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

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

  1. Does anybody else within the sound of my keyboard agree that two
    old-tech companies that haven't been able to make the transition are
    Kodak and Polaroid? I absolutely respect Kodak film. I wouldn't touch
    a Kodak digital camera. Or any of their film cameras made since...oh,
    maybe the 1940s or 1950s.
     
    Blinky the Shark, Oct 3, 2005
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. enri

    Bob Ward Guest


    Actually, they won't, but that's beside the point. As you said -
    Nothing lasts forever.
     
    Bob Ward, Oct 3, 2005
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. enri

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Chip,
    Some of your remarks are WAY off base, and not related to reality.
    Before you make such statements about a company, check their P&L
    statements, and their sales and market share figures, so you don't look
    like an idiot.
     
    Ron Hunter, Oct 4, 2005
    #23
  4. enri

    Ron Hunter Guest

    I have had my current digital for just about 1.5 years, and am around
    2200 shots. I don't think I would want to continue using a hi-tech
    gadget with a rapidly improving price/performance ratio and increasing
    sophistication and capability for 50,000 shots. I won't likely LIVE
    that long!
    If a digital camera is 3 years old, it is probable hopelessly obsolete.
     
    Ron Hunter, Oct 4, 2005
    #24
  5. 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
    #25
  6. 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
    #26
  7. 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
    #27
  8. enri

    David Guest

    Kodak issued a firmware update for the LS433 about a year ago. Not sure what
    it did, but the information said it was related to the lens retraction
    mechanism.
     
    David, Oct 4, 2005
    #28

  9. Dear Valued Kodak Customer:

    We are retracting all of our lenses.

    Please send yours to the following address...
     
    Blinky the Shark, Oct 4, 2005
    #29
  10. 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
    #30
  11. 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
    #31
  12. 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
    #32
  13. 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
    #33
  14. Their cars are also not particularly reliable or even comfortable.
     
    Johnny Hageyama, Oct 4, 2005
    #34
  15. 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
    #35
  16. 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
    #36
  17. 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
    #37
  18. 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
    #38
  19. enri

    Marvin Guest

    <snip>

    Some years back, the compressor in my GE refrigerator failed, and I called in GE's
    repairman. He examined the refrigerator and offered a replacement compressor with a good
    warrentee, at a low price. I took the offer. I also checked with a person I knew at GE
    in Schenectady, who told me the background. When that refrigerator was designed, some
    engineers decided to save money on the compressor, and the design change led to a short
    life of the unit. GE decided to stand behind the product, though it was expensive to do
    it. I continue to buy GE appliances.
     
    Marvin, Oct 4, 2005
    #39
  20. 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
    #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.