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

External Since: Aug 30, 2005 Posts: 77

wrote:
>In article ,
>enri 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.DeleteThis@sonic.net

External Since: Oct 04, 2005 Posts: 21

Alturas wrote:

> On 3 Oct 2005 18:50:24 GMT, Blinky the Shark
> 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

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

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