RE: [Leica] Cohn comments and Kodachome Blues

["Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <peterk@lucent.com>]

Sal DiMarco,Jr. wrote:

Edited.....

>....to the R8 detractors out there. Did you know the R8 has out sold
>every other Leica reflex camera? 

Kind of like being Queen of the Pigs isn't it? Oink!  
I did not know they sold so few Leica SLRs prior to the R8.


>They found an AF Leica R would sell for about $4,000.--. Too expenvise. Not
>to mention the lenses. A large part of the cost is in royalities for using
>the auto focus patents. They are aware of our desire for an AF reflex. At
>this point in time, it is not practical.

Sounds like what Contax use to say about the RTS until they intro'd the
645AF, now they say AF is wonderful.

>The Kodachrome Blues... As someone who had a small part in
>convincing The Great Yellow Father (Kodak) to build a new Kodachrome
>Processor (K-Lab) and been on the edges of its construction, I think I can
>make a couple of useful comments about my favorite film, Kodachrome.
>The biggest drawbacks to Kodachrome are the processing turn around
>time and the very high quality of the E6 films available today.
>Most people do not want to wait several days for their pictures. In
>most big cities, you can get E6 done with a normal turn around time of four
>hours. In NYC make that two hours.
>People have lost confidence in Kodachrome, especially in the
>professional area. There are many horror stories of  bad or poor Kodachrome
>processing. By the time Kodak solved the problems it was to late in the
eyes
>of many. Lab owners are reluctant to invest in Kodachrome machines. Almost
>everyone who did went toes-up. The early machines were one million dollars
>each.
>The quality of the E6 films doesn't help either. They are getting
>better and better and they are approaching Kodachrome in the previously
>untouchable Kodachrome area, permanence.
>The new K-Lab solves all the problems of the past. It can work with
>low volume or high. It does NOT  require a full time chemist. Dry to dry
>time is 45 minutes. There is an eight stop variability  in processing. I
can
>go on and on.
>Right now, it is a marketing problem for Kodak. Over dinner last
>week, a couple of  Kodachome Kodakers and I talked about the problem. We
>concluded it would cost Kodak between 50 and 100 Million dollars to
>re-launch Kodachrome with no guarantee of success. This included R&D for a
>new family of Kodachrome films. The last Kodachrome alteration in
Kodachrome
>was an improved K-200 to match the color balance of KPR-64 and tighten the
>grain structure around 1988.  How would you like to make a 100 million
>dollar roll of the dice? That is exactly what Dan Carp, the new CEO has to
>decide.
>If you want to save Koachrome, I suggest going to their web site and
>show them, there is a real interest in Kodachrome. There are people in
>Rochester ready will and able to help.

Hogwash! Next time you are at an event where people are shooting chromes I
would suggest you look at what they are using.  You will probably find the
majority shooting Ektachrome or Fuji E-6 films.  With this in mind, why
would Kodak want to gamble at all?  After all they are a business not a
philanthropic organization.  
Let's see, if a product makes money I invest in it, and sell it.  If not I
limit any investment and wait to the point of unprofitability then
discontinue it.  These are reasons Ektachrome continues and Kodachrome will
eventually die out.  Even a good product eventually has an end of life.

Peter K