company so long as it makes money. Sentimentality should have no place in their plans.
Kodak is a very old company that failed to move where the market moved. It isn't the first. Stores and business all over the world used to use cash registers made by National Cash Register. When people started buying electronic machines to replace the mechanical devices. National Cash Register kept its head stuck in the sand. Then, it vanished.
rogerzilla
11-10-2011, 07:17
National Cash Register kept its head stuck in the sand. Then, it vanished.
Erm...
http://www.ncr.com/
They make most of the ATMs used in the UK.
wgerrard
11-10-2011, 07:24
Erm...
http://www.ncr.com/
They make most of the ATMs used in the UK.
Well, I stand corrected. They certainly vanished from my home town, where they were much as Kodak was to Rochester.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.