Yes! Nikon is more specialized in camera and lens and has always been considered for professional photography. Kodak caters to a mass market and is more economical. Kodak materials are of lesser quality but having said that Kodak is still a good camera but cannot be compared to Nikon. Kodak after all was famous for film not for cameras.

This really depends on the quality of the individual product you purchase. Kodak tends to specialize in mass-market goods, although they do manufacture some good-quality amateur products. They have been producing all kinds of imaging products for over 100 years. For many years, they were an innovative company. For example, every company used their own proprietary 35mm film cannister, but it was Kodak's that became the industry standard and has been in use for over 70 years. However, they have not marketed many high-end products under their own name in recent years, with the exception of the recently-discontinued Kodak professional digital cameras (e.g., Kodak DCS 14n). Kodak manufactured the CCD image sensors and imaging electronics, while Nikon supplied lenses and bodies derived from their professional F series. Kodak image sensors are used by many manufacturers, since only a few companies actually make their own sensors. Many medium- and large-format professional cameras once used Kodak lenses - many a Graflex was equipped with a Kodak Ektar lens. Today, Kodak cameras are usually supplied with lenses from Schneider, a company with a long history of producing quality optical products. On the other hand, many of Kodak's better cameras were made by other companies. The German manufacturer Nagel, purchased by Kodak in 1931, produced Kodak's Retina cameras, for example. Retinas were very good cameras, until economy became more important than quality - the Retina Instamatic being an example in point. As far as middle of the road products go, however, Kodak produces some decent products. Unfortunately, they have demonstrated corporate practices over the years that have won few plaudits, as the number of "I Hate Kodak" websites will attest. Nikon manufactures cameras at all levels: entry, middle, and high-end professional. Their high-end cameras are very good, among the best in the world. Nikon did not make any entry-level cameras for much of their history. These products are about as good as any from any other major manufacturer: some are great and some are pretty average. Nikon is known for making great lenses, but the best of these are found on their professional and advanced amateur cameras, which come at a healthy premium. There is a reason why one lens costs $250, another costs $750, and a third one that covers the same range costs $2000 - the optical and build quality of the lenses are quite different. In many ways, the lens makes the camera. There's not much difference between a discount Nikkor lens on a Nikon and a discount Schneider lens on a Kodak. Ultimately, the difference boils down to one thing: how much are you willing to spend on a camera. If you are planning to spend over $1000, I can comfortably say that Nikon is the better choice. Kodak no longer makes anything like the Nikon DSLRs. If you are planning to spend $200, you are liable to get equivalent products from either company. (I use Nikon 35mm SLRs and have one Nikon digital camera.)

I'll keep it simple, I've been a photographer for over 20 years, and worked in a camera store. Nikon is definatley better in my opinion. Its what I use. People I know that own the Nikon point and shoot..love them.