[citation][nom]fulle[/nom]LOL, southernshark.Maybe Kodak is OK when compared to trash like Pentax.... but they can't beat Canon, Nikon, or Sony, in ANYTHING. And it's been that way for over a decade.[/citation]
I used 2 Sony's over the past five years, and I have to say almost anything could be better than them in the video taking department. They're constantly out of focus, to the point where it's better that I have a WebCam to take video that use that camera.
[citation][nom]fyasko[/nom]this is what happens when old companies ran by dolts don't innovate. kodak got where it was by making something simple for everyone that worked the way it should. if only the had continued on that path...[/citation]
not really. They stuck with so longer than most other companies for reason, it was cheaper, and took a far better quality picture for a long time when compared to a digital camera. I can't exactly remember when consumer grade digital cameras got better at taking pictures than the film equivalent, but I do remember that Kodak stuck with film a bit too long, and at the very least their initial cameras were subpar. I don't know how good they stack up right now, but if it's any better than Sony's atrocious cyber shot line, and uses a standard SD card format, I don't see why Kodak would have such trouble.
[citation][nom]zybch[/nom]A pity. As others have said, their cameras were actually pretty good, but were totally ruined by unnecessary software that held your images hostage, bloated your PC and stuck annoying Kodak icons and shortcuts everywhere.I still have a brilliant 10m point'n'shoot which I'll be loath to get rid of. Cell phones and the shitty cameras the majority have are probably what contributed most to Kodak's downfall.[/citation]
please don't call cell phone cameras cameras. They're barely better than WebCam from 10 years ago. I'm not talking about the high-end cell phones today I'm talking about the lesser phones everyone gives their kids, or buys for themselves because they don't be a smart phone.