Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Don't buy from Kodak!

Tags:
  • Cameras
  • Kodak
  • Peripherals
Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 5:23:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Bought a Kodak digital camera at Christmas time and a couple months ago I
was taking pictures.
I turned it off and a little while later I turned it on and then the lens
cover would not open up and it would click a couple of times and then power
off. I called Kodak and got a RMA number and shipped it off to a place they
told me to ship it to called United Camera and Binocular Repair. After about
a week I called to see what the status was on my camera and they said Kodak
refused to cover the warrantee because it was dropped. It had impact damage
on the cover. They said the case was cracked and the lens cover was damaged.
I could not believe it. They want $142.22 to fix it. Believe me, that camera
was not damaged when I shipped it and the way I packed it in bubble wrap, I
can't believe it happened in shipment. Someone there damaged it and now
Kodak won't stand good for it. The place wanted my credit card number to
send it back to me. I'm not stupid enough to give them that since they
already tried to rip me off. So now I don't have my camera and the
warrantee is useless. Please beware if you buy from Kodak! I never will
again!

More about : buy kodak

Anonymous
June 17, 2005 3:56:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Greetings Strike,

Sorry to hear about your experience.

I am glad to check on your situation if you like. Please contact me directly
with your name and address and I will follow through with you. Kodak has
some very stringent policies and procedures for handling cameras and are not
afraid to take care of any internal errors like those that you describe. In
this case, United is a separate company but on contract to Kodak for
servicing Kodak cameras, so I would think those policies would apply there.

One of the actions kodak takes in such a situation is to photograph the
damage they find and share it with you so you can see the reference.

I am glad to look into your reference, and look forward to helping further
if I can. I will report what I find in our records.

Talk to you soon, Strike,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company




"Strike" <Strikeme@noclass.rr.com> wrote in message
news:MCpse.41709$JX5.23814@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> Bought a Kodak digital camera at Christmas time and a couple months ago I
> was taking pictures.
> I turned it off and a little while later I turned it on and then the lens
> cover would not open up and it would click a couple of times and then
power
> off. I called Kodak and got a RMA number and shipped it off to a place
they
> told me to ship it to called United Camera and Binocular Repair. After
about
> a week I called to see what the status was on my camera and they said
Kodak
> refused to cover the warrantee because it was dropped. It had impact
damage
> on the cover. They said the case was cracked and the lens cover was
damaged.
> I could not believe it. They want $142.22 to fix it. Believe me, that
camera
> was not damaged when I shipped it and the way I packed it in bubble wrap,
I
> can't believe it happened in shipment. Someone there damaged it and now
> Kodak won't stand good for it. The place wanted my credit card number to
> send it back to me. I'm not stupid enough to give them that since they
> already tried to rip me off. So now I don't have my camera and the
> warrantee is useless. Please beware if you buy from Kodak! I never will
> again!
>
>
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 10:18:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Back a few years ago I bought my then wife a kodak instant camera like
polaroid had
The US courts made them quit making it.
It was a new camera and they wanted me to buy another of their units and
only gave me a very small
amount for my purchase . I did not take and have NOT bought anything from
them since.
It was still in warranty and I should have gotten most of my money in a
refund.


"Strike" <Strikeme@noclass.rr.com> wrote in message
news:MCpse.41709$JX5.23814@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> Bought a Kodak digital camera at Christmas time and a couple months ago I
> was taking pictures.
> I turned it off and a little while later I turned it on and then the lens
> cover would not open up and it would click a couple of times and then
> power off. I called Kodak and got a RMA number and shipped it off to a
> place they told me to ship it to called United Camera and Binocular
> Repair. After about a week I called to see what the status was on my
> camera and they said Kodak refused to cover the warrantee because it was
> dropped. It had impact damage on the cover. They said the case was cracked
> and the lens cover was damaged. I could not believe it. They want $142.22
> to fix it. Believe me, that camera was not damaged when I shipped it and
> the way I packed it in bubble wrap, I can't believe it happened in
> shipment. Someone there damaged it and now Kodak won't stand good for it.
> The place wanted my credit card number to send it back to me. I'm not
> stupid enough to give them that since they already tried to rip me off. So
> now I don't have my camera and the warrantee is useless. Please beware if
> you buy from Kodak! I never will again!
>
Related resources
June 18, 2005 1:14:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 01:23:56 GMT, "Strike" <Strikeme@noclass.rr.com> wrote:

>Bought a Kodak digital camera at Christmas time and a couple months ago I
>was taking pictures.
>I turned it off and a little while later I turned it on and then the lens
>cover would not open up and it would click a couple of times and then power
>off. I called Kodak and got a RMA number and shipped it off to a place they
>told me to ship it to called United Camera and Binocular Repair. After about
>a week I called to see what the status was on my camera and they said Kodak
>refused to cover the warrantee because it was dropped. It had impact damage
>on the cover. They said the case was cracked and the lens cover was damaged.
>I could not believe it. They want $142.22 to fix it. Believe me, that camera
>was not damaged when I shipped it and the way I packed it in bubble wrap, I
>can't believe it happened in shipment. Someone there damaged it and now
>Kodak won't stand good for it. The place wanted my credit card number to
>send it back to me. I'm not stupid enough to give them that since they
>already tried to rip me off. So now I don't have my camera and the
>warrantee is useless. Please beware if you buy from Kodak! I never will
>again!
>



They are using it out as a copout, the repair was more than they expect so
they faulty accusing you that you dropped it, seen this comment before but I
don't know what brand.

Don't you have a Consumer protection outfit..?
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 2:52:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Wow, now as a goodwill gesture they will send my damaged camera back to me
without having to pay the $44.00 inspection fee. Real nice of them, huh?
"Strike" <Strikeme@noclass.rr.com> wrote in message
news:MCpse.41709$JX5.23814@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> Bought a Kodak digital camera at Christmas time and a couple months ago I
> was taking pictures.
> I turned it off and a little while later I turned it on and then the lens
> cover would not open up and it would click a couple of times and then
> power off. I called Kodak and got a RMA number and shipped it off to a
> place they told me to ship it to called United Camera and Binocular
> Repair. After about a week I called to see what the status was on my
> camera and they said Kodak refused to cover the warrantee because it was
> dropped. It had impact damage on the cover. They said the case was cracked
> and the lens cover was damaged. I could not believe it. They want $142.22
> to fix it. Believe me, that camera was not damaged when I shipped it and
> the way I packed it in bubble wrap, I can't believe it happened in
> shipment. Someone there damaged it and now Kodak won't stand good for it.
> The place wanted my credit card number to send it back to me. I'm not
> stupid enough to give them that since they already tried to rip me off. So
> now I don't have my camera and the warrantee is useless. Please beware if
> you buy from Kodak! I never will again!
>
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 3:01:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Kodak was successfully litigated for patent infringement by Polaroid for an
idea they told Polaroid would never sell.

"SLLD" <jimnluna@isp.com> wrote in message
news:3cc03$42b35a50$ce940807$17233@DIALUPUSA.NET...
> Back a few years ago I bought my then wife a kodak instant camera like
> polaroid had
> The US courts made them quit making it.
> It was a new camera and they wanted me to buy another of their units and
> only gave me a very small
> amount for my purchase . I did not take and have NOT bought anything from
> them since.
> It was still in warranty and I should have gotten most of my money in a
> refund.
>
>
> "Strike" <Strikeme@noclass.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:MCpse.41709$JX5.23814@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> > Bought a Kodak digital camera at Christmas time and a couple months ago
I
> > was taking pictures.
> > I turned it off and a little while later I turned it on and then the
lens
> > cover would not open up and it would click a couple of times and then
> > power off. I called Kodak and got a RMA number and shipped it off to a
> > place they told me to ship it to called United Camera and Binocular
> > Repair. After about a week I called to see what the status was on my
> > camera and they said Kodak refused to cover the warrantee because it was
> > dropped. It had impact damage on the cover. They said the case was
cracked
> > and the lens cover was damaged. I could not believe it. They want
$142.22
> > to fix it. Believe me, that camera was not damaged when I shipped it and
> > the way I packed it in bubble wrap, I can't believe it happened in
> > shipment. Someone there damaged it and now Kodak won't stand good for
it.
> > The place wanted my credit card number to send it back to me. I'm not
> > stupid enough to give them that since they already tried to rip me off.
So
> > now I don't have my camera and the warrantee is useless. Please beware
if
> > you buy from Kodak! I never will again!
> >
>
>
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 4:52:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

My experience with Kodak was as follows:

Bought a DC4800 camera a long time ago - it was when they were high-end,
spent about $600 on it. The camera worked perfectly for just over 1
year. It started not focusing properly, even when the LCD screen
appeared to have a focused image.

I called Kodak and found I could get it fixed for $99 (I think that was
the cost) out of warranty. Sent it to them, they returned it, it worked
fine for 32 days and the problem returned. When I called they wanted
another $99 to fix it again - I asked for a 1 year warranty on the
repair and they said no.

As it sits, I can't use it any more, been almost 2 years since, and I
won't buy another Kodak camera again.

I'm considering the Panasonic FZ-20 now....

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 4:52:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Reconsider the Panasonic. I have no experience with their cameras but I have
been burned good on 3 microwaves ovens, a couple of phones, an answering
machine and a cassete deck for Panasonic. I think they needed to change
their name to Denon they were so bad a few years back.

I don't buy Panasonic anything anymore.

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d1d36ce7e9627dd989924@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> My experience with Kodak was as follows:
>
> Bought a DC4800 camera a long time ago - it was when they were high-end,
> spent about $600 on it. The camera worked perfectly for just over 1
> year. It started not focusing properly, even when the LCD screen
> appeared to have a focused image.
>
> I called Kodak and found I could get it fixed for $99 (I think that was
> the cost) out of warranty. Sent it to them, they returned it, it worked
> fine for 32 days and the problem returned. When I called they wanted
> another $99 to fix it again - I asked for a 1 year warranty on the
> repair and they said no.
>
> As it sits, I can't use it any more, been almost 2 years since, and I
> won't buy another Kodak camera again.
>
> I'm considering the Panasonic FZ-20 now....
>
> --
> --
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me
June 18, 2005 2:29:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

"Strike" <Strikeme@noclass.rr.com> wrote in message
news:MCpse.41709$JX5.23814@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> Bought a Kodak digital camera at Christmas time and a couple months ago I
> was taking pictures.
> I turned it off and a little while later I turned it on and then the lens
> cover would not open up and it would click a couple of times and then
> power off. I called Kodak and got a RMA number and shipped it off to a
> place they told me to ship it to called United Camera and Binocular
> Repair. After about a week I called to see what the status was on my
> camera and they said Kodak refused to cover the warrantee because it was
> dropped. It had impact damage on the cover. They said the case was cracked
> and the lens cover was damaged. I could not believe it. They want $142.22
> to fix it. Believe me, that camera was not damaged when I shipped it and
> the way I packed it in bubble wrap, I can't believe it happened in
> shipment. Someone there damaged it and now Kodak won't stand good for it.
> The place wanted my credit card number to send it back to me. I'm not
> stupid enough to give them that since they already tried to rip me off. So
> now I don't have my camera and the warrantee is useless. Please beware if
> you buy from Kodak! I never will again!



Kodak aftersales is well known.
I am amazed to see people like yourself still buying Kodak cameras.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 2:29:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Kodak always prefessed to not be a camera company. They only produced a few
"everyday cameras" to keep the market interested in their film. I seriously
doubt they manufacture any cameras. They have always been more a chemical
company.

"Mike" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1119086972.6775.0@damia.uk.clara.net...
>
> "Strike" <Strikeme@noclass.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:MCpse.41709$JX5.23814@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> > Bought a Kodak digital camera at Christmas time and a couple months ago
I
> > was taking pictures.
> > I turned it off and a little while later I turned it on and then the
lens
> > cover would not open up and it would click a couple of times and then
> > power off. I called Kodak and got a RMA number and shipped it off to a
> > place they told me to ship it to called United Camera and Binocular
> > Repair. After about a week I called to see what the status was on my
> > camera and they said Kodak refused to cover the warrantee because it was
> > dropped. It had impact damage on the cover. They said the case was
cracked
> > and the lens cover was damaged. I could not believe it. They want
$142.22
> > to fix it. Believe me, that camera was not damaged when I shipped it and
> > the way I packed it in bubble wrap, I can't believe it happened in
> > shipment. Someone there damaged it and now Kodak won't stand good for
it.
> > The place wanted my credit card number to send it back to me. I'm not
> > stupid enough to give them that since they already tried to rip me off.
So
> > now I don't have my camera and the warrantee is useless. Please beware
if
> > you buy from Kodak! I never will again!
>
>
>
> Kodak aftersales is well known.
> I am amazed to see people like yourself still buying Kodak cameras.
>
>
>
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 2:49:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Hello NG,

Ron is back again.

I'm always delighted to listen to the words of this sweet talking man.
About half a year ago he promised me help concerning a KODAK software
problem.
Nothing happened...
Maybe he isn't real, only some kind of KODAK tranquilizer!

Best regards

Wolfgang



"Ronald Baird" <ronbaird@kodak.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:D 8urfj$fpj$1@news.kodak.com...
> Greetings Strike,
>
> Sorry to hear about your experience.
>
> I am glad to check on your situation if you like. Please contact me
> directly
> with your name and address and I will follow through with you. Kodak has
> some very stringent policies and procedures for handling cameras and are
> not
> afraid to take care of any internal errors like those that you describe.
> In
> this case, United is a separate company but on contract to Kodak for
> servicing Kodak cameras, so I would think those policies would apply
> there.
>
> One of the actions kodak takes in such a situation is to photograph the
> damage they find and share it with you so you can see the reference.
>
> I am glad to look into your reference, and look forward to helping further
> if I can. I will report what I find in our records.
>
> Talk to you soon, Strike,
>
> Ron Baird
> Eastman Kodak Company
>
>
>
>
> "Strike" <Strikeme@noclass.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:MCpse.41709$JX5.23814@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
>> Bought a Kodak digital camera at Christmas time and a couple months ago I
>> was taking pictures.
>> I turned it off and a little while later I turned it on and then the lens
>> cover would not open up and it would click a couple of times and then
> power
>> off. I called Kodak and got a RMA number and shipped it off to a place
> they
>> told me to ship it to called United Camera and Binocular Repair. After
> about
>> a week I called to see what the status was on my camera and they said
> Kodak
>> refused to cover the warrantee because it was dropped. It had impact
> damage
>> on the cover. They said the case was cracked and the lens cover was
> damaged.
>> I could not believe it. They want $142.22 to fix it. Believe me, that
> camera
>> was not damaged when I shipped it and the way I packed it in bubble wrap,
> I
>> can't believe it happened in shipment. Someone there damaged it and now
>> Kodak won't stand good for it. The place wanted my credit card number to
>> send it back to me. I'm not stupid enough to give them that since they
>> already tried to rip me off. So now I don't have my camera and the
>> warrantee is useless. Please beware if you buy from Kodak! I never will
>> again!
>>
>>
>
>
June 18, 2005 7:39:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

"John P Bengi" <JBengi (spamm)@(spamm) yahoo,com> wrote in message
news:nMGdnaLjt9nEgCnfRVn-vg@golden.net...
> Kodak always prefessed to not be a camera company. They only produced a
> few
> "everyday cameras" to keep the market interested in their film. I
> seriously
> doubt they manufacture any cameras. They have always been more a chemical
> company.

another reason not to buy them
June 19, 2005 6:57:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

That's sort of debatable, in that they did produce/sell a few legendary
rangefinder models in the good old film days.

"Mike" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1119105550.19683.0@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net...
>
> "John P Bengi" <JBengi (spamm)@(spamm) yahoo,com> wrote in message
> news:nMGdnaLjt9nEgCnfRVn-vg@golden.net...
>> Kodak always prefessed to not be a camera company. They only produced a
>> few
>> "everyday cameras" to keep the market interested in their film. I
>> seriously
>> doubt they manufacture any cameras. They have always been more a chemical
>> company.
>
> another reason not to buy them
>
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 1:57:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

I bought my wife a Kodak 35mm automatic Camera, many years ago. It is
still working today and taking great pictures...
It came with a 9v power pack, ( as opposed to batteries ) which lasted
forever./ Eventually when it did die, I contacted Kodak as I couldn't find a
replacement, & they very generously sent me a free replacement...They
certainly didn't have to...
More recently I bought my first digital Camera. A kodak DX 3600. I had no
problems what so ever with it, other than the fact the Dock is useless and
unnecessary. I tossed that and used a card reader...
I later sold the DX 3600 and bought the DX 6490, a beaut... with the 10 x
zoom. and again, no problems... The only thing I would like them to change
is the jpeg compression rate. I think it is a bit much...
I think what I'm saying here is, you are going to have problems with any
major brand, not just Kodak...
My next choice will be Canon though, pretty hard to beat...

"Bojangles" <jzurb@charter.net> wrote in message
news:%ifte.37273$zm.34773@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax and Sony you can't go wrong. I have either
> owned or used many cameras from the above manufacturers they are all of
> excellent quality.
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 4:59:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

You must of been the lucky one.

"Yoonome" <Yoonome@Yoonowhere.com> wrote in message
news:xZGte.48481$El.6843@pd7tw1no...
> I bought my wife a Kodak 35mm automatic Camera, many years ago. It is
> still working today and taking great pictures...
> It came with a 9v power pack, ( as opposed to batteries ) which lasted
> forever./ Eventually when it did die, I contacted Kodak as I couldn't find
> a replacement, & they very generously sent me a free replacement...They
> certainly didn't have to...
> More recently I bought my first digital Camera. A kodak DX 3600. I had no
> problems what so ever with it, other than the fact the Dock is useless and
> unnecessary. I tossed that and used a card reader...
> I later sold the DX 3600 and bought the DX 6490, a beaut... with the 10 x
> zoom. and again, no problems... The only thing I would like them to change
> is the jpeg compression rate. I think it is a bit much...
> I think what I'm saying here is, you are going to have problems with any
> major brand, not just Kodak...
> My next choice will be Canon though, pretty hard to beat...
>
> "Bojangles" <jzurb@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:%ifte.37273$zm.34773@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>> Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax and Sony you can't go wrong. I have either
>> owned or used many cameras from the above manufacturers they are all of
>> excellent quality.
>
>
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 7:26:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Ron didn't do anything for me either. Only stuck up for his company and
their lies.
Oh well, I didn't really expect any help from him anyway. Look who he works
for.

"Wolfgang Straile" <W.Straile@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:D 90n73$lbq$03$1@news.t-online.com...
> Hello NG,
>
> Ron is back again.
>
> I'm always delighted to listen to the words of this sweet talking man.
> About half a year ago he promised me help concerning a KODAK software
> problem.
> Nothing happened...
> Maybe he isn't real, only some kind of KODAK tranquilizer!
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
> "Ronald Baird" <ronbaird@kodak.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:D 8urfj$fpj$1@news.kodak.com...
>> Greetings Strike,
>>
>> Sorry to hear about your experience.
>>
>> I am glad to check on your situation if you like. Please contact me
>> directly
>> with your name and address and I will follow through with you. Kodak has
>> some very stringent policies and procedures for handling cameras and are
>> not
>> afraid to take care of any internal errors like those that you describe.
>> In
>> this case, United is a separate company but on contract to Kodak for
>> servicing Kodak cameras, so I would think those policies would apply
>> there.
>>
>> One of the actions kodak takes in such a situation is to photograph the
>> damage they find and share it with you so you can see the reference.
>>
>> I am glad to look into your reference, and look forward to helping
>> further
>> if I can. I will report what I find in our records.
>>
>> Talk to you soon, Strike,
>>
>> Ron Baird
>> Eastman Kodak Company
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Strike" <Strikeme@noclass.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:MCpse.41709$JX5.23814@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
>>> Bought a Kodak digital camera at Christmas time and a couple months ago
>>> I
>>> was taking pictures.
>>> I turned it off and a little while later I turned it on and then the
>>> lens
>>> cover would not open up and it would click a couple of times and then
>> power
>>> off. I called Kodak and got a RMA number and shipped it off to a place
>> they
>>> told me to ship it to called United Camera and Binocular Repair. After
>> about
>>> a week I called to see what the status was on my camera and they said
>> Kodak
>>> refused to cover the warrantee because it was dropped. It had impact
>> damage
>>> on the cover. They said the case was cracked and the lens cover was
>> damaged.
>>> I could not believe it. They want $142.22 to fix it. Believe me, that
>> camera
>>> was not damaged when I shipped it and the way I packed it in bubble
>>> wrap,
>> I
>>> can't believe it happened in shipment. Someone there damaged it and now
>>> Kodak won't stand good for it. The place wanted my credit card number to
>>> send it back to me. I'm not stupid enough to give them that since they
>>> already tried to rip me off. So now I don't have my camera and the
>>> warrantee is useless. Please beware if you buy from Kodak! I never will
>>> again!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 6:24:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Greetings Wolfgang,

The offer still stands, Wolfgang, I am not sure if you wrote to me as
suggested but I do follow through. If you want to reiterate your situation I
will make it a point to help you. There is a new version of EasyShare online
now that you can download and install. Certainly after the fact, but a
great program.

Also, since you are in Germany, I may have sent your experience on to others
to help. If you had let me know you did not get any information I would
have contacted others.

Look forward to helping if you want to reiterate your problem. If it is
still about EasyShare, try the newest version first and let me know if you
are successful.

Best regards, and talk to you soon.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company




Hello NG,
>
> Ron is back again.
>
> I'm always delighted to listen to the words of this sweet talking man.
> About half a year ago he promised me help concerning a KODAK software
> problem.
> Nothing happened...
> Maybe he isn't real, only some kind of KODAK tranquilizer!
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
> > Greetings Strike,
> >
> > Sorry to hear about your experience.
> >
> > I am glad to check on your situation if you like. Please contact me
> > directly
> > with your name and address and I will follow through with you. Kodak
has
> > some very stringent policies and procedures for handling cameras and are
> > not
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 6:24:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Greetings Strike,

I can appreciate your disappointment, Strike, and I will not share our
correspondence here.

I will note that I did take your issue to two different teams including our
advocates - a team setup to help people that are not happy with the results
of others reviews, i.e. repair. We did re-evaluate your camer and I
understand your position that you were not the cause of the damage. I have
many times seen damaged product from other customers, who were not aware
that any damage had occured. I reviewed some scenarios with them that things
like leaving a camera alone for a few minutes and having it dropped and
replaced by someone - a stranger? - could damage it yet you would not be
aware. Walking with a camera on a strap and it hitting something could be
the culprit and again you may not be aware. An analogy might be an
experience many people have had upon putting on a coat or a shirt only to
find a tear in it and not know how it got there.

Also, Kodak has no problem with any employee or contractor that drops or
damages a camera in error. We will absorb the cost of it and either replace
a camera or fix it for free. The people in our service groups do not get in
trouble for such things, so there is no incentive to hide anything.

I wish that I could have helped you further, Strike, by getting the service
as requested, but for the reasons I shared with you, I couldn't. I do
continue to offer my services, as noted, or help you in any other way I can.

Let me know if you want me to follow through on anything else.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company



> Ron didn't do anything for me either. Only stuck up for his company and
> their lies.
> Oh well, I didn't really expect any help from him anyway. Look who he
works
> for.
>
> > Hello NG,
> >
> > Ron is back again.
> >
> > I'm always delighted to listen to the words of this sweet talking man.
> > About half a year ago he promised me help concerning a KODAK software
> > problem.
> > Nothing happened...
> > Maybe he isn't real, only some kind of KODAK tranquilizer!
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
> >
> >> Greetings Strike,
> >>
> >> Sorry to hear about your experience.
> >>
> >> I am glad to check on your situation if you like. Please contact me
> >> directly
> >> with your name and address and I will follow through with you. Kodak
has
> >> some very stringent policies and procedures for handling cameras and
are
> >> not
> >> afraid to take care of any internal errors like those that you
describe.
> >> In
> >> this case, United is a separate company but on contract to Kodak for
> >> servicing Kodak cameras, so I would think those policies would apply
> >> there.
> >>
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 1:29:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

I should add also that I first bought the Canon S1 10x zoom and found it
altogether too complicated to use...so returned it.
That is a factor that you have to consider. My Kodak DX 6490 on the
other hand is so much more user friendly and easier to use...

"Strike" <Strikeme@noclass.rr.com> wrote in message
news:TDJte.1870$IL3.193@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
>
> You must of been the lucky one.
>
> "Yoonome" <Yoonome@Yoonowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:xZGte.48481$El.6843@pd7tw1no...
>> I bought my wife a Kodak 35mm automatic Camera, many years ago. It is
>> still working today and taking great pictures...
>> It came with a 9v power pack, ( as opposed to batteries ) which lasted
>> forever./ Eventually when it did die, I contacted Kodak as I couldn't
>> find a replacement, & they very generously sent me a free
>> replacement...They certainly didn't have to...
>> More recently I bought my first digital Camera. A kodak DX 3600. I had
>> no problems what so ever with it, other than the fact the Dock is useless
>> and unnecessary. I tossed that and used a card reader...
>> I later sold the DX 3600 and bought the DX 6490, a beaut... with the 10 x
>> zoom. and again, no problems... The only thing I would like them to
>> change is the jpeg compression rate. I think it is a bit much...
>> I think what I'm saying here is, you are going to have problems with any
>> major brand, not just Kodak...
>> My next choice will be Canon though, pretty hard to beat...
>>
>> "Bojangles" <jzurb@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:%ifte.37273$zm.34773@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>> Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax and Sony you can't go wrong. I have either
>>> owned or used many cameras from the above manufacturers they are all of
>>> excellent quality.
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 7:22:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Just hope it don't break and you have to send it in for repair.
It will probably end up in worse shape than it was when you sent it.

"Yoonome" <Yoonome@Yoonowhere.com> wrote in message
news:AKkue.1778833$6l.894193@pd7tw2no...
> I should add also that I first bought the Canon S1 10x zoom and found
> it altogether too complicated to use...so returned it.
> That is a factor that you have to consider. My Kodak DX 6490 on the
> other hand is so much more user friendly and easier to use...
>
> "Strike" <Strikeme@noclass.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:TDJte.1870$IL3.193@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
>>
>> You must of been the lucky one.
>>
>> "Yoonome" <Yoonome@Yoonowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:xZGte.48481$El.6843@pd7tw1no...
>>> I bought my wife a Kodak 35mm automatic Camera, many years ago. It is
>>> still working today and taking great pictures...
>>> It came with a 9v power pack, ( as opposed to batteries ) which
>>> lasted forever./ Eventually when it did die, I contacted Kodak as I
>>> couldn't find a replacement, & they very generously sent me a free
>>> replacement...They certainly didn't have to...
>>> More recently I bought my first digital Camera. A kodak DX 3600. I had
>>> no problems what so ever with it, other than the fact the Dock is
>>> useless and unnecessary. I tossed that and used a card reader...
>>> I later sold the DX 3600 and bought the DX 6490, a beaut... with the 10
>>> x zoom. and again, no problems... The only thing I would like them to
>>> change is the jpeg compression rate. I think it is a bit much...
>>> I think what I'm saying here is, you are going to have problems with any
>>> major brand, not just Kodak...
>>> My next choice will be Canon though, pretty hard to beat...
>>>
>>> "Bojangles" <jzurb@charter.net> wrote in message
>>> news:%ifte.37273$zm.34773@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>>> Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax and Sony you can't go wrong. I have
>>>> either
>>>> owned or used many cameras from the above manufacturers they are all of
>>>> excellent quality.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 8:51:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

"Strike" <Strikeme@noclass.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ZVpue.3925$IL3.189@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> Just hope it don't break and you have to send it in for repair.
> It will probably end up in worse shape than it was when you sent it.

If by that you mean Kodak has a "Strike" against it, your point was made
long ago.
Anonymous
June 27, 2005 12:32:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Doesn't Kodak have a service centre in your area ( in USA ? ) where you
could hand to them this *camera, & they acknowlege *'s good exterior
condition ?
Couldn't the shop you bought from receive *, & acknowledge *'s
condition, then forward * to Kodak / United ?

| they will send my damaged camera back to me
| without having to pay the $44.00 inspection fee.
Then get * back,
you can pry open *'s lens cover, put a plastic ring into cover if
necessary, & use *.
[ii] see whether any damage was added by United, if none then ask media
to report this, & sue Kodak.
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 12:23:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

"TE Cheah" <no@spam.biz> wrote in message news:42bee3d5_2@news.tm.net.my...
> Doesn't Kodak have a service centre in your area ( in USA ? ) where you
> could hand to them this *camera, & they acknowlege *'s good exterior
> condition ?
> Couldn't the shop you bought from receive *, & acknowledge *'s
> condition, then forward * to Kodak / United ?
> -----------------------------------------

I agree, this sounds like nothing more than a storm in a teacup.
There's probably a little more to it...

------------------------------------------------------------
> | they will send my damaged camera back to me
> | without having to pay the $44.00 inspection fee.
> Then get * back,
> you can pry open *'s lens cover, put a plastic ring into cover if
> necessary, & use *.
> [ii] see whether any damage was added by United, if none then ask media
> to report this, & sue Kodak.
>
>
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 8:56:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

>Then get * back,
> you can pry open *'s lens cover, put a plastic ring into cover if
> necessary, & use *.
>[ii] see whether any damage was added by United, if none then ask media
> to report this, & sue Kodak.
>
================================

Notice that every place that the letters "is" should appear, an
asterisk appears.

Jack
!