«

Hebee Jeebes wrote:
> No I insult Kodak for thinking that people don't know any better. For years
> Kodak put plastic lenses in their cameras, they didn't think their customers
> deserved glass. Kodak has always put out the bottom of the link cameras and
> because of all of the marketing speak most consumers don't know any better.
> Most still don't know the difference between optical zoom and digital zoom
> and Kodak prays on that.
>
> Don't get me wrong I like the V610, but it isn't what I would call a medium
> or high end camera. Kodak tends to go the Microsoft Office Paperclip route
> for things. They want it cute and cuddly instead of good and powerful.
>
> R

Kodak services a specific market segment, and does it well. On can't
put expensive glass in an inexpensive consumer camera and expect to
continue in business. There are other companies that cater to those
other market segments, and do it well. Because you prefer the other
market segments, and have little use for the cheaper cameras, doesn't
mean Kodak isn't doing the job they have chosen well. In fact, I have
found that they do this well, and have for at least the 55 years I have
been actively taking pictures. I have owned many Kodak cameras and have
found all of them to work as advertised (some much better than
expected), and have never had a problem with ANY of them. Yes, they
cater to a market segment that isn't knowledgeable, but do you contend
that people who don't know, or care, what shutter priority, or depth of
field are have no right to cameras? Seems a rather egocentric attitude,
don't you think?

Ron Hunter wrote:
>
> Hebee Jeebes wrote:
> > No I insult Kodak for thinking that people don't know any better. For years
> > Kodak put plastic lenses in their cameras, they didn't think their customers
> > deserved glass. Kodak has always put out the bottom of the link cameras and
> > because of all of the marketing speak most consumers don't know any better.
> > Most still don't know the difference between optical zoom and digital zoom
> > and Kodak prays on that.
> >
> > Don't get me wrong I like the V610, but it isn't what I would call a medium
> > or high end camera. Kodak tends to go the Microsoft Office Paperclip route
> > for things. They want it cute and cuddly instead of good and powerful.
> >
> > R
>
> Kodak services a specific market segment, and does it well. On can't
> put expensive glass in an inexpensive consumer camera and expect to
> continue in business. There are other companies that cater to those
> other market segments, and do it well. Because you prefer the other
> market segments, and have little use for the cheaper cameras, doesn't
> mean Kodak isn't doing the job they have chosen well. In fact, I have
> found that they do this well, and have for at least the 55 years I have
> been actively taking pictures. I have owned many Kodak cameras and have
> found all of them to work as advertised (some much better than
> expected), and have never had a problem with ANY of them. Yes, they
> cater to a market segment that isn't knowledgeable, but do you contend
> that people who don't know, or care, what shutter priority, or depth of
> field are have no right to cameras? Seems a rather egocentric attitude,
> don't you think?


Hello, Ron:

All mainstream digicam manufacturers, "cater to a market segment that
isn't knowledgeable," more or less. Even Canon and Nikon churn out
endless point & shoot models, as they're probably both companies'
"meat-and-potatoes," while DSLR's are most likely their "gravy."

Unfortunately, I doubt that anybody will ever convince those
close-minded, "Hebee Jeebes" types of cynics, that Kodak has done the
best job of capturing (pun intended) the P&S market, traditionally.

First, it was film, and now, it's digital. Kodak all the way, baby! <g>


Cordially,
John Turco <>

Lou Diamond Phillips Couldnt have said it better.........!


> First, it was film, and now, it's digital. Kodak all the way, baby! <g>
>
>
> Cordially,
> John Turco <>