Welcome to DigiForumz.com!
FAQFAQ    SearchSearch      ProfileProfile    Private MessagesPrivate Messages   Log inLog in

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

 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
   Digital Camera Community (Home) -> Kodak RSS
Next:  ISO setting verses exposure compensation - Kodak ..  
Author Message
Ray Fischer

External


Since: Aug 30, 2005
Posts: 77



(Msg. 46) Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:31 am
Post subject: Re: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: rec>photo>digital, others (more info?)

<mattack RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>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.)

Civil code section 1793.03

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer RemoveThis @sonic.net

 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 
Back to top
Login to vote
Blinky the Shark

External


Since: Oct 04, 2005
Posts: 21



(Msg. 47) Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 1:17 am
Post subject: Re: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Alturas <username RemoveThis @isp.com> wrote:

> On 3 Oct 2005 18:50:24 GMT, Blinky the Shark
> <no.spam RemoveThis @box.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Alturas wrote:
>>>
>>> I think that many photos should be no sweat for a well-made
>>> camera. With the quickness of digital I could easily take 250
>>> shots on a weekend trip, or 1,000 pictures a month if I was so
>>> inclined. I guess 5,000 may seem like a lot for 35mm with a
>>> lot more care put into each costly snap. If the complainant
>>> paid $500 for the camera and only got
>>
>>That's only a couple hundred rolls of film. That's nothin'.
>
> 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.

My 35 is a Pentax Spotmatic. Smile 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.

--
Blinky

 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 
Back to top
Login to vote
bob_jenkins

External


Since: Oct 19, 2005
Posts: 7



(Msg. 48) Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 2:44 pm
Post subject: Re: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

> They'll probably invent some must-have technology that still hasn't
> occurred to us.

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 
Back to top
Login to vote
Display posts from previous:   
   Digital Camera Community (Home) -> Kodak All times are: Pacific Time (US & Canada) (change)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



[ Contact us | Terms of Service/Privacy Policy ]