Kodak's new CMOS camera

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by C J Campbell, Jul 25, 2007.

  1. C J Campbell

    C J Campbell Guest

    This is interesting.

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0707/07072501kodakc513.asp

    It seems we are seeing a sea change here. Granted the camera's specs
    are pedestrian, but it does make you wonder what is just around the
    corner.
    --
    Waddling Eagle
    World Famous Flight Instructor
     
    C J Campbell, Jul 25, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. C J Campbell

    ASAAR Guest

    On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:23:51 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

    > This is interesting.
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0707/07072501kodakc513.asp
    >
    > It seems we are seeing a sea change here. Granted the camera's specs
    > are pedestrian, but it does make you wonder what is just around the
    > corner.


    Umm, the same 1/2.5" sensor, but with 10mp instead of 5mp? :)

    It would be nice if their new sensor technology delivers what
    DPReview and Kodak's press release suggests.
     
    ASAAR, Jul 25, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. C J Campbell

    Jim Guest

    "C J Campbell" <> wrote in message
    news:2007072508235150073-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
    > This is interesting.
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0707/07072501kodakc513.asp
    >
    > It seems we are seeing a sea change here. Granted the camera's specs are
    > pedestrian, but it does make you wonder what is just around the corner.
    > --
    > Waddling Eagle
    > World Famous Flight Instructor
    >

    Or, yet another failed Kodak product.
    They do make some very good products for the astronomy folks.
    Jim
     
    Jim, Jul 25, 2007
    #3
  4. C J Campbell

    sw2U Guest

    In article <2007072508235150073-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>,
    says...
    > This is interesting.
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0707/07072501kodakc513.asp
    >
    > It seems we are seeing a sea change here. Granted the camera's specs
    > are pedestrian, but it does make you wonder what is just around the
    > corner.
    >


    No optical viewfinder. Ugh.

    Next, no LCD screen. Just point and hope for the best.

    Also, I'm wondering how the introduction of this $99 camera squares
    with Kodak CEO's announcement of a few weeks ago that his company
    is getting out of the low-end digicam field.

    --
    sw2U
     
    sw2U, Jul 26, 2007
    #4
  5. sw2U wrote:
    > In article <2007072508235150073-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>,
    > says...
    >> This is interesting.
    >>
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0707/07072501kodakc513.asp
    >>
    >> It seems we are seeing a sea change here. Granted the camera's specs
    >> are pedestrian, but it does make you wonder what is just around the
    >> corner.
    >>

    >
    > No optical viewfinder. Ugh.
    >
    > Next, no LCD screen. Just point and hope for the best.
    >
    > Also, I'm wondering how the introduction of this $99 camera squares
    > with Kodak CEO's announcement of a few weeks ago that his company
    > is getting out of the low-end digicam field.


    Looks like a large LCD screen on the back?

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 26, 2007
    #5
  6. C J Campbell

    Ron Hunter Guest

    C J Campbell wrote:
    > This is interesting.
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0707/07072501kodakc513.asp
    >
    > It seems we are seeing a sea change here. Granted the camera's specs are
    > pedestrian, but it does make you wonder what is just around the corner.


    For a camera in this price range, the specs aren't bad. A 5mp camera
    for under $100 is somewhat of a breakthrough. It should be fairly
    popular for the casual photographer, although the movie mode is pretty
    much inadequate.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jul 26, 2007
    #6
  7. C J Campbell

    Ron Hunter Guest

    sw2U wrote:
    > In article <2007072508235150073-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>,
    > says...
    >> This is interesting.
    >>
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0707/07072501kodakc513.asp
    >>
    >> It seems we are seeing a sea change here. Granted the camera's specs
    >> are pedestrian, but it does make you wonder what is just around the
    >> corner.
    >>

    >
    > No optical viewfinder. Ugh.
    >
    > Next, no LCD screen. Just point and hope for the best.
    >
    > Also, I'm wondering how the introduction of this $99 camera squares
    > with Kodak CEO's announcement of a few weeks ago that his company
    > is getting out of the low-end digicam field.
    >
    > --
    > sw2U

    If he made such a statement, then I suspect he won't be around long.
    Kodak has leadership in the low end of the market, and NO presence in
    the high end of the consumer market. Kodak has some really professional
    products, but nothing in the high end of amateur photographic equipment,
    so they would need to design and sell such cameras before dropping the
    low end. Such a project could take many years to develop.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jul 26, 2007
    #7
  8. C J Campbell

    John Turco Guest

    Jim wrote:
    >
    > "C J Campbell" <> wrote in message
    > news:2007072508235150073-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
    > > This is interesting.
    > >
    > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0707/07072501kodakc513.asp
    > >
    > > It seems we are seeing a sea change here. Granted the camera's specs are
    > > pedestrian, but it does make you wonder what is just around the corner.
    > > --
    > > Waddling Eagle
    > > World Famous Flight Instructor
    > >

    > Or, yet another failed Kodak product.
    > They do make some very good products for the astronomy folks.
    > Jim



    Hello, Jim:

    Aw, c'mon! The C513 won't be introduced, till August, and you're calling
    it a failure, already?

    For your information, Kodak's own Web site lists it, at $79.95 USD:

    KODAK EASYSHARE C513 Zoom Digital Camera
    http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=11189&pq-locale=en_US

    With such a tempting price, I seriously doubt that it won't succeed,
    in the marketplace. After all, I challenge you to find even a no-name
    digicam with the C513's specs, retailing for under $80 USD.


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Jul 27, 2007
    #8
  9. C J Campbell

    Rich Guest

    On Jul 25, 11:23 am, C J Campbell <>
    wrote:
    > This is interesting.
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0707/07072501kodakc513.asp
    >
    > It seems we are seeing a sea change here. Granted the camera's specs
    > are pedestrian, but it does make you wonder what is just around the
    > corner.
    > --
    > Waddling Eagle
    > World Famous Flight Instructor


    Weren't they saying less than 6 months ago they were leaving the
    cheapo camera arena?
     
    Rich, Jul 27, 2007
    #9
  10. C J Campbell

    Ron Hunter Guest

    John Turco wrote:
    > Jim wrote:
    >> "C J Campbell" <> wrote in message
    >> news:2007072508235150073-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
    >>> This is interesting.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0707/07072501kodakc513.asp
    >>>
    >>> It seems we are seeing a sea change here. Granted the camera's specs are
    >>> pedestrian, but it does make you wonder what is just around the corner.
    >>> --
    >>> Waddling Eagle
    >>> World Famous Flight Instructor
    >>>

    >> Or, yet another failed Kodak product.
    >> They do make some very good products for the astronomy folks.
    >> Jim

    >
    >
    > Hello, Jim:
    >
    > Aw, c'mon! The C513 won't be introduced, till August, and you're calling
    > it a failure, already?
    >
    > For your information, Kodak's own Web site lists it, at $79.95 USD:
    >
    > KODAK EASYSHARE C513 Zoom Digital Camera
    > http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=11189&pq-locale=en_US
    >
    > With such a tempting price, I seriously doubt that it won't succeed,
    > in the marketplace. After all, I challenge you to find even a no-name
    > digicam with the C513's specs, retailing for under $80 USD.
    >
    >
    > Cordially,
    > John Turco <>


    John,
    Surely you have noticed a mild anti-Kodak bias in this newsgroup? Grin.
    Like Iran mildly dislikes Israel....
     
    Ron Hunter, Jul 27, 2007
    #10
  11. "Ron Hunter" <> wrote:

    > John,
    > Surely you have noticed a mild anti-Kodak bias in this newsgroup? Grin.
    > Like Iran mildly dislikes Israel....


    Kodak? Huh? Do they even make digital cameras?

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 27, 2007
    #11
  12. C J Campbell

    nospam Guest

    In article <f8cjut$jiq$>, David J. Littleboy
    <> wrote:

    > Kodak? Huh? Do they even make digital cameras?


    looks like they do. this one was announced just two days ago:
    <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Kodak/kodak_c513.asp>

    with a several others announced in june and january:
    <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Kodak/>
     
    nospam, Jul 27, 2007
    #12
  13. "nospam" <> wrote:
    > David J. Littleboy <> wrote:
    >
    >> Kodak? Huh? Do they even make digital cameras?

    >
    > looks like they do.


    FAILURE ALERT! You are currently experiencing a total and complete systems
    failure in your humor detection module.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan

    this one was announced just two days ago:
    > <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Kodak/kodak_c513.asp>
    >
    > with a several others announced in june and january:
    > <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Kodak/>
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 27, 2007
    #13
  14. On Jul 27, 6:12 am, "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    > "Ron Hunter" <> wrote:
    > > John,
    > > Surely you have noticed a mild anti-Kodak bias in this newsgroup? Grin.
    > > Like Iran mildly dislikes Israel....

    >
    > Kodak? Huh? Do they even make digital cameras?
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan


    First digital camera I owned was a Kodak DC 120. It was fine for its
    day. I also have an antique folding Kodak 35mm. I worked
    professionally with Kodak many years ago on films for reccee cameras.
    I do not understand the basis for the anti-Kodak feelings of the
    group.
     
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota, Jul 27, 2007
    #14
  15. "Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <> wrote:
    > On Jul 27, 6:12 am, "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    >> "Ron Hunter" <> wrote:
    >> > John,
    >> > Surely you have noticed a mild anti-Kodak bias in this newsgroup?
    >> > Grin.
    >> > Like Iran mildly dislikes Israel....

    >>
    >> Kodak? Huh? Do they even make digital cameras?

    >
    > First digital camera I owned was a Kodak DC 120. It was fine for its
    > day. I also have an antique folding Kodak 35mm. I worked
    > professionally with Kodak many years ago on films for reccee cameras.
    > I do not understand the basis for the anti-Kodak feelings of the
    > group.


    Another man who's humor detection system is out of kilter<g>.

    Except that I hate 35mm, I've always thought the old Kodak 35mm cameras
    (Retina XXX cameras, both rangefinder and SLR) were really lovely.

    As I've mentioned before, I was really pissed at Kodak a few years ago. I
    was shooting a family party with my 300D, and my brother in-law shows up
    with a Kodak P&S that was way faster than the 300D on image review. Sure,
    when our pictures were processed and printed mine looked way better, but
    when the kids wanted to see their pics on the spot, the 300D was painfully
    slow. My hyperactive nephews and nieces would get bored before my pictures
    displayed.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 27, 2007
    #15
  16. C J Campbell

    ASAAR Guest

    On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:22:08 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

    >>> Kodak? Huh? Do they even make digital cameras?

    >>
    >> First digital camera I owned was a Kodak DC 120. It was fine for its
    >> day. I also have an antique folding Kodak 35mm. I worked
    >> professionally with Kodak many years ago on films for reccee cameras.
    >> I do not understand the basis for the anti-Kodak feelings of the
    >> group.

    >
    > Another man who's humor detection system is out of kilter<g>.


    I didn't miss the attempt at humor. Nevertheless, said humor was
    based upon and was designed to play to "the anti-Kodak feelings of
    the group". If this is incorrect, then I suppose that we all must
    recognize that the many humorous, playful jabs at Sigma's cameras,
    lenses and sensors aren't based on anti-Sigma feelings in the ng.


    :)
     
    ASAAR, Jul 27, 2007
    #16
  17. C J Campbell

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
    > On Jul 27, 6:12 am, "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    >> "Ron Hunter" <> wrote:
    >>> John,
    >>> Surely you have noticed a mild anti-Kodak bias in this newsgroup? Grin.
    >>> Like Iran mildly dislikes Israel....

    >> Kodak? Huh? Do they even make digital cameras?
    >>
    >> David J. Littleboy
    >> Tokyo, Japan

    >
    > First digital camera I owned was a Kodak DC 120. It was fine for its
    > day. I also have an antique folding Kodak 35mm. I worked
    > professionally with Kodak many years ago on films for reccee cameras.
    > I do not understand the basis for the anti-Kodak feelings of the
    > group.
    >
    >

    Because Kodak caters to the common people, many consider it beneath
    notice. What they seem to miss is that Nikon and Canon also have models
    in the 'blister pack' market. Truth is, there are a LOT more people
    with $100=$200 to spend on a camera than there are with $1000-$10000 to
    spend on a camera, and all the companies seem to have noticed that Kodak
    is making money in the 'common people' market, and they want a share.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jul 28, 2007
    #17
  18. C J Campbell

    Ron Hunter Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <> wrote:
    >> On Jul 27, 6:12 am, "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    >>> "Ron Hunter" <> wrote:
    >>>> John,
    >>>> Surely you have noticed a mild anti-Kodak bias in this newsgroup?
    >>>> Grin.
    >>>> Like Iran mildly dislikes Israel....
    >>> Kodak? Huh? Do they even make digital cameras?

    >> First digital camera I owned was a Kodak DC 120. It was fine for its
    >> day. I also have an antique folding Kodak 35mm. I worked
    >> professionally with Kodak many years ago on films for reccee cameras.
    >> I do not understand the basis for the anti-Kodak feelings of the
    >> group.

    >
    > Another man who's humor detection system is out of kilter<g>.
    >
    > Except that I hate 35mm, I've always thought the old Kodak 35mm cameras
    > (Retina XXX cameras, both rangefinder and SLR) were really lovely.
    >
    > As I've mentioned before, I was really pissed at Kodak a few years ago. I
    > was shooting a family party with my 300D, and my brother in-law shows up
    > with a Kodak P&S that was way faster than the 300D on image review. Sure,
    > when our pictures were processed and printed mine looked way better, but
    > when the kids wanted to see their pics on the spot, the 300D was painfully
    > slow. My hyperactive nephews and nieces would get bored before my pictures
    > displayed.
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >

    Another factor is the rather small display compared with most current
    P&S cameras. I rather suspect that most consumers would select a camera
    with a larger display even if it meant a smaller sensor, and more noise.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jul 28, 2007
    #18
  19. C J Campbell

    John Turco Guest

    Rich wrote:
    >
    > On Jul 25, 11:23 am, C J Campbell <>
    > wrote:
    > > This is interesting.
    > >
    > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0707/07072501kodakc513.asp
    > >
    > > It seems we are seeing a sea change here. Granted the camera's specs
    > > are pedestrian, but it does make you wonder what is just around the
    > > corner.
    > > --
    > > Waddling Eagle
    > > World Famous Flight Instructor

    >
    > Weren't they saying less than 6 months ago they were leaving the
    > cheapo camera arena?



    Hello, Rich:

    Yeah, Kodak's recent actions are a tad puzzling, in light of its public
    announcement about abandoning the low-end market. It was thought (by
    some, at least) that the "C" series of cameras was the main culprit,
    in the company's struggles.

    Yet, not only does the C513, itself, defy such logic, but I just saw
    another new "C" model, yesterday (Friday, 7-27-07). The local Target
    store has a C613 (6.2 megapixel, 3x optical zoom).

    This little, white, CCD digicam is $129.99 USD, there, and $129.95, on
    Kodak's Web site:

    KODAK EASYSHARE C613 Zoom Digital Camera
    http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=9/19/32/10761&pq-locale=en_US

    The C613 is similar to the silver C513, in appearance, specifications
    and features, while being a bit bigger and better; its ISO range is
    vastly wider, for instance (80-1250, vs the latter's 80-200).


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Jul 29, 2007
    #19
  20. C J Campbell

    John Turco Guest

    Ron Hunter wrote:
    >
    > John Turco wrote:
    > > Jim wrote:


    <edited, for brevity>

    > >> Or, yet another failed Kodak product.
    > >> They do make some very good products for the astronomy folks.
    > >> Jim

    > >
    > >
    > > Hello, Jim:
    > >
    > > Aw, c'mon! The C513 won't be introduced, till August, and you're calling
    > > it a failure, already?


    <edited>

    > John,
    > Surely you have noticed a mild anti-Kodak bias in this newsgroup? Grin.
    > Like Iran mildly dislikes Israel....



    Hello, Ron:

    Surely, one doesn't require ESP, to gain a sense of the pervasive
    Kodak-phobia, around here. <g>


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Jul 29, 2007
    #20
    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. Uncle Nobby

    CMOS battery low wrong memory on CMOS battery

    Uncle Nobby, Nov 7, 2006, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,112
    Robert Baer
    Nov 8, 2006
  2. Tripurari Singh

    Kodak CMOS sensors for consumer cameras

    Tripurari Singh, Sep 16, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    347
    Tripurari Singh
    Sep 16, 2004
  3. Ron Baird
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    781
    JSN61
    Jan 10, 2005
  4. enri
    Replies:
    72
    Views:
    1,399
  5. David J Taylor
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,029
    Anoni Moose
    Aug 15, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page