Kodak DX6490 Why does Kodak not support external filters?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Info, Nov 16, 2003.

  1. Info

    Info Guest

    --
    ..
    Info, Nov 16, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Info

    Ron Hunter Guest

    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.
    Ron Hunter, Nov 16, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Info

    ArtKramr Guest

    >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
    ArtKramr, Nov 16, 2003
    #3
  4. Info

    Paul H. Guest

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

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


    Why do lame horses never win races?
    Paul H., Nov 17, 2003
    #4
  5. Info

    LHBanchik Guest

    >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, Nov 17, 2003
    #5
  6. Info

    Paul H. Guest

    "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.
    Paul H., Nov 17, 2003
    #6
  7. Info

    ArtKramr Guest

    >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$>
    >
    >
    >"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, Nov 17, 2003
    #7
  8. Info

    Paul H. Guest

    "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$>
    > >
    > >
    > >"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.
    Paul H., Nov 18, 2003
    #8
  9. Info

    ArtKramr Guest

    >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$>
    >
    >
    >"ArtKramr" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> >Subject: Re: Kodak DX6490 Why does Kodak not support external filters?
    >> >From: "Paul H."
    >> >Date: 11/17/03 9:26 AM Pacific Standard Time
    >> >Message-id: <9x7ub.5044$>
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >"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, Nov 18, 2003
    #9
  10. Info

    Paul H. Guest

    "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.
    Paul H., Nov 18, 2003
    #10
  11. Info

    ArtKramr Guest

    >Subject: Re: Kodak DX6490 Why does Kodak not support external filters?
    >From: "Paul H."
    >Date: 11/18/03 9:19 AM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id:


    >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.
    >
    >
    >


    It is a new world unfolding. Let's wait and see how it unfolds.

    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, Nov 18, 2003
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. MichelB

    Anybody using external Flash with the Kodak dx6490

    MichelB, Nov 28, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    487
    MichelB
    Dec 1, 2003
  2. zxcvar

    Kodak Dx6490 and Vivitar 6490 external flash

    zxcvar, Jul 25, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    660
    Ron Baird
    Jul 26, 2004
  3. zxcvar

    For Mr. Ron Baird - Dx6490 and External Flash

    zxcvar, Jul 25, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    321
    zxcvar
    Jul 25, 2004
  4. kensplace
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    346
    Ron Hunter
    Oct 10, 2005
  5. Jamie Kahn Genet
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    480
    Steve B
    Sep 28, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page