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

Alturas <username.RemoveThis@isp.com> wrote:

>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).

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.

>Also, there hasn't been much ado over Foveon single-pixel technology
>after the initial hoopla.

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.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

enri wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 11:45:29 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter DeleteThis @charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
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 rphunter DeleteThis @charter.net
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 00:58:57 -0600, Greg Goss wrote:

>> 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).
>
> 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.

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

Ron Hunter <rphunter DeleteThis @charter.net> wrote:

>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.

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.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 10:14:12 -0600, Greg Goss <gossg RemoveThis @gossg.org> wrote:

>Ron Hunter <rphunter RemoveThis @charter.net> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>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.


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

Boron
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

Greg Goss wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter RemoveThis @charter.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> 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.

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 rphunter RemoveThis @charter.net
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 10:14:12 -0600, Greg Goss <gossg.DeleteThis@gossg.org> wrote:
>
>> Ron Hunter <rphunter.DeleteThis@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>> 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.
>
>
> If you are buying that many rolls, they'd likely be 36 exposures. That
> calculates to 2520 for 70 rolls.
>
> Boron
>
>
And about $500 to print them!


--
Ron Hunter rphunter.DeleteThis@charter.net
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

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.

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

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.
>
> 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.

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

agreed, and i dont see their products as being as good as even a common
HP camera.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

Alturas wrote:
> Plugging in a USB cable and browsing for a removable drive is no
> hardship.

easier (to me) to just yank the SD card and load it into the reader.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

Rob Novak wrote:
> demand for smaller and lighter. Few want to drop the extra cash for
> the exotic materials and complex tooling that allow for the latter.

besides, the 2.1Mpixel you dropped $500 on a few years ago is obsolete
compared to an equally priced 7Mpixel today.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

In article <v531k1tgrv0kege12o475o05uags9ureqv RemoveThis @4ax.com>,
enri <enridress RemoveThis @aol.com> 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
....
>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.

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.)
--
mattack RemoveThis @gmail.com
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

SoCalMike wrote:
> 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.
>
> at least they had the foresight to get into digital early, which is one
> reason theyre still around and polaroid isnt.
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> heh... research the V6/automatic debacle as it pertains to some late
> 90s-2002 odysseys and accords.
>>
>> 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.
>
> agreed, and i dont see their products as being as good as even a common
> HP camera.

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.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter.DeleteThis@charter.net
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

SoCalMike wrote:
> Alturas wrote:
>> Plugging in a USB cable and browsing for a removable drive is no
>> hardship.
>
> easier (to me) to just yank the SD card and load it into the reader.

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.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter.TakeThisOut@charter.net
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst