Kodak and Nikon joint DSLR venture

[NikonWeb]

The original DCS 100 article has been updated with some interesting new info from James McGarvey. It's added to the Q&A:

Q: I believe the lack of a professional camera system was a serious problem for Kodak. The two major players at the time, Canon and Nikon, had a huge market share and didn't want Kodak to succeed in the (digital) camera business. Apparently, the early "cooperation" was not very enthusiastic. I have been told by reliable sources that Nikon did not want to share much information or hardware with Kodak at the time. You mentioned that you visited Nikon in Tokyo in July 1992. How did that meeting play out? Did Kodak ever consider to make their own (D)SLR system instead of using Nikon and Canon bodies and lenses?

A: The early cooperation was different for Nikon and Canon. As you know, we didn't tell Nikon anything ahead of the DCS 100 launch and they were surprised. They didn't object to us, as far as I know, and we assumed they were happy to be selling bodies and lenses for the only DSLR on the market. My July 1992 meeting was just before the DCS200 launch. We had done the 100 and 200 without any help from Nikon, but wanted more for the next models. The meeting was friendly and they gave us the documentation we requested for the body and did agree to sell us modified Pronea bodies and later the F5 bodies. At that time, Nikon was a very old fashioned, traditional Japanese company and the meeting had that flavor.

Canon was much more enthusiastic about working with us. I visited them in 1995 and the contrast with Nikon was impressive. The engineers at least were eager to engage and the development of the EOS-DCS models went smoothly with Canon supplying modified EOS 1's, and of course marketing their own labeled models in parallel with Kodak - something Nikon never did. Canon certainly was eager to learn all they could from us and we were careful to limit access to information about imagers and image processing as much as we could. Once Canon was ready to do their own DSLRs, they had no interest in supplying bodies to us, which drove us to get Sigma bodies later on for the Pro SLR/c.

Nikon remained cooperative, supplying F5 bodies after they launched the D1. There were extensive discussions between Kodak and Nikon around a joint venture for DSLRs, but Kodak scuttled the plan by insisting on the controlling share.

We talked for years about doing our own pro cameras, but it never got serious. We all realized it would be a very tough market to enter as a latecomer. Nikon and Canon's lens systems were so extensive and excellent that the investment to match them would have been astronomical.

The Pro SLR/c was the closest we came to making our own body. Kodak and Canon had extensive cross-license agreements that allowed us to make our own Canon mount. So that was a halfway measure without developing a new lens system. But the Sigma body was inferior and the SLR/c a disappointing product overall.

https://nikonweb.com/dcs100/

Jarle

[pieroc91]

Wow very interesting!

Had you recently talked to Jim? it'll be great to have him around the forums again

[NikonWeb]

Yes, I've recently been in touch with him. Interesting, indeed. Nikon effectively killed Kodak's digital camera system with the introduction of the D1. One can only speculate what would have happened if the two companies joined forces. For Nikon, it was probably a good thing they didn't, but we'll never know for sure.

Jarle

[pieroc91]

It's actually quite heroic what Kodak did, they knew how risky was going digital and how Nikon and Canon had the muscle to crush them.

It would be quite a smarter move going the Sony route producing the imagers and leaving the camera market to the camera makers.

It's so good to know about Jim. There is already been almost 5 years since he helped me to start the development of my homemade DSU.

[SQLGuy]

I wonder if Minolta would have been available for sale in 1999 or so. Pentax might have been, but they didn't have the AF lenses that Minolta did.

[SQLGuy]

It's actually quite heroic what Kodak did, they knew how risky was going digital and how Nikon and Canon had the muscle to crush them.

It would be quite a smarter move going the Sony route producing the imagers and leaving the camera market to the camera makers.

It's so good to know about Jim. There is already been almost 5 years since he helped me to start the development of my homemade DSU.

The "Sony route" was buying an established camera company. Arguably having seen how things had turned out for Kodak.

[pieroc91]

It's actually quite heroic what Kodak did, they knew how risky was going digital and how Nikon and Canon had the muscle to crush them.

It would be quite a smarter move going the Sony route producing the imagers and leaving the camera market to the camera makers.

It's so good to know about Jim. There is already been almost 5 years since he helped me to start the development of my homemade DSU.

The "Sony route" was buying an established camera company. Arguably having seen how things had turned out for Kodak.

Buying Minolta was the latter route, at first they just made the CCD sensors, preamps and ADCs to Nikon and not sure if they provided something to Canon.

A D1 with a Kodak imager would've something interesting.

[NikonWeb]

It's actually quite heroic what Kodak did, they knew how risky was going digital and how Nikon and Canon had the muscle to crush them.

Canon, perhaps, but not Nikon. Not on paper, anyway. Kodak's revenues peaked at nearly 16 billion USD in 1996 and its profits at 2.5 billion USD in 1999. Until the 1990s it was regularly rated one of the world's five most valuable brands.

Nikon's net income in 1999 was 151,2 million USD. Canon, being a much larger company, had a record year with a 1.18 billion USD net profit.

But then ... On June 15, 1999, Nikon announced the game-changing D1. From Phil Askey's (dpreview) review: "I can remember talking to someone from Kodak Professional back in early 1999 when the D1 was rumour, back then they really weren't worried with a particularly blasé attitude about their products and their continued success in the professional market. I wonder what they make of the D1 now."

Sources:
The Economist: https://www.economist.com/business/2012 ... dak-moment
Nikon annual report 1999: https://www.nikon.com/company/ir/manage ... nual_e.pdf
Canon sees record $1.18 bln profit: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/canon ... net-profit
Dpreview Nikon D1 review: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond1/20

[atlas]

Kodak should have pushed Sigma to produce a more professional camera body.
It would have been very slick for the SA mount to have the option of either a Foveon imager for finer reproduction and a Kodak system for sports and photojournalism.