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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by enri, Oct 3, 2005.

  1. enri

    enri Guest

    My LS443 Kodak Digital camera failed all of a sudden, with no human
    intervention nor abuse of any sort after approximately 5000 shots over
    less than three years

    The lens mechanism wouldn't retract. This is the infamous "Error #45"
    which I learned a posteriori, was a well-known common problem in this
    camera.

    A call to the KODAK service revealed that the camera would not be
    repaired by them, that the unit was no longer in production and that
    there weren't any parts available.

    "Management had decided that it was not in Kodak's best interest to
    repair this kind of problem in this particular camera"

    They offered to replace the damaged camera with a refurbished DX7630
    camera for $125.00 + $10.95 shipping plus the old camera shipped at my
    expense, i.e. roughly $150 for a refurbished, an euphemism for "used",
    camera available for about $250 new.

    I took the trouble to find out which part needed replacement finding
    out that the part in question is a plastic gear costing less than 10
    cents (I know this because I worked optical production issues at
    Lockheed Martin).

    What emerges from this picture is the image of KODAK as a greedy
    company which offered to the market a product having a design flaw for
    more than $500 without doing very much about it.

    The case of Iomega and its "click of death" Zip drive went to court
    eroding its customer base and driving down the price of its stock.

    Image buying a Honda Civic having a design flaw resulting in a
    transmission problem; the company refuses to repair your vehicle but
    offers a different *used* vehicle for half of the original price of
    the original vehicle.

    Kodak could at least had issue a warning to its customers of a
    potential gear problem; the problem was known to them shortly after
    releasing the LS443 to the market. If one knows that the camera has a
    gear problem one would not retract its lens so frequently to save
    battery power.

    This is not a "lack of parts" problem, it is simply too much effort to
    install the part. This "too much effort" is their own engineering
    fault, and the burden for it should not fall on the consumer.

    enri
    enri, Oct 3, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. enri <> wrote:
    > Image buying a Honda Civic having a design flaw resulting in a
    > transmission problem; the company refuses to repair your vehicle but
    > offers a different *used* vehicle for half of the original price of
    > the original vehicle.


    It's unlikely that the cost of repairing the Civic would exceed its value,
    or even be a large fraction of its value. You bought an inexpensive camera;
    you used it for three years and 5000 shots; it doesn't really matter
    whether the failure was an expensive part and you're the only one it's
    happened to or a ten-cent gear that's happened to thousands of them.

    Digital cameras are fragile. Since people want them small, light, fast and
    cheap, things like short lifespans or trouble points on lens systems, card
    doors, etc. are common.

    Bummer. But I think you're shoveling too much on Kodak.

    --
    |=- James Gifford = FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY -=|
    |=- So... your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? -=|
    James Gifford, Oct 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. enri

    Alturas Guest

    On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 02:25:05 -0000, James Gifford
    <> wrote:

    >enri <> wrote:
    >> Image buying a Honda Civic having a design flaw resulting in a
    >> transmission problem; the company refuses to repair your vehicle but
    >> offers a different *used* vehicle for half of the original price of
    >> the original vehicle.

    >
    >It's unlikely that the cost of repairing the Civic would exceed its value,
    >or even be a large fraction of its value. You bought an inexpensive camera;
    >you used it for three years and 5000 shots; it doesn't really matter
    >whether the failure was an expensive part and you're the only one it's
    >happened to or a ten-cent gear that's happened to thousands of them.
    >
    >Digital cameras are fragile. Since people want them small, light, fast and
    >cheap, things like short lifespans or trouble points on lens systems, card
    >doors, etc. are common.
    >
    >Bummer. But I think you're shoveling too much on Kodak.


    The poster mentioned paying $500, which isn't my idea of cheap. I
    think Kodak pushes the "EasyShare" concept too much and people buy
    into it. With most Kodak models, the photos themselves don't get top
    ratings. I'd rather get the best possible lens/sensor than mediocre
    photos that are easier to "share" (share with the neighbors?)
    Plugging in a USB cable and browsing for a removable drive is no
    hardship.

    Alturas

    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
    Alturas, Oct 3, 2005
    #3
  4. enri

    Alturas Guest

    On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 21:44:08 -0400, enri <> wrote:

    >What emerges from this picture is the image of KODAK as a greedy
    >company which offered to the market a product having a design flaw for
    >more than $500 without doing very much about it.


    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=kodak easyshare LS443 review

    That and other Kodak digicams have never gotten top ratings for image
    quality, so it might have done you a favor by quitting. I've been
    hustled to buy Kodak models in several electronics chain stores,
    knowing from online samples that they were mediocre. I'd never buy a
    camera on features alone, like the hyped "EasyShare" system. I'm not
    knocking Kodak's potential but there are better buys out there.

    Alturas

    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
    Alturas, Oct 3, 2005
    #4
  5. enri

    Ron Hunter Guest

    enri wrote:
    > My LS443 Kodak Digital camera failed all of a sudden, with no human
    > intervention nor abuse of any sort after approximately 5000 shots over
    > less than three years
    >
    > The lens mechanism wouldn't retract. This is the infamous "Error #45"
    > which I learned a posteriori, was a well-known common problem in this
    > camera.
    >
    > A call to the KODAK service revealed that the camera would not be
    > repaired by them, that the unit was no longer in production and that
    > there weren't any parts available.
    >
    > "Management had decided that it was not in Kodak's best interest to
    > repair this kind of problem in this particular camera"
    >
    > They offered to replace the damaged camera with a refurbished DX7630
    > camera for $125.00 + $10.95 shipping plus the old camera shipped at my
    > expense, i.e. roughly $150 for a refurbished, an euphemism for "used",
    > camera available for about $250 new.
    >
    > I took the trouble to find out which part needed replacement finding
    > out that the part in question is a plastic gear costing less than 10
    > cents (I know this because I worked optical production issues at
    > Lockheed Martin).
    >
    > What emerges from this picture is the image of KODAK as a greedy
    > company which offered to the market a product having a design flaw for
    > more than $500 without doing very much about it.
    >
    > The case of Iomega and its "click of death" Zip drive went to court
    > eroding its customer base and driving down the price of its stock.
    >
    > Image buying a Honda Civic having a design flaw resulting in a
    > transmission problem; the company refuses to repair your vehicle but
    > offers a different *used* vehicle for half of the original price of
    > the original vehicle.
    >
    > Kodak could at least had issue a warning to its customers of a
    > potential gear problem; the problem was known to them shortly after
    > releasing the LS443 to the market. If one knows that the camera has a
    > gear problem one would not retract its lens so frequently to save
    > battery power.
    >
    > This is not a "lack of parts" problem, it is simply too much effort to
    > install the part. This "too much effort" is their own engineering
    > fault, and the burden for it should not fall on the consumer.
    >
    > enri
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    Perhaps you should have bought a Rolls Royce. They will always make
    parts for any car they ever made. Of course this COSTS. After 5000
    pictures, you should be ready for a new camera with current technology.
    Nothing lasts forever. BTW, I can't buy 'design flaw' is this case
    since it is a part that failed. Parts wear out. Lots of MY parts are
    wearing out, should I complain to the designer?


    --
    Ron Hunter
    Ron Hunter, Oct 3, 2005
    #5
  6. enri

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Alturas wrote:
    > On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 02:25:05 -0000, James Gifford
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> enri <> wrote:
    >>> Image buying a Honda Civic having a design flaw resulting in a
    >>> transmission problem; the company refuses to repair your vehicle but
    >>> offers a different *used* vehicle for half of the original price of
    >>> the original vehicle.

    >> It's unlikely that the cost of repairing the Civic would exceed its value,
    >> or even be a large fraction of its value. You bought an inexpensive camera;
    >> you used it for three years and 5000 shots; it doesn't really matter
    >> whether the failure was an expensive part and you're the only one it's
    >> happened to or a ten-cent gear that's happened to thousands of them.
    >>
    >> Digital cameras are fragile. Since people want them small, light, fast and
    >> cheap, things like short lifespans or trouble points on lens systems, card
    >> doors, etc. are common.
    >>
    >> Bummer. But I think you're shoveling too much on Kodak.

    >
    > The poster mentioned paying $500, which isn't my idea of cheap. I
    > think Kodak pushes the "EasyShare" concept too much and people buy
    > into it. With most Kodak models, the photos themselves don't get top
    > ratings. I'd rather get the best possible lens/sensor than mediocre
    > photos that are easier to "share" (share with the neighbors?)
    > Plugging in a USB cable and browsing for a removable drive is no
    > hardship.
    >
    > Alturas
    >
    > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


    Then replace the LS443 (one of Kodak's better efforts, BTW) with a nice
    new Canon DSLR for about $1500, and then complain about IT.
    Sigh.


    --
    Ron Hunter
    Ron Hunter, Oct 3, 2005
    #6
  7. enri

    enri Guest

    On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 02:24:56 -0500, Ron Hunter <>
    wrote:

    >> This is not a "lack of parts" problem, it is simply too much effort to
    >> install the part. This "too much effort" is their own engineering
    >> fault, and the burden for it should not fall on the consumer.
    >>
    >> enri



    >>

    >Perhaps you should have bought a Rolls Royce. They will always make
    >parts for any car they ever made. Of course this COSTS. After 5000
    >pictures, you should be ready for a new camera with current technology.
    > Nothing lasts forever. BTW, I can't buy 'design flaw' is this case
    >since it is a part that failed. Parts wear out. Lots of MY parts are
    >wearing out, should I complain to the designer?


    Go ahead and Goggle LS443 "error 45", you will find out that they
    are many, many entries, suggesting that a *lot* of people had this
    problem. Not to mention the large amount of LS443 cameras sold "for
    parts only" sold in everyday in Ebay.

    Other Kodak camera models do not show such frequent problems. In my
    book this is a classical case of engineering design flaw.

    Also, years and years of handling failures of optical assemblies
    tells me that 5000 shots is not a large number. Typically a properly
    designed gear assembly for a modestly priced Zoom lens has a MTBF
    (Minimum Time Between Failures) of over 50,000 "shots" or lens
    motions.

    enri
    enri, Oct 3, 2005
    #7
  8. enri

    enri Guest

    On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 02:26:52 -0500, Ron Hunter <>
    wrote:


    >> The poster mentioned paying $500, which isn't my idea of cheap. I
    >> think Kodak pushes the "EasyShare" concept too much and people buy
    >> into it. With most Kodak models, the photos themselves don't get top
    >> ratings. I'd rather get the best possible lens/sensor than mediocre
    >> photos that are easier to "share" (share with the neighbors?)
    >> Plugging in a USB cable and browsing for a removable drive is no
    >> hardship.
    >>
    >> Alturas
    >>
    >> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    >> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    >> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

    >
    >Then replace the LS443 (one of Kodak's better efforts, BTW) with a nice
    >new Canon DSLR for about $1500, and then complain about IT.
    >Sigh.


    Are you implying that reliability lies only in the realm of *very*
    expensive camaras? I suggest you review the US auto industry
    reliability problems of the 60's and 70's vs. Japan auto industry.

    "Six Sigma" and "Kaizan" are now common terms in US auto industry
    changing our perceptions of automobile reliability forever.

    enri
    enri, Oct 3, 2005
    #8
  9. enri

    Rob Novak Guest

    On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 09:55:45 -0400, enri <> wrote:


    >Are you implying that reliability lies only in the realm of *very*
    >expensive camaras? I suggest you review the US auto industry
    >reliability problems of the 60's and 70's vs. Japan auto industry.


    The usage patterns and designs of point-n-shoot cameras make them
    inherently less reliable long-term than more advanced/expensive kit.

    Think about it - they get thrown into purses, backpacks, and
    belt-pouches to bounce around with spare change, crumbs, and your
    house keys. They have nifty zoom-y lens barrels that extend and
    retract with every on/off cycle and every stab at the wide/tele rocker
    switch on the back. They dangle on a wrist-strap and get banged into
    things. Lens barrels are frequently composite materials and extend
    far beyond the camera body without the benefit of robust mechanical
    support. They're a melange of design compromises that give people the
    glitzy features they clamor for.

    There are reliable models out there, but they're expensive. Consumers
    want a pocket camera that is small, light, convenient, and not too
    expensive. However, "small" and "light" don't play well with
    "durable", and when you get the three of them together in the same
    place, "affordable" goes out the window. Exhibit A - Leica. Sure,
    they're light, fast, small, and will last forever. The materials used
    and mechanical design employed are light years beyond the average
    injection-molded conglomeration of plastic parts that comprise the
    average consumer camera, though.

    People are just not willing to pay for durability coupled with
    convenience. To keep the price point low, increased durability only
    comes at the expense of size and weight, which goes against the market
    demand for smaller and lighter. Few want to drop the extra cash for
    the exotic materials and complex tooling that allow for the latter.
    --
    Strange, Geometrical Hinges: http://rob.rnovak.net
    Rob Novak, Oct 3, 2005
    #9
  10. enri

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 09:45:53 -0400, enri <> wrote:

    >Also, years and years of handling failures of optical assemblies
    >tells me that 5000 shots is not a large number. Typically a properly
    >designed gear assembly for a modestly priced Zoom lens has a MTBF
    >(Minimum Time Between Failures) of over 50,000 "shots" or lens
    >motions.


    MTBF = Mean Time Between Failures.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Replace "g" with "a"
    funktionality.blogspot.com
    Bill Funk, Oct 3, 2005
    #10
  11. On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 08:18:22 -0700, Bill Funk <>
    wrote in <>:

    >>Also, years and years of handling failures of optical assemblies
    >>tells me that 5000 shots is not a large number. Typically a properly
    >>designed gear assembly for a modestly priced Zoom lens has a MTBF
    >>(Minimum Time Between Failures) of over 50,000 "shots" or lens
    >>motions.

    >
    >MTBF = Mean Time Between Failures.


    But when the manufacturer decides not to supply parts, it has to stand for
    Mean Time BEFORE Failure.

    --
    Regards
    Peter Boulding
    (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
    Fractal music & images: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
    Peter Boulding, Oct 3, 2005
    #11
  12. enri

    Ron Hunter Guest

    enri wrote:
    > On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 02:24:56 -0500, Ron Hunter <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>> This is not a "lack of parts" problem, it is simply too much effort to
    >>> install the part. This "too much effort" is their own engineering
    >>> fault, and the burden for it should not fall on the consumer.
    >>>
    >>> enri

    >
    >
    >> Perhaps you should have bought a Rolls Royce. They will always make
    >> parts for any car they ever made. Of course this COSTS. After 5000
    >> pictures, you should be ready for a new camera with current technology.
    >> Nothing lasts forever. BTW, I can't buy 'design flaw' is this case
    >> since it is a part that failed. Parts wear out. Lots of MY parts are
    >> wearing out, should I complain to the designer?

    >
    > Go ahead and Goggle LS443 "error 45", you will find out that they
    > are many, many entries, suggesting that a *lot* of people had this
    > problem. Not to mention the large amount of LS443 cameras sold "for
    > parts only" sold in everyday in Ebay.
    >
    > Other Kodak camera models do not show such frequent problems. In my
    > book this is a classical case of engineering design flaw.
    >
    > Also, years and years of handling failures of optical assemblies
    > tells me that 5000 shots is not a large number. Typically a properly
    > designed gear assembly for a modestly priced Zoom lens has a MTBF
    > (Minimum Time Between Failures) of over 50,000 "shots" or lens
    > motions.
    >
    > enri
    >

    One must be able to decide whether the part was not correctly
    manufactured (part failure), or was specified incorrectly/inadequately.
    Many companies order parts from a given supplier, in the normal course
    of manufacturing, and if a part fails, then a company can take a 'bum
    rap'. I suggest that it is unlikely that you KNOW which is the case,
    and are just assuming that the error was in Kodak's specification, or
    lack of testing.

    When a consumer product fails, it is also often the case that the user
    routinely used a device in ways not anticipated by the manufacturer,
    which can lead to component failure. This is another 'imponderable'.
    It may be that the part was weak, the usage was extreme, or that the
    part was not correctly specified. I can't see how you can choose
    between those alternative explanations for failure.

    Concluding, without definitive information, that Kodak was at fault
    leads me to believe there is bias in your conclusions.


    --
    Ron Hunter
    Ron Hunter, Oct 3, 2005
    #12
  13. enri

    Ron Hunter Guest

    enri wrote:
    > On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 02:26:52 -0500, Ron Hunter <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>> The poster mentioned paying $500, which isn't my idea of cheap. I
    >>> think Kodak pushes the "EasyShare" concept too much and people buy
    >>> into it. With most Kodak models, the photos themselves don't get top
    >>> ratings. I'd rather get the best possible lens/sensor than mediocre
    >>> photos that are easier to "share" (share with the neighbors?)
    >>> Plugging in a USB cable and browsing for a removable drive is no
    >>> hardship.
    >>>
    >>> Alturas
    >>>
    >>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    >>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    >>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

    >> Then replace the LS443 (one of Kodak's better efforts, BTW) with a nice
    >> new Canon DSLR for about $1500, and then complain about IT.
    >> Sigh.

    >
    > Are you implying that reliability lies only in the realm of *very*
    > expensive camaras? I suggest you review the US auto industry
    > reliability problems of the 60's and 70's vs. Japan auto industry.
    >
    > "Six Sigma" and "Kaizan" are now common terms in US auto industry
    > changing our perceptions of automobile reliability forever.
    >
    > enri
    >

    No, I am implying that you don't KNOW that Kodak was at fault, only that
    a part often fails in a certain model of camera. If you explore
    failures in other similar cameras from a range of manufacturers, you MAY
    find that the complaint isn't specific to Kodak, but common of many zoom
    cameras. And, yes, if you pay more, you will probably get a camera that
    will last longer, and will have parts available for a longer period of
    time (the Rolls Royce example).


    --
    Ron Hunter
    Ron Hunter, Oct 3, 2005
    #13
  14. enri

    Chip C Guest

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

    enri wrote:

    > They offered to replace the damaged camera with a refurbished DX7630
    > camera for $125.00 + $10.95 shipping plus the old camera shipped at my
    > expense, i.e. roughly $150 for a refurbished, an euphemism for "used",
    > camera available for about $250 new.


    An unimpressive experience and definitely on the low end of customer
    satisfaction, but probably not actionable except to cross them off your
    list of brands for future purchases. Post-warranty repairs are at their
    discretion and struggling old-guard companies that damn near missed the
    whole digital boat just aren't going to have the resources to do it
    right. I suspect they didn't do the core design in-house, in this case,
    and they probably have poor commonality across their various models, so
    repairs on old models will be even less cost-effective than the
    notoriously low norm on mass-market consumer electronics.

    Two experiences of my own that you've reminded me of:

    About 10 years ago I was working for a place that bought D*ll machines.
    One desktop came with a non-functioning monitor: "DOA" as we say. Well,
    such things happen, and the tech came the next day with a replacement -
    a refurb unit. But we paid for a new one, we said. Well, they said,
    warranty replacements are handled with fully-warranted refurbs, no
    matter how soon the problem crops up. But it was DOA, we said. Tough,
    they said, DOAs are handled as warranty calls. So we paid full price
    for new equipment and never, not even for a minute, got it.

    At least X***x put in the fine print on their quotes that some models
    of their big printers were fully reconditioned "factory rebuilt" units,
    so they could make a stronger case that you were stupid to have dealt
    with them to begin with.

    > I took the trouble to find out which part needed replacement finding
    > out that the part in question is a plastic gear costing less than 10
    > cents (I know this because I worked optical production issues at
    > Lockheed Martin).


    You are aware, of course, that diagnosis, labour and shipping far dwarf
    the nominal cost of the part, so whether it's 10 cents or 10 bucks is a
    bit of a red herring. I'd guess that any repair relating to the lens
    would require a nontrivial alignment and testing effort, so this is
    probably a significant repair. To make the job feasible at all they'd
    probably have to replace some large subsystem, like the whole
    retractable lens assembly, constituting most of the camera's value.
    These were all made at some contract factory overseas which has long
    since retooled for other clients, and it would be ludicrously
    uneconomic to make more of them now. They would have kept some number
    on hand for warranty repairs, used up the leftovers for post-warranty
    work, and now they're gone.

    > What emerges from this picture is the image of KODAK as a greedy
    > company which offered to the market a product having a design flaw for
    > more than $500 without doing very much about it.


    The picture I get is what I said above: a desperate old-guard outfit
    struggling to keep a share in a market that their name is no longer
    synonymous with, and finding out along with their remaining customers
    that they really aren't up to it.

    (Cynically, if they'd designed it "right", all units would have failed,
    with a uniformly random distribution of problems, the day the warranty
    expired. That all the failures are the same part means that all other
    components were overdesigned!)

    But I do agree that $500 is a price point that should put the thing
    above the disposable level.

    > Image buying a Honda Civic having a design flaw resulting in a
    > transmission problem; the company refuses to repair your vehicle but
    > offers a different *used* vehicle for half of the original price of
    > the original vehicle.


    Imagine a Honda dealer telling someone in 2005 that they carried no
    parts, and would provide no service, for a 19xx model, but would offer
    them a $YY trade-in allowance against a newer warranted used vehicle on
    the lot, even though your car's a junker that they'll have to pay to
    get rid of. Perfectly resonable, even generous, for some values of XX
    and YY, no? So it's a good measure of their customer service commitment
    - and their cash flow - but it's not a qualitatively unacceptable
    position.

    > This is not a "lack of parts" problem, it is simply too much effort to
    > install the part. This "too much effort" is their own engineering
    > fault, and the burden for it should not fall on the consumer.


    Effort is money, and the burden of any post-warranty repair or
    replacement will unavoidably fall on the consumer. They've calculated
    that a sustainable price to do the repair would result in the vast
    majority of customers - maybe even you! - not taking them up on it. So
    they've said screw this, let's let folks buy a more current model for
    about what we'd have to charge them to fix the old one. Frankly I'd
    expect many folks to prefer it.

    Chip C
    Chip C, Oct 3, 2005
    #14
  15. Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    > No, I am implying that you don't KNOW that Kodak was at fault, only
    > that a part often fails in a certain model of camera. If you explore
    > failures in other similar cameras from a range of manufacturers, you
    > MAY find that the complaint isn't specific to Kodak, but common of
    > many zoom cameras. And, yes, if you pay more, you will probably get a
    > camera that will last longer, and will have parts available for a
    > longer period of time (the Rolls Royce example).


    Absolutely. As I said and as others have said, the market forces for
    consumer point-and-shoots are absolutely contradictory to durability
    under their normal usage conditions. Failure, even widespread and
    consistent failure, of very delicate and easily-abused things like lens
    extension systems is common across makers and models.

    I have an Olympus C-3000; the whole line is prone to damage of the
    extender. The only real solution is to put "lens armor" on it, which
    reduces the pocketability of the camera.

    I bought my daughter a slimmer Oly P&S, which requires you to close the
    front protective shutter to within a fraction of an inch of the extended
    lens assembly - no less and no more; the window is VERY small - and this
    has proven difficult to do without great patience and delicate handling.
    I can see lots of damage occurring from mommies and daddies trying to get
    the damned lens closed so they can chase Junior.

    OTOH, I bought a Canon A-95 for general family use, and I don't have a
    single complaint with it. Small, fast lens extension and retraction, and
    nothing about it requires delicate handling or seems fragile.

    I suggest that anyone buying a digicam of any price range do a ton of
    homework - the info is out there, on various review web sites - and then
    go to a B&M store and handle, handle, handle the two or three final
    candidates to make sure they suit your intended usage style and to make
    sure they don't have a "gotcha" that will prove to be irritating or make
    the cam damage-prone in their hands.

    In particular, pay attention to early reports of fragile parts - easily
    damaged lens assemblies or card doors, fragile connectors, easily
    scratched screens. It doesn't take long for this info to start showing up
    when new models are released.

    --
    |=- James Gifford = FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY -=|
    |=- So... your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? -=|
    James Gifford, Oct 3, 2005
    #15
  16. enri

    Alturas Guest

    On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 02:24:56 -0500, Ron Hunter <>
    wrote:

    >Perhaps you should have bought a Rolls Royce. They will always make
    >parts for any car they ever made. Of course this COSTS. After 5000
    >pictures, you should be ready for a new camera with current technology.
    > Nothing lasts forever. BTW, I can't buy 'design flaw' is this case
    >since it is a part that failed. Parts wear out. Lots of MY parts are
    >wearing out, should I complain to the designer?


    I think that many photos should be no sweat for a well-made camera.
    With the quickness of digital I could easily take 250 shots on a
    weekend trip, or 1,000 pictures a month if I was so inclined. I guess
    5,000 may seem like a lot for 35mm with a lot more care put into each
    costly snap. If the complainant paid $500 for the camera and only got
    5,000 shots, he paid 10 cents per image, but digital should knock it
    down to a penny, IMO.

    Alturas

    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
    Alturas, Oct 3, 2005
    #16
  17. enri

    enri Guest

    On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 12:13:32 -0500, Ron Hunter <>
    wrote:

    >> Are you implying that reliability lies only in the realm of *very*
    >> expensive camaras? I suggest you review the US auto industry
    >> reliability problems of the 60's and 70's vs. Japan auto industry.
    >>
    >> "Six Sigma" and "Kaizan" are now common terms in US auto industry
    >> changing our perceptions of automobile reliability forever.
    >>
    >> enri
    >>

    >No, I am implying that you don't KNOW that Kodak was at fault, only that
    >a part often fails in a certain model of camera. If you explore
    >failures in other similar cameras from a range of manufacturers, you MAY
    >find that the complaint isn't specific to Kodak, but common of many zoom
    >cameras. And, yes, if you pay more, you will probably get a camera that
    >will last longer, and will have parts available for a longer period of
    >time (the Rolls Royce example).


    "The buck stops here" should be a phrase of wisdom in this case. The
    blame game is of no interest to me or to the teeming millions affected
    by the problem. The issue is one of confidence, once is its broken it
    will stay perhaps forever.

    Having said that and having heard your arguments, as well as the
    arguments of other posters, I will now swallow my anger and feelings
    of impotency and treat Kodak as another company caring very little
    about my opinion.

    enri
    enri, Oct 3, 2005
    #17
  18. enri

    enri Guest

    On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 17:27:52 -0000, James Gifford
    <> wrote:

    >
    >I suggest that anyone buying a digicam of any price range do a ton of
    >homework - the info is out there, on various review web sites - and then
    >go to a B&M store and handle, handle, handle the two or three final
    >candidates to make sure they suit your intended usage style and to make
    >sure they don't have a "gotcha" that will prove to be irritating or make
    >the cam damage-prone in their hands.
    >
    >In particular, pay attention to early reports of fragile parts - easily
    >damaged lens assemblies or card doors, fragile connectors, easily
    >scratched screens. It doesn't take long for this info to start showing up
    >when new models are released.


    You are right. I learned a posteriori that the infamous error E #45
    was known in Dec 2002, only months after the release of the LS443
    camera into the market.

    enri
    enri, Oct 3, 2005
    #18
  19. Alturas wrote:
    >
    > I think that many photos should be no sweat for a well-made camera.
    > With the quickness of digital I could easily take 250 shots on a
    > weekend trip, or 1,000 pictures a month if I was so inclined. I guess
    > 5,000 may seem like a lot for 35mm with a lot more care put into each
    > costly snap. If the complainant paid $500 for the camera and only got


    That's only a couple hundred rolls of film. That's nothin'.


    --
    Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
    Killing All Posts from GG: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    Blinky the Shark, Oct 3, 2005
    #19
  20. enri <> wrote:
    >> In particular, pay attention to early reports of fragile parts -
    >> easily damaged lens assemblies or card doors, fragile connectors,
    >> easily scratched screens. It doesn't take long for this info to start
    >> showing up when new models are released.


    > You are right. I learned a posteriori that the infamous error E #45
    > was known in Dec 2002, only months after the release of the LS443
    > camera into the market.


    As I've found each time I've researched a new cam (and I buy more than
    most, some for professional use and some for family use), I've found the
    online digicam and camcorder community to be a surprisingly well-organized
    and - with caution - reliable source. Sometimes everyone bitches about a
    "problem" that I don't see as a drawback, but a little comparison of
    opinions, reviews etc. and you can derive a pretty clear picture of which
    cams might suit you and which are dogs to be avoided.

    --
    |=- James Gifford = FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY -=|
    |=- So... your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? -=|
    James Gifford, Oct 3, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Gary J Bevans

    Lenses for the Kodak LS443 point & shoot

    Gary J Bevans, Aug 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    333
    David L
    Aug 21, 2003
  2. Matt Biskup
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    7,026
    Ron Baird
    May 26, 2004
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    337
  4. enri
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    312
  5. Kodak LS443 Camera Error E45

    , Jan 21, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    9,800
    Ron Baird
    Jan 30, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page