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

And the speed of the card, in some cases.
Even some expensive cameras writing TIF to a slow card can take some
significant time.

 

It is not a matter of one being "nicer," than the other, though a
person may certainly have a preference for shooting and collecting,
but my B&W days were devoted to the darkroom side of it. Color prints
were too messy and expensive to play with, as far as I was concerned.

I still shoot B&W with my digital, but instead of the darkroom, I play
with it in a program or two.

Boron

 

I have done both in the darkroom, developing and printing, but it is not
something I want to mess with any more. I am a very color focused
person, so B&W doesn't do anything for me. I can appreciate the artist
merits of some such photos, but I find them lacking from an enjoyment
point of view.
I know a guy who does marvelous paintings using a 1 hair brush, and only
straight lines of different lengths, and widths. It is interesting, and
I appreciate his talent, but I enjoy his sister's vivid watercolors more.

 

at least they had the foresight to get into digital early, which is one
reason theyre still around and polaroid isnt.

the CD burners that came out a couple years later didnt help, either. i
just tossed 2 1996-era zip drives with cables and about 15 disks.
neither had "the click", but neither was worth anything. guess i coulda
craigslisted em.

heh... research the V6/automatic debacle as it pertains to some late
90s-2002 odysseys and accords.

agreed, and i dont see their products as being as good as even a common
HP camera.

 

easier (to me) to just yank the SD card and load it into the reader.

 

besides, the 2.1Mpixel you dropped $500 on a few years ago is obsolete
compared to an equally priced 7Mpixel today.

 

I admit that I haven't followed this thread (nor the followup one),
but my immediate reaction to this part is -- check your state's laws.

At least California has a law that companies MUST have parts for products
for X years after they were last sold. (I believe the number is 7 years,
but I know absolutely it's more than 3 years.)

 

Civil code section 1793.03

 

It would seem that a large number of consumers don't agree with you as
Kodak is number one in sales in the US, and number 2 worldwide.

 

I would agree, but getting the card out of my camera is a PITA. It
either has to be pulled out with fingernails, or it shoots half-way
across the room, there seems to be no happy medium. sigh.

 

Almost 60 users lament their experiences with Kodak.

http://tinyurl.com/d5q2w

Here is one:

What a shame... (DHCQ)

"I have to add my voice to all those who expressed dissatisfaction
with this camera. Don't get me wrong: the machine is lovely, takes
nice photos, is a doddle to use, looks good, not too bulky etc. BUT
any $350 product that only lasts two and a half years is not good
enough. We need to fight this disposable culture. Disposable is OK for
a $20-$50 purchase. Significant outlay like $350 should buy me a
(computer) product that will last until it's either completely utdated
or I decide to upgrade"


Somehow just feeling one is not alone brings calmness.

enri

 

My 35 is a Pentax Spotmatic. But I tend to think and shoot by
the roll; I've never been one to have a cassette in the camera for
six months at a time.

 

They'll probably invent some must-have technology that still hasn't

Image stabilization? The ability to measure more than three primary
colors, plus the ability to tell six-color printers about those extra
measurements? Much deeper depth of field via unconventional optics?
And those are only the ones I've already heard of.