I dont feel I need a better camera? shot these with a £25 superzoom

[Kodakuser]

Kodak Pixpro AZ526, £25 on Ebay

 

[Golem]

Kodak Pixpro AZ526, £25 on EbayView attachment 276805

Definitely no need for a better camera.

 

[Kodakuser]

Definitely no need for a better camera.

I read a few reports that Kodak are now outselling Nikon, Canon and Sony in japan and have been for some time now. They are largely dismissed in the UK and by reviewers, but I am really impressed. I also have a tiny 16mp FZ55 that looks like a toy camera and cost me £80 that is a big hit in Japan (the top selling Kodak), but I doubt if they will be taken seriously in the UK, but I really like it (and I have owned many far more expensive cameras)

 

[cgw128 153]

I read a few reports that Kodak are now outselling Nikon, Canon and Sony in japan and have been for some time now. They are largely dismissed in the UK and by reviewers, but I am really impressed. I also have a tiny 16mp FZ55 that looks like a toy camera and cost me £80 that is a big hit in Japan (the top selling Kodak), but I doubt if they will be taken seriously in the UK, but I really like it (and I have owned many far more expensive cameras

Think your enthusiasm obscures a few points from this PetaPixel article from late May:

Kodak Cameras With Decade-Old Tech are Outselling All Others in Japan

Kodak-branded super-cheap point-and-shoot cameras are selling well.

petapixel.com

Kodak is selling licensing deals. Its name get plastered on products it doesn't make. That's plainly the case
here with these new/old dirt-cheap cameras stuffed with decade+ old tech. They sell for peanuts compared to current products. They're cheap. That's it and enough for companies cranking them out. My iPhone flattens these but no reason not to enjoy a bit of reverse snobbery!

 

[nerwin1]

Kodak also makes SSDs too. But not really Kodak, they just got the license to use Kodak on the product like what @cgw said.

With that being said...if you enjoy what you're using and if it's good enough for you then who cares right? Just have fun!

 

[Ticker]

If you are happy with your images then, of course, you do not need a new camera. If you wanted sharper images then you probably do need one. Only you can say. Sharpness isn't the most important aspect of photography but with bird pictures I would want them to show the wonderful textures of the plumage.

 

[Kodakuser]

Think your enthusiasm obscures a few points from this PetaPixel article from late May:

Kodak Cameras With Decade-Old Tech are Outselling All Others in Japan

Kodak-branded super-cheap point-and-shoot cameras are selling well.

petapixel.com

Kodak is selling licensing deals. Its name get plastered on products it doesn't make. That's plainly the case
here with these new/old dirt-cheap cameras stuffed with decade+ old tech. They sell for peanuts compared to current products. They're cheap. That's it and enough for companies cranking them out. My iPhone flattens these but no reason not to enjoy a bit of reverse snobbery!

Actually, I dont remember 16mp BSI CMOS sensors, USB charging or wireless control from a smartphone being commonplace a decade+ ago, that article is the typical misinformed garbage pumped out by the reviewers who have a vested intrest in supporting a vastly reduced and struggling industry. And try as anybody might, the images I have posted are pretty good particularly considering the dirt cheap price and features offered. I just laugh at the reviewers and you guys fall for it and hand over vast amounts of your hard earned money, well carry on, it means more used cheap cameras for the future
The point is, even if it is decade old tech, that tech was good enough for 99.9% of the human population, the tech matured years ago and now we are into diminishing returns for way more money, remember I paid £25 for this camera

 

[Kodakuser]

If you are happy with your images then, of course, you do not need a new camera. If you wanted sharper images then you probably do need one. Only you can say. Sharpness isn't the most important aspect of photography but with bird pictures I would want them to show the wonderful textures of the plumage.

Errrr how much detail do you need, exposure is good, detail is there in sufficient quantity......I know, you will reply with the standard patronising response "well if you are happy with them thats all that matters" LOL, and remember these subjects were so far away from the camera I could barely see them, no lens changes, no hole in my bank balance, no tripod and no RAW nonsense or PP, looks pretty good to me

 

[Kodakuser]

Kodak also makes SSDs too. But not really Kodak, they just got the license to use Kodak on the product like what @cgw said.

With that being said...if you enjoy what you're using and if it's good enough for you then who cares right? Just have fun!

Kodak always did this, These cameras originate from Asia Optical who also produce for Canon, Nikon and others, Kodak when Kodak was Kodak have had their cameras produced there since way back, All manufacturers do this now, surely you know this right? BMW motorcycles have many of their motorcycle engines produced in China now by a Chinese company, thats the way the world works these days

 

[Kodakuser]

Think your enthusiasm obscures a few points from this PetaPixel article from late May:

Kodak Cameras With Decade-Old Tech are Outselling All Others in Japan

Kodak-branded super-cheap point-and-shoot cameras are selling well.

petapixel.com

Kodak is selling licensing deals. Its name get plastered on products it doesn't make. That's plainly the case
here with these new/old dirt-cheap cameras stuffed with decade+ old tech. They sell for peanuts compared to current products. They're cheap. That's it and enough for companies cranking them out. My iPhone flattens these but no reason not to enjoy a bit of reverse snobbery!

Your iphone flattens these ?? really, you have an iphone with a 52x optical zoom lens right......thats cool, let me know where I can buy one, no phone could have taken these at the distance they were

 

[Ticker]

Kodakuser, I have never made patronising comments. I have often been "criticised" about my lack of sharpness but it is because I have chosen to produce the image that way. That being said, I think that sharpness is essential for some genres of photography "macro" for example and, for me, when taking close ups of birds.
If I caused you any offence, I apologise.

 

[Kodakuser]

Kodakuser, I have never made patronising comments. I have often been "criticised" about my lack of sharpness but it is because I have chosen to produce the image that way. That being said, I think that sharpness is essential for some genres of photography "macro" for example and, for me, when taking close ups of birds.
If I caused you any offence, I apologise.

Thanks, good reply

 

[smoke665]

This is one of those type posts for which the sticky note at the top of the thread "respecting choices", was written. Those not familiar with it should take a moment to read, before posting.

 

[RAZKY]

Kodak Pixpro AZ526, £25 on EbayView attachment 276805

This stuff belongs in one of the galleries - they say nothing about the camera or lens used.

 

[DigiFilm]

I just laugh at the reviewers and you guys fall for it and hand over vast amounts of your hard earned money, well carry on, it means more used cheap cameras for the future

Well, that's a bit condescending and smug, isn't it?

My wife and daughter recently went on Safari to S. Africa. My daughter has a Nikon, but my wife isn't a photography type. Still, she wanted something to use. I poked around and with size and simplicity in mind, bought her a Kodak FZ100 for the princely sum of $120. I set it up, told her to point, and shoot. The results are fine. They're decent images and I was able to process a handful of the jpegs and print them in 8 x 10 on my Canon Pixma.

Then there's me. I shoot a Sony A1 as my main and an A7 IV as a backup. The Kodak would not be acceptable for what I do. It would, in fact, not even be close.

People use what they use based on their wants and needs. There's a good reason pros aren't running around with a Kodak FZ55 in hand. I work my ass off, and if I want to spend thousands on a camera, I will. Simple as that. I can assure you I am well-informed. To say that people spend high dollars on cameras because they're gullible or just plain ignorant is...well...ignorant.

BTW, the main reason the Kodak sells so well is the price. Kids and people with little disposable income can buy one. There has been a resurgence in cheap cameras led by some YouTube content creators. It is the same reason Canon continues to stay above Sony in overall sales. Canon leads the big player market in point and shoots, which bumps their total.