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

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

  1. 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
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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
    #43
  4. 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
    #44
  5. 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
    #45
  6. 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
    #46
  7. 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
    #47
  8. 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
    #48
  9. enri

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Good luck with your repair project. Not many would attempt such a job.
    Let us know if you have success. I must assume your like the camera
    (nice feature set, and good pictures judging by online reviews) to go to
    this much trouble.
     
    Ron Hunter, Oct 5, 2005
    #49
  10. enri

    Ron Hunter Guest

    I have several film cameras, and have been making pictures with them
    since the late 1940's. I doubt that the total number of film pictures
    comes anywhere close to the 3000 or so digital photos I have made in the
    past 2.5 years. The cost of film, and processing for that many pictures
    would have been substantial. I still remember coming home from
    vacations and having to wait to see the pictures for when I had money to
    get them printed.
     
    Ron Hunter, Oct 5, 2005
    #50
  11. enri

    Ron Hunter Guest

    I expect to see substantial improvement in the technology regarding
    storage of pictures, downloading to the computer, in-camera processing,
    and battery life. Lens technology is also due for a breakthrough,
    according to some reports. Sensor size/number of pixels is a compromise
    as the files get larger, and they take longer to write to the card
    (already a problem with some cameras). Right now, the only complaints I
    have with my camera have to do with shot to shot time in the closeup mode.
    Still, a Wi-Fi ready camera would be a nice thing to have....
     
    Ron Hunter, Oct 5, 2005
    #51
  12. enri

    Boron Elgar Guest


    In those days (70s-80s,) I'd shoot color slides and only get printed
    what seemed worth it. I'd also take several B&W rolls, but those I'd
    print myself. Major trips to Europe entailed maybe 10-12 color rolls
    and 2 or 3 B&W.

    Now I travel with a laptop & download everything onto the HD each
    night.

    Boron
     
    Boron Elgar, Oct 5, 2005
    #52
  13. enri

    Greg Goss Guest

    Friends of ours came back from a European vacation with one of those
    lead anti-x-ray bags stretched almost spherical, and a number of rolls
    loose in their carry-on. I think that they said that they had
    seventy-some rolls. So that's 1800 or so towards a 3000.
     
    Greg Goss, Oct 5, 2005
    #53
  14. enri

    Greg Goss Guest

    Can't some of that stuff be done in parallel? Save twenty or so pix
    to fast RAM and try to catch up writing to the card in the background?

    I'm not a digicam user, and only a minimal snapshot user in the film
    world. Are these pictures done "click-click-click pause" or are there
    some contexts where you want thirty shots as fast as the sensor can
    receive them?
     
    Greg Goss, Oct 5, 2005
    #54
  15. enri

    Boron Elgar Guest


    If you are buying that many rolls, they'd likely be 36 exposures. That
    calculates to 2520 for 70 rolls.

    Boron
     
    Boron Elgar, Oct 5, 2005
    #55
  16. enri

    Boron Elgar Guest


    A lot of that depends on the camera you are using. There can be some
    serious hesitation before a shot on the lower end & some mid priced
    cameras. The cycle time also varies by the resolution of the picture
    you are taking.

    Boron
     
    Boron Elgar, Oct 5, 2005
    #56
  17. enri

    Ron Hunter Guest

    I haven't shot B&W since my Minox B broke after a stay on Guam in 1965.
    Color is so much nicer, in my opinion.
     
    Ron Hunter, Oct 5, 2005
    #57
  18. enri

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Wonder if they ever got them printed.... And how many people ever SAW
    them. Just about everything I take goes online so the family and
    friends, and anyone interested, can look at them.
    Getting 70 rolls printed would be a significant cost, for me.
     
    Ron Hunter, Oct 5, 2005
    #58
  19. enri

    Ron Hunter Guest

    And about $500 to print them!
     
    Ron Hunter, Oct 5, 2005
    #59
  20. enri

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Yes, in some cases. I can take up to 6 shots before the internal buffer
    ram fills and I have to wait until at least one shot gets written to the
    card. In closeup mode, the LCD is on, and it doesn't get freed up from
    one shot until the captured one is written to the card...
     
    Ron Hunter, Oct 5, 2005
    #60
    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.