Re: Kodak DX6490 : ANTS

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rudy Garcia, Apr 1, 2004.

  1. Rudy Garcia

    Rudy Garcia Guest

    In article <>,
    (Fulgencio) wrote:

    > I have a Kodak DX6490 digital camera with a dock. The camera was on
    > its dock next to my computer and next to an older LS443 Kodak
    > camera. For unknown reasons, ants found their way inside the camera,
    > in a matter of four or five days, my camera was the habitat of a
    > large colony of ants.
    >
    > I took the camera to my patio and let the ants flee without
    > creating ant causalities. However, upon departing the ants left some
    > eggs behind. Some of these eggs were left on the inside of the front
    > window of the camera and as a consequence most of my images suffer
    > from ghosting (lights outside de field of view of the camera leave
    > traces).
    >
    > I send the camera (still under warranty) to Kodak to be repaired
    > getting in exchange a bill of $175 for Labor including the following
    > attached note:
    >
    > REPAIR TECHNICIAN NOTES: Warranty voided due to non-manufacturing
    > defect. Found that the camera is fully contaminated with an unknown
    > substance. Need to replace the lens and thoroughly clean the
    > internal components.
    >
    > The warranty reads in part:
    >
    > THIS WARRANTY DOES NOT APPLY WHEN FAILURE IS DUE TO SHIPPING DAMAGE,
    > ACCIDENT, ALTERATION, MODIFICATION, UNATAUTHORIZED SERVICE, MISUSE,
    > ABUSE, USE WITH INCOMPATIBLE ACCESSSORIES OR ATTACHMENTS, FAILURE TO
    > FOLLOW KODAK'S OPERATION, MAINTENANCE OR REPACKING INSTRUCTIONS,
    > FAILURE TO USE ITEMS SUPPLIED BY KODAK (SUCH AS ADAPTERS AND
    > CABLES), OR CLAIMS MADE AFTER THE DURATION OF THIS WARRANTY.
    >
    > Question:
    >
    > Why are the effects of dirt due to an ant invasion not covered by
    > the manufacturer warranty ? It is a case of poor design practice
    > leaving the camera vulnerable to this kind of situation.
    >
    > Why was no warning issued for this kind of a problem ?
    >
    > Is there going to be a recall ?
    >
    > enrique


    Good April 1 story ! Although here in the USA it is still March 31.

    --
    Rudy Garcia
     
    Rudy Garcia, Apr 1, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rudy Garcia

    Fulgencio Guest

    If you people cannot contribute anything but jokes or suggest
    that I am l not truthful nor serious I might as well ignore
    the whole "help your fellow amateur" thing of Usenet.

    I will not be poorer by paying a charge which, in my opinion
    (possibly the only one), I don't deserve.

    A camera which allows an insect infestation under normal living
    conditions (that is, not being in the Amazon, etc.) has a problem.

    The next thing will be water condensation on the surfaces of
    the lenses.

    It is like rebates, a rebater may not pay a rebatee and get away
    with it with impunity.

    He only creates mistrust and anger on the part of the rebatee.
    If this is the way that Kodak conducts business so there.
















    Rudy Garcia <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > In article <>,
    > (Fulgencio) wrote:
    >
    > > I have a Kodak DX6490 digital camera with a dock. The camera was on
    > > its dock next to my computer and next to an older LS443 Kodak
    > > camera. For unknown reasons, ants found their way inside the camera,
    > > in a matter of four or five days, my camera was the habitat of a
    > > large colony of ants.
    > >
    > > I took the camera to my patio and let the ants flee without
    > > creating ant causalities. However, upon departing the ants left some
    > > eggs behind. Some of these eggs were left on the inside of the front
    > > window of the camera and as a consequence most of my images suffer
    > > from ghosting (lights outside de field of view of the camera leave
    > > traces).
    > >
    > > I send the camera (still under warranty) to Kodak to be repaired
    > > getting in exchange a bill of $175 for Labor including the following
    > > attached note:
    > >
    > > REPAIR TECHNICIAN NOTES: Warranty voided due to non-manufacturing
    > > defect. Found that the camera is fully contaminated with an unknown
    > > substance. Need to replace the lens and thoroughly clean the
    > > internal components.
    > >
    > > The warranty reads in part:
    > >
    > > THIS WARRANTY DOES NOT APPLY WHEN FAILURE IS DUE TO SHIPPING DAMAGE,
    > > ACCIDENT, ALTERATION, MODIFICATION, UNATAUTHORIZED SERVICE, MISUSE,
    > > ABUSE, USE WITH INCOMPATIBLE ACCESSSORIES OR ATTACHMENTS, FAILURE TO
    > > FOLLOW KODAK'S OPERATION, MAINTENANCE OR REPACKING INSTRUCTIONS,
    > > FAILURE TO USE ITEMS SUPPLIED BY KODAK (SUCH AS ADAPTERS AND
    > > CABLES), OR CLAIMS MADE AFTER THE DURATION OF THIS WARRANTY.
    > >
    > > Question:
    > >
    > > Why are the effects of dirt due to an ant invasion not covered by
    > > the manufacturer warranty ? It is a case of poor design practice
    > > leaving the camera vulnerable to this kind of situation.
    > >
    > > Why was no warning issued for this kind of a problem ?
    > >
    > > Is there going to be a recall ?
    > >
    > > enrique

    >
    > Good April 1 story ! Although here in the USA it is still March 31.
     
    Fulgencio, Apr 1, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rudy Garcia

    Lisa Horton Guest

    Fulgencio wrote:
    >
    > If you people cannot contribute anything but jokes or suggest
    > that I am l not truthful nor serious I might as well ignore
    > the whole "help your fellow amateur" thing of Usenet.
    >
    > I will not be poorer by paying a charge which, in my opinion
    > (possibly the only one), I don't deserve.
    >
    > A camera which allows an insect infestation under normal living
    > conditions (that is, not being in the Amazon, etc.) has a problem.
    >


    If the camera is not advertised or identified as environmentally sealed,
    I don't think it reasonable to expect the camera to be so sealed.

    Lisa
     
    Lisa Horton, Apr 1, 2004
    #3
  4. Fulgencio wrote:
    > If you people cannot contribute anything but jokes or suggest
    > that I am l not truthful nor serious I might as well ignore
    > the whole "help your fellow amateur" thing of Usenet.
    >
    > I will not be poorer by paying a charge which, in my opinion
    > (possibly the only one), I don't deserve.
    >
    > A camera which allows an insect infestation under normal living
    > conditions (that is, not being in the Amazon, etc.) has a problem.
    >
    > The next thing will be water condensation on the surfaces of
    > the lenses.
    >
    > It is like rebates, a rebater may not pay a rebatee and get away
    > with it with impunity.
    >
    > He only creates mistrust and anger on the part of the rebatee.
    > If this is the way that Kodak conducts business so there.


    You can't be serious!

    It is not up to the manufacturer of the product to fix it for free when you drop
    it in the bath, nor is it up to them to fix it when ants lay eggs in it.

    They do not say it's water-proof, nor do they say it's ant proof.

    Get it?

    --
    Ben Thomas

    Apparently less than 10% of accidents are caused by drivers exceeding the speed
    limit.
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?BenOne=A9?=, Apr 1, 2004
    #4
  5. Rudy Garcia

    enri Guest

    :> If you people cannot contribute anything but jokes or suggest
    :> that I am l not truthful nor serious I might as well ignore
    :> the whole "help your fellow amateur" thing of Usenet.
    :>
    :> I will not be poorer by paying a charge which, in my opinion
    :> (possibly the only one), I don't deserve.
    :>
    :> A camera which allows an insect infestation under normal living
    :> conditions (that is, not being in the Amazon, etc.) has a problem.
    :>
    :> The next thing will be water condensation on the surfaces of
    :> the lenses.
    :>
    :> It is like rebates, a rebater may not pay a rebatee and get away
    :> with it with impunity.
    :>
    :> He only creates mistrust and anger on the part of the rebatee.
    :> If this is the way that Kodak conducts business so there.
    :
    :You can't be serious!
    :
    :It is not up to the manufacturer of the product to fix it for free when you
    : drop it in the bath, nor is it up to them to fix it when ants lay eggs in it.
    :
    :They do not say it's water-proof, nor do they say it's ant proof.
    :
    :Get it?
    :
    No, I do not get it and indeed I am serious..

    I have several appliances in a benign environment but none of them
    were ever affected by ants. I did not do anything unusual with this
    camera but nevertheless I got hit. It is the device, not me.

    Get it?
     
    enri, Apr 2, 2004
    #5
  6. Rudy Garcia

    enri Guest

    :> If you people cannot contribute anything but jokes or suggest
    :> that I am l not truthful nor serious I might as well ignore
    :> the whole "help your fellow amateur" thing of Usenet.
    :>
    :> I will not be poorer by paying a charge which, in my opinion
    :> (possibly the only one), I don't deserve.
    :>
    :> A camera which allows an insect infestation under normal living
    :> conditions (that is, not being in the Amazon, etc.) has a problem.
    :>
    :
    :If the camera is not advertised or identified as environmentally sealed,
    :I don't think it reasonable to expect the camera to be so sealed.
    :
    :Lisa


    Lisa,

    This case is unusual. Nothing as obvious as dropping your camera
    in the bathtub. If it happened, and unless you consider me a dishonest
    individual, it happened. It deserves scrutiny. Let alone assumption
    of probable cause due to a manufacturer error.

    I do work in optics (EO) and I do know what kind of protection an objective
    should have. I don't pretend that it should be purged with nitrogen, but
    at least *some* kind of protection is required.

    enrique
     
    enri, Apr 2, 2004
    #6
  7. Rudy Garcia

    enri Guest

    :> If you people cannot contribute anything but jokes or suggest
    :> that I am l not truthful nor serious I might as well ignore
    :> the whole "help your fellow amateur" thing of Usenet.
    :>
    :> I will not be poorer by paying a charge which, in my opinion
    :> (possibly the only one), I don't deserve.
    :>
    :> A camera which allows an insect infestation under normal living
    :> conditions (that is, not being in the Amazon, etc.) has a problem.
    :>
    :
    :If the camera is not advertised or identified as environmentally sealed,
    :I don't think it reasonable to expect the camera to be so sealed.
    :
    :Lisa

    Lisa,

    This is an unusual case, it is nothing like dropping the camera in the
    bathtub.

    If it happened, and unless you believe I am dishonest, it did happen then
    it deserves scrutiny. Presumption of responsability on the part of Kodak is
    certainly an option.

    I work with military optics and know what kind of protection is required
    for optics under harsh environments. I don't pretend purging the optics
    with nitrogen, but *some* protection is necessary. Even at a consumer level.

    enrique
     
    enri, Apr 2, 2004
    #7
  8. Rudy Garcia

    enri Guest

    :
    :
    :Fulgencio wrote:
    :>
    :> If you people cannot contribute anything but jokes or suggest
    :> that I am l not truthful nor serious I might as well ignore
    :> the whole "help your fellow amateur" thing of Usenet.
    :>
    :> I will not be poorer by paying a charge which, in my opinion
    :> (possibly the only one), I don't deserve.
    :>
    :> A camera which allows an insect infestation under normal living
    :> conditions (that is, not being in the Amazon, etc.) has a problem.
    :>
    :
    :If the camera is not advertised or identified as environmentally sealed,
    :I don't think it reasonable to expect the camera to be so sealed.
    :
    :Lisa


    Fulgencio wrote:
    >
    > If you people cannot contribute anything but jokes or suggest
    > that I am l not truthful nor serious I might as well ignore
    > the whole "help your fellow amateur" thing of Usenet.
    >
    > I will not be poorer by paying a charge which, in my opinion
    > (possibly the only one), I don't deserve.
    >
    > A camera which allows an insect infestation under normal living
    > conditions (that is, not being in the Amazon, etc.) has a problem.
    >


    If the camera is not advertised or identified as environmentally sealed,
    I don't think it reasonable to expect the camera to be so sealed.

    Lisa
     
    enri, Apr 2, 2004
    #8
  9. Rudy Garcia

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Fulgencio wrote:

    > If you people cannot contribute anything but jokes or suggest
    > that I am l not truthful nor serious I might as well ignore
    > the whole "help your fellow amateur" thing of Usenet.
    >
    > I will not be poorer by paying a charge which, in my opinion
    > (possibly the only one), I don't deserve.
    >
    > A camera which allows an insect infestation under normal living
    > conditions (that is, not being in the Amazon, etc.) has a problem.
    >
    > The next thing will be water condensation on the surfaces of
    > the lenses.
    >
    > It is like rebates, a rebater may not pay a rebatee and get away
    > with it with impunity.
    >
    > He only creates mistrust and anger on the part of the rebatee.
    > If this is the way that Kodak conducts business so there.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Rudy Garcia <> wrote in message news:<>...
    >
    >>In article <>,
    >> (Fulgencio) wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>I have a Kodak DX6490 digital camera with a dock. The camera was on
    >>>its dock next to my computer and next to an older LS443 Kodak
    >>>camera. For unknown reasons, ants found their way inside the camera,
    >>>in a matter of four or five days, my camera was the habitat of a
    >>>large colony of ants.
    >>>
    >>>I took the camera to my patio and let the ants flee without
    >>>creating ant causalities. However, upon departing the ants left some
    >>>eggs behind. Some of these eggs were left on the inside of the front
    >>>window of the camera and as a consequence most of my images suffer
    >>>from ghosting (lights outside de field of view of the camera leave
    >>>traces).
    >>>
    >>>I send the camera (still under warranty) to Kodak to be repaired
    >>>getting in exchange a bill of $175 for Labor including the following
    >>>attached note:
    >>>
    >>>REPAIR TECHNICIAN NOTES: Warranty voided due to non-manufacturing
    >>>defect. Found that the camera is fully contaminated with an unknown
    >>>substance. Need to replace the lens and thoroughly clean the
    >>>internal components.
    >>>
    >>>The warranty reads in part:
    >>>
    >>>THIS WARRANTY DOES NOT APPLY WHEN FAILURE IS DUE TO SHIPPING DAMAGE,
    >>>ACCIDENT, ALTERATION, MODIFICATION, UNATAUTHORIZED SERVICE, MISUSE,
    >>>ABUSE, USE WITH INCOMPATIBLE ACCESSSORIES OR ATTACHMENTS, FAILURE TO
    >>>FOLLOW KODAK'S OPERATION, MAINTENANCE OR REPACKING INSTRUCTIONS,
    >>>FAILURE TO USE ITEMS SUPPLIED BY KODAK (SUCH AS ADAPTERS AND
    >>>CABLES), OR CLAIMS MADE AFTER THE DURATION OF THIS WARRANTY.
    >>>
    >>>Question:
    >>>
    >>>Why are the effects of dirt due to an ant invasion not covered by
    >>>the manufacturer warranty ? It is a case of poor design practice
    >>>leaving the camera vulnerable to this kind of situation.
    >>>
    >>>Why was no warning issued for this kind of a problem ?
    >>>
    >>>Is there going to be a recall ?
    >>>
    >>>enrique

    >>
    >>Good April 1 story ! Although here in the USA it is still March 31.


    If you can show me some way in which Kodak is responsible for the ant
    infestation in YOUR home, I don't think they should be responsible for
    fixing the damage under war-ant-ee.
     
    Ron Hunter, Apr 3, 2004
    #9
  10. Rudy Garcia

    Ron Hunter Guest

    enri wrote:

    > :> If you people cannot contribute anything but jokes or suggest
    > :> that I am l not truthful nor serious I might as well ignore
    > :> the whole "help your fellow amateur" thing of Usenet.
    > :>
    > :> I will not be poorer by paying a charge which, in my opinion
    > :> (possibly the only one), I don't deserve.
    > :>
    > :> A camera which allows an insect infestation under normal living
    > :> conditions (that is, not being in the Amazon, etc.) has a problem.
    > :>
    > :> The next thing will be water condensation on the surfaces of
    > :> the lenses.
    > :>
    > :> It is like rebates, a rebater may not pay a rebatee and get away
    > :> with it with impunity.
    > :>
    > :> He only creates mistrust and anger on the part of the rebatee.
    > :> If this is the way that Kodak conducts business so there.
    > :
    > :You can't be serious!
    > :
    > :It is not up to the manufacturer of the product to fix it for free when you
    > : drop it in the bath, nor is it up to them to fix it when ants lay eggs in it.
    > :
    > :They do not say it's water-proof, nor do they say it's ant proof.
    > :
    > :Get it?
    > :
    > No, I do not get it and indeed I am serious..
    >
    > I have several appliances in a benign environment but none of them
    > were ever affected by ants. I did not do anything unusual with this
    > camera but nevertheless I got hit. It is the device, not me.
    >
    > Get it?


    It is what we in the IT world call 'site environment damage'. Your problem.
     
    Ron Hunter, Apr 3, 2004
    #10
  11. Rudy Garcia

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on Fri, 02 Apr 2004 21:36:24 -0600,
    Ron Hunter <> wrote:

    >Fulgencio wrote:


    >>>[SNIP]
    >>>Good April 1 story ! Although here in the USA it is still March 31.

    >
    >If you can show me some way in which Kodak is responsible for the ant
    >infestation in YOUR home, I don't think they should be responsible for
    >fixing the damage under war-ant-ee.


    Did you not read the last line?

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
     
    John Navas, Apr 3, 2004
    #11
  12. Rudy Garcia

    enri Guest

    :If you can show me some way in which Kodak is responsible for the ant
    :infestation in YOUR home, I don't think they should be responsible for
    :fixing the damage under war-ant-ee.

    There isn't any ant infestation in MY home.
    I have a Kodak LS443 next to the DX6490 without ANY ant
    problem.
     
    enri, Apr 3, 2004
    #12
  13. Rudy Garcia

    Doug Kanter Guest

    "enri" <> wrote in message
    news:c4ldar$2jru4l$-berlin.de...
    >
    > :If you can show me some way in which Kodak is responsible for the ant
    > :infestation in YOUR home, I don't think they should be responsible for
    > :fixing the damage under war-ant-ee.
    >
    > There isn't any ant infestation in MY home.
    > I have a Kodak LS443 next to the DX6490 without ANY ant
    > problem.


    I once had ants all over a cabinet in my kitchen. Just one cabinet. But none
    of the others. Should I blame the cabinet manufacturer for making one
    cabinet attractive to ants? Or, should I blame my wife, who paid no
    attention to drips down the side of the honey jar?
     
    Doug Kanter, Apr 3, 2004
    #13
  14. Rudy Garcia

    enri Guest

    :It is what we in the IT world call 'site environment damage'. Your problem.

    It is my problem, somehow everything is, but a quality inspection from the
    manufacturer is warranted.

    How would you feel if your new TV, out of the blue, does not function
    properly because of an ant invasion but any of your old TV sets were never
    affected ?
     
    enri, Apr 3, 2004
    #14
  15. Rudy Garcia

    enri Guest

    :I once had ants all over a cabinet in my kitchen. Just one cabinet. But none
    :eek:f the others. Should I blame the cabinet manufacturer for making one
    :cabinet attractive to ants? Or, should I blame my wife, who paid no
    :attention to drips down the side of the honey jar?
    :

    I guess the answer is YES.
     
    enri, Apr 3, 2004
    #15
  16. Rudy Garcia

    enri Guest

    :>>>Good April 1 story ! Although here in the USA it is still March 31.
    :>
    :>If you can show me some way in which Kodak is responsible for the ant
    :>infestation in YOUR home, I don't think they should be responsible for
    :>fixing the damage under war-ant-ee.
    :
    :Did you not read the last line?


    Last line from whom?
     
    enri, Apr 3, 2004
    #16
  17. Rudy Garcia

    Ron Hunter Guest

    enri wrote:

    > :If you can show me some way in which Kodak is responsible for the ant
    > :infestation in YOUR home, I don't think they should be responsible for
    > :fixing the damage under war-ant-ee.
    >
    > There isn't any ant infestation in MY home.
    > I have a Kodak LS443 next to the DX6490 without ANY ant
    > problem.


    So you think Kodak included ant bait in their camera, and that they did
    this intentionally, or irresponsibly? You might have trouble convincing
    a judge of that..
     
    Ron Hunter, Apr 3, 2004
    #17
  18. Rudy Garcia

    Doug Kanter Guest

    "enri" <> wrote in message
    news:c4ldqm$2jru4l$-berlin.de...
    >
    > :I once had ants all over a cabinet in my kitchen. Just one cabinet. But

    none
    > :eek:f the others. Should I blame the cabinet manufacturer for making one
    > :cabinet attractive to ants? Or, should I blame my wife, who paid no
    > :attention to drips down the side of the honey jar?
    > :
    >
    > I guess the answer is YES.


    To which question, Einstein? :)
     
    Doug Kanter, Apr 3, 2004
    #18
  19. Rudy Garcia

    Doug Kanter Guest

    "enri" <> wrote in message
    news:c4ldn2$2jru4l$-berlin.de...
    > :It is what we in the IT world call 'site environment damage'. Your

    problem.
    >
    > It is my problem, somehow everything is, but a quality inspection from

    the
    > manufacturer is warranted.
    >
    > How would you feel if your new TV, out of the blue, does not function
    > properly because of an ant invasion but any of your old TV sets were never
    > affected ?


    Do you live in a place where there is snow cover in the winter? Has that
    snow cover been melting recently?
     
    Doug Kanter, Apr 3, 2004
    #19
  20. Rudy Garcia

    enri Guest

    :So you think Kodak included ant bait in their camera, and that they did
    :this intentionally, or irresponsibly? You might have trouble convincing
    :a judge of that..

    Your words, not mine. You either have a twisted mind or nothing better
    to do. This is a digital photo amateur group, not a debate group.
     
    enri, Apr 3, 2004
    #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. Info
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    810
    ArtKramr
    Nov 18, 2003
  2. Alan D-W

    Re: Kodak DX6490 : ANTS

    Alan D-W, Apr 1, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    794
  3. Videos from Hell
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    439
    Videos from Hell
    Apr 20, 2004
  4. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    456
    DVD Verdict
    Aug 13, 2004
  5. kensplace
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    355
    Ron Hunter
    Oct 10, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page