About a month ago, I submitted an email detailing the problems I have been having with a malfunctioning Kodak DC-120 and the Kodak service center. After 4 months, I now have a functional DC-120 camera, and apologies from Kodak.

The camera made several postal trips across the country, coming back sometimes quicky, and once it took 2 months. After sending a letter expressing my anger to the CEO of Kodak, I now have some some big boss PR people asking how I might be molified. They are talking about a special deal on an upgrade to a DC-260 or DC-265.

I've been checking the reviews, and I'm not thrilled with the idea. Perhaps if they were offering a Nikon 950 instead? The reason I'm not thrilled, is that my DC-120 is a better camera.

The DC-265 is a generational electronic improvement over the DC-120, but the old camera is still a better photographic tool. It has a faster lens, much better macro capability, much more shutter range, a 4 times brighter flash and an enclosed lens which allows much more sturdy attachment of accessory lenses and filters. Electronically, it even allows uncompressed files. The shape, while unusual, is ergonomically better. There are a few other advantages to the 120, and when I compare, the only realistic advantage to the 265 is the newer and better CCD.

True, the 265 has many neat whizbangs, and the burst mode is great. The electronic improvements are very impressive. At the "prosumer" end of their line, I regret that Kodak abandoned the much better camera for a "point & shoot" consumer level unit with an advanced computer. For a $1000, I'de much rather have a decent camera with average whizbangs, than a cheap camera with stunning whizbangs.

As an old photo hobbyist, I regretted the early trend in electronic 35mm cameras with LCD screens, lots of tiny buttons and multiple menus with cryptic tiny icons. Sure, the whizbangs where cool when you could remember how to use them. I own many 35mm cameras, and I still have to review the manuals every time I want to use one. When I use one of my old manual cameras, there are dedicated knobs that I can use without re-reading a manual.

Most of the major manufacturers got the message. They put thumbwheel controls on the cameras that a "prosumer" could program to such basic things as Shutter and Aperture. A hobbyist could compose, focus and set aperture with the left hand, then set shutter (maybe change meter mode) and click with the right. That covers 95% of the camera's useage. When something challenging was required, then you could page through screens of microscopic icons before you clicked.

I like all the whizbangs. Canon, Minolta, Nikon and the others have allowed me to take photos with whizbangs that I could never have gotten trying to calculate lighting and other factors. I love the electronic "Polaroid" screen, that lets me know if I got what I wanted. I just don't understand how large companies like Kodak could decide to forego photographic quality and capability for more whizbangs.

Kodak produces many excellent high end products, but makes most of its money from low end consumer products. It seems that the in-house low end guys won when they designed their hobbyist or prosumer camera. If they had kept the DC-120 mechanics and put the DC-265 electronics into it, they would have a product that would be competitive with the Nikon 950, the Minolta EX-1500 and other $1000 hobbyist cameras. As it is, I don't want a $200 camera with $500 electronics.

While we're at it, why does a $1000 TTL camera body with decent $500 electronics cost somewhere between $5000 to $20,000? Why does it cost $3000 to convert one of my good 35mm cameras to digital, the electronics equivalent to what is available in a $700 complete camera? I suppose its a market thing. Someone willing to pay $1000 for a body, and $500 for each lens might be dumb enough to pay $3000 for a mediocre digital conversion.

Oh well, I realize this isn't the gripe forum. I just felt like venting on someone who would understand the frustration. Thanks for taking the time to read this. If you get any input into the Kodak people or other manufacturers, this is some fodder to help mold your input.

Best Regards

-- William McAuley (wrmcauley@aol.com), April 07, 1999

Answers

I couldn't agree with you more, and I own a DC260. Although I actually like the DC260 ergonomics, the speed of operation, and overall sharpness relative to CCD resolution are a travesty.

I don't think the DC265 would be too bad though as they greatly improved the speed, and they now support an uncompressed mode.

-- Doug Green (dougjgreen@yahoo.com), April 09, 1999.

As an update, I turned down Kodak's conciliatory offer of an upgrade to a newer camera, and only asked for an extension of the warrantee on the DC-120. I also discussed the idea of a "DC-165" using the DC- 120 optics/mechanics and upgrading the CCD and electronics to "265" levels.

Although they gave me positive feedback on my thoughts, I doubt it will happen. Kodak is losing money on their digital cameras, and they won't change that putting their efforts into the upper end of the consumer market. I would guess that the vast majority of sales of digital cameras is in the under $300 market. I don't expect to see a DC-165 on the market.

-- William McAuley (wrmcauley@aol.com), April 18, 1999.