Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by enri, Oct 3, 2005.

  1. enri

    Ron Hunter Guest

    I am sure they care about your opinion, but one should base his opinion
    on reality, not supposition. The camera is discontinued. I am sure
    that if Kodak maintained parts stocks for every camera it ever made, you
    would probably have had to spend a LOT more for the camera. Now you
    know why a Rolls Royce costs so much!
     
    Ron Hunter, Oct 4, 2005
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. enri

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Check with Rolls Royce. Give them the motor number, and the model, and
    if they don't have the part, they will have it made for you. That's the
    way they have always done business. I doubt it has changed.
    Of course their cars aren't 'consumer' devices.
     
    Ron Hunter, Oct 4, 2005
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. 1) I think this is into UL territory.
    2) They won't do it for free, or for the price in the '49 parts book.
    They are now. Much more so than in decades past. There's a point at which a
    company has to stop acting like a gentleman's club and act like a business.
    Just ask MG. Whoops, wait... ask Bugatti. Hmm. Try Studebaker. Uh...

    Anyway, RR reorganized almost everything a few years and while they still
    have the same affectations, they're a real 21st century car maker now.
     
    James Gifford, Oct 4, 2005
    #23
  4. enri

    Ray Fischer Guest

    It's a common problem in a LOT of P&S cameras.
    Doesn't surprise me. The lifetime of cheap digital cameras is way
    short.
    Generous of them. They didn't need to do anything for you.
    Here's a clue: ALL companies are "greedy". Those that aren't don't
    stay in business.

    Welcome to 21st century America.
     
    Ray Fischer, Oct 4, 2005
    #24
  5. I think the real problem is that the camera wouldn't be fixed after
    warranty. I have a Kodak and I am now worried, after the warranty is over,
    will i have to throw it away if there is a problem? I am surprised and
    disappointed that Kodak won't find a way to fix the camera even if the
    customer has to pay something.
     
    Richard Bornstein, Oct 4, 2005
    #25
  6. enri

    Bob Ward Guest

    I've had my Olympus 8080 Zoom for just over a year - and I have about
    5600 images in my Photoshop Elements organizer.
     
    Bob Ward, Oct 4, 2005
    #26
  7. enri

    Bob Ward Guest

    I know we have a regular hereabouts who owned a Rolls until recently -
    I'm sure he would know far more about parts and their availability
    than I would.

    Also, Rolls might be able to commission the fabrication of obsolete
    parts on behalf of an owner, using original plans, tooling, or
    specifications, but it certainly isn't built into the price of the
    car. I'm sure that such fabrication would exceed the cost of a
    complete, driveable car, in some cases.
     
    Bob Ward, Oct 4, 2005
    #27
  8. enri

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Would it surprise you that you can't get a $500 TV fixed? A friend
    found that problem recently. Companies just won't maintain parts
    inventory after so many model changes. Even software companies cease to
    support their products after a time.

    US car companies won't even work on a car over 10 years old! You have
    to go to an independent shop.

    With an industry that is changing as fast as digital photography, it is
    little surprise that a 3 year old product is considered not worth the
    cost/effort to repair. I am sure that were my brother's 1.3 mp Olympus
    to stop working, he wouldn't be able to get it repaired, even though IT
    also cost $500.
     
    Ron Hunter, Oct 4, 2005
    #28
  9. Ron Hunter wrote, in <Oxl0f.150$>
    It is one of those things that were done better in the past. I bought
    an 8mm movie projector in a pawn shop in Poughkeepsie for $15 in 1963
    and it was plainly pretty old then; recent googling suggests it is from
    the middle to late '40s. The claw had a groove worn in it and the
    condenser lens was cracked. I wrote to the address on the
    badge plate:

    Revere Camera Company
    Chicago, ILL

    giving the model number, 85, and serial number A 95436, describing what
    was wrong and asking if spares were available. A couple of weeks later
    I got a reply from another company, (googling reveals that Revere was
    sold to 3M in 1960), enclosing the bits I needed and asking for some
    small sum like $5 - not an invoice and
    you-send-us-the-money-and-we'll-send-you-the-goods. So of course I sent
    a cheque by return and the machine has been working perfectly ever
    since.

    That is service.
     
    Nick Spalding, Oct 4, 2005
    #29
  10. enri

    enri Guest


    You should be able to admit though that if Kodak does not want to fix
    the LS443 they could make things easier to the consumer by offering
    its service manual for example. This would facility disassembly and
    self-repair for people inclined to do so. After all, it is *the*
    perfect camera for certain shots.

    But NOOOO...: "They contain proprietary engineering specifications and
    documentation, and therefore are not available to customers"


    Now tell me, what is SOOO... proprietary in the specifications of an
    obsolete camera or in the description of what screw goes where and
    what parts dissamble first?

    This is a typical case of the spanish proverb portraying gross egoism:

    "El Perro del Hortelano: no come ni deja comer"

    or:

    "The Dog of the Gardener": he doesn't eat and doesn't let anybody eat"

    enri
     
    enri, Oct 4, 2005
    #30
  11. enri

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Ok, now tell me how many service manuals you have from other digital
    camera companies.....
    I suspect not many people would want to even try to repair their own
    camera, and even fewer would actually have the ability to do so. Still,
    it seems someone would make sure manuals like they did (do?) for other
    electronic gear.
     
    Ron Hunter, Oct 4, 2005
    #31
  12. I know many appliance service people who love you. They love people
    who buy GE, it keeps them in business. Not one of them would ever own
    a GE appliance. It is a poorly designed product (as you noticed) with
    parts cost higher than most other brands.

    Neal
     
    Neal Eckhardt, Oct 4, 2005
    #32
  13. enri

    Bill Funk Guest

    And, of course, you'll *pay* for the part.
    According to their advertising (is this still current?) their cars
    never break down, either. They just "fail to proceed."
     
    Bill Funk, Oct 4, 2005
    #33
  14. enri

    ASAAR Guest

    My parents bought a Hotpoint/GE refrigerator several decades ago.
    I has an small door in the freezer's door that swing out to give
    access to an ice cube bucket. When it stopped working properly I
    convinced them that they didn't need to call a GE technician, and
    only had to order a replacement bulb. (Ice in a full bucket
    interrupts a light beam, preventing the ice machine from generating
    more ice cubes). GE said the refrigerator was too old, and GE no
    longer made those bulbs. As the bulb type was legible on the bulb's
    bayonet base, I ordered a few from an internet company specializing
    in bulbs. They arrived the next day, and surprise, surprise. They
    were made by GE. Almost any 12v, low current, single filament auto
    bulb would have worked. I'll continue to buy GE products where
    appropriate, but I know better than to believe that they do a good
    job standing behind their products.
     
    ASAAR, Oct 4, 2005
    #34
  15. enri

    enri Guest

    There are people that don't give up easily. A camera launched with
    great fanfare less than three years ago does not belong in the digital
    graveyard. I am in the process of fixing my camera using parts of a
    non-working unit purchased in Ebay. A service manual would indeed
    come handy. And no, there are no available manuals. There is a serious
    dearth of LS443 manuals in Google searches.

    enri
     
    enri, Oct 4, 2005
    #35
  16. enri

    Alturas Guest

    I was always thrifty with costs in my film-camera days. I also took a
    lot fewer photos for that very reason. Still have an old Minolta for
    old time's sake.

    Alturas
     
    Alturas, Oct 5, 2005
    #36
  17. enri

    Alturas Guest

    I do think that was true up until relatively recently. I still have a
    2000 model 3MP Sony that I use for some indoor shots because it has a
    fast F2.0-F2.5 lens that's hard to find in one-piece cameras. I can
    see better image processing in newer 3MP cameras but not by much of a
    margin.

    I'm not sure future improvements in digicams will be great enough to
    render today's obsolete at the same rate. A Lumix with 5MP is enough
    for the way I view most photos on a big LCD screen. Climbing the
    megapixel ladder just seems to create more unwieldy images (for my
    purposes).

    Also, there hasn't been much ado over Foveon single-pixel technology
    after the initial hoopla. I can see improvements in battery life and
    operating speed but not necessarily in practical image quality. Less
    noise in small chips would be a good goal. We'll see if I'm still
    saying this 3 years on! They'll probably invent some must-have
    technology that still hasn't occurred to us.

    Alturas
     
    Alturas, Oct 5, 2005
    #37
  18. enri

    Alturas Guest

    But $500 should be able to purchase a very good camera. I think many
    good consumer-level cams can be had for as low as $200; the Canon A520
    being one of the better deals, IMO.

    Have you seen online samples from the LS443? Lots of muddy image
    processing artifacts and a questionable lens. Schneider = Dukes of
    Hazzard? Kodak's better efforts should be a lot better at that price.

    Alturas
     
    Alturas, Oct 5, 2005
    #38
  19. enri

    Greg Goss Guest

    The engineering elves are grinding away at replacement technologies
    for the CCD. The current image sensor is really ugly for power
    consumption. If they ever replace it, then battery life could get a
    lot better.
    OK, you're aware of that (pending) breakthrough. Better power
    consumption will bring down battery weight and make the tradeoff of
    more pixels weigh more towards more pixels.
     
    Greg Goss, Oct 5, 2005
    #39
  20. enri

    ASAAR Guest

    That may be true for some CCDs, but it certainly isn't for the
    sensor in my Fuji S5100. If the flash isn't used, but the lens is
    frequently zoomed and focused, it gets at least 800 shots per set of
    4 AA alkalines, and about double that if NiMH batteries are used.
    This is with the LCD or EVF being constantly on, and I'd assume that
    they consume quite a bit more battery power than the sensor. If a
    similar camera used an optical viewfinder and the LCD was
    infrequently used, I wouldn't be surprised if several thousands of
    shots could be taken. Larger DSLRs with more powerful battery
    consuming motors can also get a very large number of shots per
    battery charge.
     
    ASAAR, Oct 5, 2005
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.