«

--
..

Good question, but I have no good answer. Perhaps they don't plan this
camera to be part of a similar series, or intend later ones to have a
different lens configuration. Perhaps third parties will fill your needs.

>Subject: Re: Kodak DX6490 Why does Kodak not support external filters?
>From: Ron Hunter
>Date: 11/16/03 3:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <>
>
>
>
>Good question, but I have no good answer. Perhaps they don't plan this
>camera to be part of a similar series, or intend later ones to have a
>different lens configuration. Perhaps third parties will fill your needs.

If you want to add a filter, buy one and slap it on. What's the problem?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"Info" <> wrote in message
news:NPRtb.1143$ ...

>> Re: Kodak DX6490 Why does Kodak not support external filters?

Why do lame horses never win races?

>Why do lame horses never win races?

You mean like Seabiscuit?
Mr. Cole's Axiom: The sum of the intelligence of the planet is a constant.
The population is increasing.

"LHBanchik" <> wrote in message
news:...
> >Why do lame horses never win races?
>
> You mean like Seabiscuit?
> Mr. Cole's Axiom: The sum of the intelligence of the planet is a
constant.
> The population is increasing.

Perhaps. Certainly your own nonsensical and ill-conceived reply lends
credence to Mr. Cole's axiom; however, unlike Kodak, Seabiscuit did not come
out of the gate lame.

>Subject: Re: Kodak DX6490 Why does Kodak not support external filters?
>From: "Paul H."
>Date: 11/17/03 9:26 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <9x7ub.5044$. net>
>
>
>"LHBanchik" <> wrote in message
>news:...
>> >Why do lame horses never win races?
>>
>> You mean like Seabiscuit?
>> Mr. Cole's Axiom: The sum of the intelligence of the planet is a
>constant.
>> The population is increasing.
>
>Perhaps. Certainly your own nonsensical and ill-conceived reply lends
>credence to Mr. Cole's axiom; however, unlike Kodak, Seabiscuit did not come
>out of the gate lame.
>
>
>

The death of Kodak has been grossly exaggerated. In fact many who predicted the
demise of Kodak are themselves no longer here.





Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" <> wrote in message
news:...
> >Subject: Re: Kodak DX6490 Why does Kodak not support external filters?
> >From: "Paul H."
> >Date: 11/17/03 9:26 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <9x7ub.5044$. net>
> >
> >
> >"LHBanchik" <> wrote in message
> >news:...
> >> >Why do lame horses never win races?
> >>
> >> You mean like Seabiscuit?
> >> Mr. Cole's Axiom: The sum of the intelligence of the planet is a
> >constant.
> >> The population is increasing.
> >
> >Perhaps. Certainly your own nonsensical and ill-conceived reply lends
> >credence to Mr. Cole's axiom; however, unlike Kodak, Seabiscuit did not
come
> >out of the gate lame.
> >
> >
> >
>
> The death of Kodak has been grossly exaggerated. In fact many who
predicted the
> demise of Kodak are themselves no longer here.
>

I don't think Kodak is dead yet, nor did I mean to imply such a thing-- I
was commenting on the DX6490 *solely*. Kodak has always had the potential
to be a great digital camera manufacturer, but unfortunately their
marketing/sales people always seem to win out over their engineers, and
that's the reason behind my "lame horse" remark. With just a little extra
effort on the DX6490, Kodak could have competed aggressively against Nikon,
Olympus, et. al., but by leaving out small features such as standardized
lens threads, they have kissed the enthusiast market goodbye.

While digital camera enthusiasts don't necessarily make up the largest
portion of the digital camera market, they are very vocal and tend to set
the demand for particular features. Every time I've been in the market for
a new camera, for example, I've looked at Kodak, but with exception of my
DC-120 purchase nearly six years ago, I've always walked away from Kodak
after reaching the "if only..." stage in my buying decision. Other
knowledgeable amateur photographers I've talked with have said much the same
thing regarding purchasing Kodak non-professional equipment.

Certainly it's imprudent to blindly reject a camera based solely on
name-brand prejudice, but it's equally wrong-headed to stick with a
particular manufacturer out of some misguided sense of loyalty. A
relationship with a camera company (or any other business, for that matter)
should be conducted on a rational quid-pro-quo basis, not on warm, fuzzy
feelings on the consumer's part: I can guarantee the latter are not
reciprocated.

>Subject: Re: Kodak DX6490 Why does Kodak not support external filters?
>From: "Paul H."
>Date: 11/17/03 5:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <1Ieub.7176$. net>
>
>
>"ArtKramr" <> wrote in message
>news:...
>> >Subject: Re: Kodak DX6490 Why does Kodak not support external filters?
>> >From: "Paul H."
>> >Date: 11/17/03 9:26 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <9x7ub.5044$. net>
>> >
>> >
>> >"LHBanchik" <> wrote in message
>> >news:...
>> >> >Why do lame horses never win races?
>> >>
>> >> You mean like Seabiscuit?
>> >> Mr. Cole's Axiom: The sum of the intelligence of the planet is a
>> >constant.
>> >> The population is increasing.
>> >
>> >Perhaps. Certainly your own nonsensical and ill-conceived reply lends
>> >credence to Mr. Cole's axiom; however, unlike Kodak, Seabiscuit did not
>come
>> >out of the gate lame.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> The death of Kodak has been grossly exaggerated. In fact many who
>predicted the
>> demise of Kodak are themselves no longer here.
>>
>
>I don't think Kodak is dead yet, nor did I mean to imply such a thing-- I
>was commenting on the DX6490 *solely*. Kodak has always had the potential
>to be a great digital camera manufacturer, but unfortunately their
>marketing/sales people always seem to win out over their engineers, and
>that's the reason behind my "lame horse" remark. With just a little extra
>effort on the DX6490, Kodak could have competed aggressively against Nikon,
>Olympus, et. al., but by leaving out small features such as standardized
>lens threads, they have kissed the enthusiast market goodbye.
>
>While digital camera enthusiasts don't necessarily make up the largest
>portion of the digital camera market, they are very vocal and tend to set
>the demand for particular features. Every time I've been in the market for
>a new camera, for example, I've looked at Kodak, but with exception of my
>DC-120 purchase nearly six years ago, I've always walked away from Kodak
>after reaching the "if only..." stage in my buying decision. Other
>knowledgeable amateur photographers I've talked with have said much the same
>thing regarding purchasing Kodak non-professional equipment.
>
>Certainly it's imprudent to blindly reject a camera based solely on
>name-brand prejudice, but it's equally wrong-headed to stick with a
>particular manufacturer out of some misguided sense of loyalty. A
>relationship with a camera company (or any other business, for that matter)
>should be conducted on a rational quid-pro-quo basis, not on warm, fuzzy
>feelings on the consumer's part: I can guarantee the latter are not
>reciprocated.
>

Seems llike there is great interest in Kodak these days. In talking to dealers
I would guess that Kodak outsells Nikon at least 25 to one. And growing.
Stores like Frye's don't even carry Nikon but sell a lot of Kodak. My money is
on Kodak to eventually dominate the mass market based on price/ value ratios.
Your mileage may vary.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" <> wrote in message
news:...

<<snip>>
>
> Seems llike there is great interest in Kodak these days. In talking to
dealers
> I would guess that Kodak outsells Nikon at least 25 to one. And growing.
> Stores like Frye's don't even carry Nikon but sell a lot of Kodak. My
money is
> on Kodak to eventually dominate the mass market based on price/ value
ratios.
> Your mileage may vary.
>
> Arthur Kramer

I think we're debating apples and oranges, Arthur. You may well be right
that Kodak will come to dominate the mass market for digital cameras, in the
same way that Casio dominates the electronic calculator market--inexpensive,
easy-to-use, almost disposable products sold in bubble-packs at drugstores.
That's fine and it may indicate Kodak is a good place for an investor to put
his money.

Business considerations aside, however, many people like me are interested
in reasonably-priced cameras that are feature-rich, have good optics, and
which may be used to take high-quality photographs. When I was a kid, I had
a Kodak Instamatic and it was fine for snapshots, but as I grew older and my
interest in photography expanded, I moved to a 35mm SLR; I can scarcely tell
you how disappointed I was at the time that Kodak, whose products I had
always used, didn't even bother to compete against the European and Asian
companies who were producing fine 35mm SLR's in droves. Instead, Kodak
continued to make consumer-type cameras which relied more on marketing flash
than functionality for their success. Oh, Kodak gradually switched the
format of their consumer-targeted media from 110 to 35mm, but it was almost
as if they thought it was the 35mm form-factor people wanted, not the
features of an SLR. In the 1960's Kodak was a photography hardware god, but
by the 1980's its stature had declined to that of hotdog vendor at the base
of Mt. Olympus, as far as photography enthusiasts were concerned.

While Kodak did (and does) produce high-quality film, its failure to compete
at a high level in the consumer camera marketplace has allowed companies
such as Fuji to funnel capital from their successful hardware lines over to
the media sides of their businesses, letting them successfully compete with
Kodak in that arena as well. Kodak has never been able to deal very well
with competition, nor does the company seem to understand that a holistic
approach across product lines is needed to maintain leadership. I truly
believe that to be a true industry leader in the future, Kodak needs to
produce a solid, semi-pro line of digital cameras in addition to their
mass-marketed devices.

Innovation, not enervation, I guess you could say.