Camera Repair
Kelly
have the lens fixed and Kodak is wanting to charge more than I paid?!?!
Thanks
sc
"Kelly" <Rkelly...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:GJ6gd.22285$R05.22127@attbi_s53...
> Anyone know of a good place to get a digital camera repaired?? I need to
> have the lens fixed and Kodak is wanting to charge more than I paid?!?!
>
> Thanks
Sorry to hear about that, my cousin works for Kodak in Tenn, says he would
never purchase anything Kodak.
But, try...
Wolf Camera
Huntsville Green
3022 South Memorial Pkwy.
Huntsville, AL 35801
Phone: 256-880-8474
or
Wolf Camera
Madison Square Mall
5901 University Dr.
Huntsville, AL 35806
Phone: 256-837-1786
pcNOT
wrote:
>Anyone know of a good place to get a digital camera repaired?? I need to
>have the lens fixed and Kodak is wanting to charge more than I paid?!?!
>
>Thanks
>
what exactli is wrong with the lense?
Kelly
"pcNOT" <nun...@knowhere.net> wrote in message
news:5d22o0l776mn1ujhu...@4ax.com...
Nik Simpson
> The lens will not retract. I think my little one dropped it on the
> carpet.
How old is the camera, with a technology that is advancing as fast as
Digital cameras its often the case that repairing an older one simply
doesn't make sense.
--
Nik Simpson
Clint Elliott
"krh" <ken97...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:2fc2o01muimo813i0...@4ax.com...
> market about ten years back, I bought one of those Sharp devices with
> the 4 inch LCD screen and it costs about $1500. With all the
> accessories and extra battery pack, I had about $2,000 in the setup.
> Well, about 4 years later and thoroughly enjoying the unit, the thing
> stopped recording. Took it to American Video Services on Bob Wallace.
> After a week, they called and said it would cost $250 to fix the
> thing. Brand new camcorders were going for a little over $300 at the
> time. Obviously, I paid a lot for the privilege of getting one of
> the first such devices on the market. I've since stopped doing that.
> <g>
>
> krh
>
Camcorders are one of the few things I put off until the prices came down
and features went up.
I had a friend that went out and bought a video camera when they first came
out.
He had to lug around the huge camera, a portable VCR about the size of a
modern DVD player
and a huge battery pack. He spent a fortune on the outfit. I wouldn't have
taken it as a gift
We went on a bus tour to Holland and there was a guy that had a Hitachi
outfit that was even bigger
and bulkier than my friend's Panasonic. After 3 days of dragging that thing
on and off the bus, he was ready
to junk the whole outfit. I felt sorry for him. My 35mm and a small bag
almost got to be too much
Clint
Ron Hammon
Ah, but you are overlooking something. I, too, had a component video
recorder. At the time (1983), the only camcorder available was
featureless and had a black-and-white viewfinder. I had a Panasonic
INDUSTRIAL camera and Hitachi recording unit. (It was dockable, so that
you only carried half of it when recording.)
I paid a lot for the set (almost $2,000), but I have my son's first
steps on video. I have tapes of family gatherings including family
members who had died by '85. I even spent a whole tape on my
cancer-ridden grandmother while she talked about family history before
she passed.
You are so worried about the size of the package and the cost. That is
pretty sad. Can you imagine how valuable a camcorder would have been to
have for family gatherings 50 years ago? How much would a camcorder at
the Alamo have been worth?
I am forever delighted that I paid almost $2,000 for my component video
recorder. You're satisfied with 35mm shots of Holland.
--
Ron Hammon
Remove the "y" from ".nyet", when present, to reach me.
Nik Simpson
Call me crazy, but I just invested in a Canon Digital SLR (got the Digital
Rebel) to replace my aging Olympus film cameras. I love it, the quality is
great and the "instant gratification" factor of being able to pull the
memory card out and see the results on my PC is well worth it. Now if I can
just find somebody who wants to by my old Olympus rig (OM4T and OM20 bodies
plus a bunch of lenses) I can afford to get a second DSLR body I'll be good
to go.
--
Nik Simpson
Bob Koerber
How about the 100.00 4 function calculators, now you can get one free by
opening a checking account!
Bob
Ron Hammon
Why is it that electronics ALWAYS gets better and cheaper... UNLESS it
is cars that are increasingly electronic?! Why doesn't Matsushita come
out with an automobile?
Greg Bacon
Ron Hammon <rha...@charter.nyet> wrote:
: Why is it that electronics ALWAYS gets better and cheaper... UNLESS it
: is cars that are increasingly electronic?! [...]
One market is *considerably* freer than the other.
Some even claim a right to deflation:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/right-deflation.html
Greg
--
He who would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his
enemy from repression.
-- Thomas Paine
pcNOT
wrote:
>Anyone know of a good place to get a digital camera repaired?? I need to
>have the lens fixed and Kodak is wanting to charge more than I paid?!?!
>
>Thanks
>
OK somehow (gee, this is hsv.general) the discussion wandered off all
the way to politics......
take it to someone handy or try to fix it yourself, as little as a new
one costs you've got very little to lose
Gary Heston
Ron Hammon <rha...@charter.nyet> wrote:
[ ... ]
>I paid a lot for the set (almost $2,000), but I have my son's first
>steps on video. I have tapes of family gatherings including family
>members who had died by '85. I even spent a whole tape on my
>cancer-ridden grandmother while she talked about family history before
>she passed.
I hope you've been transcribing them to new media every few years,
not only to keep everything up with current technology, but to
guard against media failure.
Even properly stored, videotape is not a permanent medium.
Gary
--
Gary Heston ghe...@hiwaay.net
"Sept. 11, 2001, already a day of immeasurable tragedy, cannot be
the day liberty perished in this country." Judge Gerald Tjoflat
Nik Simpson
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:39:36 -0000, ghe...@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston)
> wrote:
>
>> In article <418148...@charter.nyet>,
>> Ron Hammon <rha...@charter.nyet> wrote:
>> [ ... ]
>>> I paid a lot for the set (almost $2,000), but I have my son's first
>>> steps on video. I have tapes of family gatherings including family
>>> members who had died by '85. I even spent a whole tape on my
>>> cancer-ridden grandmother while she talked about family history
>>> before she passed.
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> I hope you've been transcribing them to new media every few years,
>> not only to keep everything up with current technology, but to
>> guard against media failure.
>>
>> Even properly stored, videotape is not a permanent medium.
>>
>>
>> Gary
>
> getting it done. Anyone have ideas on this?
>
> krh
My advice would be to buy a video capture setup for your PC (just bought one
for $150) and turn the videos into digital files, then burn them to CD or
DVD. In digital form they won't degrade so you should be able to stop
worrying about video tape. At most you might need to burn new CD/DVD copies
every 5-10years just to be safe.
--
Nik Simpson
Clint Elliott
> >Ron Hammon <rha...@charter.nyet> wrote:
> > [ ... ]
> >>I paid a lot for the set (almost $2,000), but I have my son's first
> >>steps on video. I have tapes of family gatherings including family
> >>members who had died by '85. I even spent a whole tape on my
> >>cancer-ridden grandmother while she talked about family history before
> >>she passed.
> > [ ... ]
> >
> >I hope you've been transcribing them to new media every few years,
> >not only to keep everything up with current technology, but to
> >guard against media failure.
> >
> >Even properly stored, videotape is not a permanent medium.
> >
> >
> >Gary
>
> getting it done. Anyone have ideas on this?
>
> krh
>
both Firewire or USB compatable and you already have a CD/DVD burner, then
the
cost runs about $50 for a decent software package.
If your camera is analog, then you have to take a different route which will
cost more.
A video capture card would be the best choice. The analog to USB adapters
that I have seen,
usually use proprietary software, which has limited options available as far
as capture formats
and editing capabilities.
My setup is Firewire all the way and I use Pinnacle Studio for capture,
editing, and
movie creation. I normally do SVCD format. Quality is excellent and I
prefer a CD format
because I don't have a lot of video to do at any one time and CD's are dirt
cheap.
I would imagine that everyone who has a video camera, has different opinions
on what is best.
I'm happy with mine
Clint
Joe Schmoe
http://hauppauge.com/pages/products/data_pvr250.html
It has a built-in Mpeg2 Encoder so that you can capture analog video and
make it DVD burnable without converting the file after you capture it.
CompUSA has it for $80 after rebate. I got one in July and I go the
rebate in two weeks.
http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=310591&pfp=SEARCH
Joe
krh wrote:
> Thanks. I checked the net and that appears to be the cheapest. The
> cards vary a lot in price. Will the cheaper cards do the trick?
>
> krh
>
Ron Hammon
>
> In article <418148...@charter.nyet>,
> Ron Hammon <rha...@charter.nyet> wrote:
> [ ... ]
> >I paid a lot for the set (almost $2,000), but I have my son's first
> >steps on video. I have tapes of family gatherings including family
> >members who had died by '85. I even spent a whole tape on my
> >cancer-ridden grandmother while she talked about family history before
> >she passed.
> [ ... ]
>
> I hope you've been transcribing them to new media every few years,
> not only to keep everything up with current technology, but to
> guard against media failure.
>
> Even properly stored, videotape is not a permanent medium.
>
> Gary
Alas, no. Of course, we are speaking of degradation, not total loss. As
I described here a few weeks ago, I'm skeptical that burned DVDs will be
even as permanent as VHS tapes. Before I invest a huge amount of time
archiving to DVD, I must be more confident of the "current technology"
than I am at the moment.
Ron Hammon
>
snip
> My advice would be to buy a video capture setup for your PC (just bought one
> for $150) and turn the videos into digital files, then burn them to CD or
> DVD. In digital form they won't degrade so you should be able to stop
> worrying about video tape. At most you might need to burn new CD/DVD copies
> every 5-10years just to be safe.
Better be careful what you advertise. I have already experienced burned
CDs that failed, WITHOUT physical damage, within two years!
Ron Hammon
>
> In article <418148...@charter.nyet>,
> Ron Hammon <rha...@charter.nyet> wrote:
> [ ... ]
> >I paid a lot for the set (almost $2,000), but I have my son's first
> >steps on video. I have tapes of family gatherings including family
> >members who had died by '85. I even spent a whole tape on my
> >cancer-ridden grandmother while she talked about family history before
> >she passed.
> [ ... ]
>
> I hope you've been transcribing them to new media every few years,
> not only to keep everything up with current technology, but to
> guard against media failure.
>
> Even properly stored, videotape is not a permanent medium.
>
I should also mention that the main reason that I opted for a
professional camera (over 370 lines, made for 3/4" tapes) was that I
fully expected SVHS to take hold (400 lines versus 240 MAX for VHS). I
NEVER expected the vast majority of Americans to be so satisfied with
the results of 1/2" tapes recorded at ONE THIRD SPEED! No wonder Quad
never really caught on. Just give Americans a nicer package. They don't
give a rat's ass about quality.
Nik Simpson
> Nik Simpson wrote:
>>
>
> snip
>
>> My advice would be to buy a video capture setup for your PC (just
>> bought one for $150) and turn the videos into digital files, then
>> burn them to CD or DVD. In digital form they won't degrade so you
>> should be able to stop worrying about video tape. At most you might
>> need to burn new CD/DVD copies every 5-10years just to be safe.
>
> Better be careful what you advertise. I have already experienced
> burned CDs that failed, WITHOUT physical damage, within two years!
OK, every year if you must, it's still very cheap once you have the media in
digital format.
--
Nik Simpson
Gary Heston
Ron Hammon <rha...@charter.nyet> wrote:
>Gary Heston wrote:
[ ... ]
>> I hope you've been transcribing them to new media every few years,
>> not only to keep everything up with current technology, but to
>> guard against media failure.
>> Even properly stored, videotape is not a permanent medium.
>Alas, no. Of course, we are speaking of degradation, not total loss.
I guess you've never experienced oxide flaking off a tape, or tape
sticking together and creasing or breaking during playback.
> As
>I described here a few weeks ago, I'm skeptical that burned DVDs will be
>even as permanent as VHS tapes. Before I invest a huge amount of time
>archiving to DVD, I must be more confident of the "current technology"
>than I am at the moment.
I quite agree. If you care about the videos, copy them to high quality
media, not the cheapest you can find; I don't expect cheap CDs to last
more than 5 years--some of them don't last that long. Even commercial
CDs fail, although not as often as CDRs. Use the best and burn at a
low rate of speed, and they'll last much better.
I'm not satisfied that DVDs are reliable, myself. I'm also doubtful
that they'll stabilize long enough to mature at a technology--there
are already double-sided double-layer DVDs coming out, reputed to
hold 30GB. We'll see how those work.
With the current price of hard drives, I'd be inclined to pick up
a few 200GB drives, burn them in for a few months, then copy the
files onto them and store in separate places.
Ron Hammon
>
snip
> I don't believe many of us worry too much about going to a lot of
> trouble preserving graphics for the future but some do and that's
> nice.
snip
It's immortality! What can POSSIBLY be more important? This is
focusing on the future, rather than the present, something that most
Americans can't do anymore.
I REALLY envy film actors for this reason. John Wayne will be well
known and appreciated in 2101, with a wider appeal than the best author,
painter, musician, athelete, or inventor.
Ron Hammon
"Digital format" is a MEANS, not an end. The point is, with archival
VHS tapes degrading at a rate of, let's guess, 20% signal strength per
decade, it may be better to wait a few years until the "in" format is
golden dominoes, or something.
I have, guessing here, well over 100 hours of archival video going back
20 years. Merely switching formats is not the problem. It will require
a massive editing job, of many hundreds of hours, to recombine the
"footage" into really nice pieces. I've already went down the wrong
road when switching 8mm home movies (from the Fifties!) to VHS without
special equipment. When the time comes, I will not hesitate to spend
thousands of dollars on the project. That today's digital media is
cheap, even though possibly prone to failure in a year, means nothing to
me.
Nik Simpson
> Nik Simpson wrote:
>>
>> Ron Hammon wrote:
>>> Nik Simpson wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> snip
>>>
>>>> My advice would be to buy a video capture setup for your PC (just
>>>> bought one for $150) and turn the videos into digital files, then
>>>> burn them to CD or DVD. In digital form they won't degrade so you
>>>> should be able to stop worrying about video tape. At most you might
>>>> need to burn new CD/DVD copies every 5-10years just to be safe.
>>>
>>> Better be careful what you advertise. I have already experienced
>>> burned CDs that failed, WITHOUT physical damage, within two years!
>>
>> OK, every year if you must, it's still very cheap once you have the
>> media in digital format.
>>
>
> "Digital format" is a MEANS, not an end. The point is, with archival
> VHS tapes degrading at a rate of, let's guess, 20% signal strength per
> decade, it may be better to wait a few years until the "in" format is
> golden dominoes, or something.
There's no need to get rid of the tapes, if you think you'll want to try
some new media in the future and want to get the content direct from tape,
then by all means hang onto the tapes. But meanwhile, converting them as
they are now will capture them at the best they are likely to be, i.e. stick
around for 10 years for some new format and you have to worry about:
1. Archival tapes doesn't typically describe what the average users home
videos are on, so 20% degradation in quality maybe a significant
underestimate.
2. Storage conditions have a big impact on how long a tape lasts, again
typical home users don't have access to a temperature controlled
low-humidity vault, so there is no guarantee that they'll be readable at all
a decade from now.
3. I hope your VCR lasts that long, I suspect that new VCRs might be quite
hard to come by in 2014!
So, by all means hang on to your tapes, but start thinking about making
digital copies now rather than later. If better storage medium than DVD-R is
available a decade from now, the digital copies you make now will be much
better quality than what's left on the tape and they can be copied to this
"new" media much more easily and quickly than the tapes.
>
> I have, guessing here, well over 100 hours of archival video going
> back 20 years. Merely switching formats is not the problem. It will
> require a massive editing job, of many hundreds of hours, to
> recombine the "footage" into really nice pieces.
Again, once you've got them in digital format, it's easier to edit them,
unless you have a professional analog video editing rig.
> I've already went
> down the wrong road when switching 8mm home movies (from the
> Fifties!) to VHS without special equipment. When the time comes, I
> will not hesitate to spend thousands of dollars on the project. That
> today's digital media is cheap, even though possibly prone to failure
> in a year, means nothing to me.
I beg to differ, if they were my family memories on video tape, I'd be
looking at getting them into a digital format such as MPEG asap.
--
Nik Simpson
Ron Hammon
>
> Ron Hammon wrote:
snip
> > "Digital format" is a MEANS, not an end. The point is, with archival
> > VHS tapes degrading at a rate of, let's guess, 20% signal strength per
> > decade, it may be better to wait a few years until the "in" format is
> > golden dominoes, or something.
>
> There's no need to get rid of the tapes, if you think you'll want to try
> some new media in the future and want to get the content direct from tape,
> then by all means hang onto the tapes. But meanwhile, converting them as
> they are now will capture them at the best they are likely to be, i.e. stick
> around for 10 years for some new format and you have to worry about:
>
snip
> 3. I hope your VCR lasts that long, I suspect that new VCRs might be quite
> hard to come by in 2014!
>
> So, by all means hang on to your tapes, but start thinking about making
> digital copies now rather than later. If better storage medium than DVD-R is
> available a decade from now, the digital copies you make now will be much
> better quality than what's left on the tape and they can be copied to this
> "new" media much more easily and quickly than the tapes.
THREE times, you assumed TEN years! I assume TWO years until a better
format comes along. Care to bet who is closer? I strongly disagree with
your assumption that DVDs burned today will be "much better quality" in
ten years than tapes that are already twenty years old. I'll bet that
the tapes will outlive the DVDs.
> I have, guessing here, well over 100 hours of archival video going
> > back 20 years. Merely switching formats is not the problem. It will
> > require a massive editing job, of many hundreds of hours, to
> > recombine the "footage" into really nice pieces.
>
> Again, once you've got them in digital format, it's easier to edit them,
> unless you have a professional analog video editing rig.
Why are you so hung up on "digital"? "Digital" is irrelavent. For all
I care, the next step may be back to analog, without the loss of
translation. For example, imagine a 4 pixel camera. Would you still
like it because it was "digital"? How many "pixels" do you think that
an ISO-100 35mm negative equals?
> > I've already went
> > down the wrong road when switching 8mm home movies (from the
> > Fifties!) to VHS without special equipment. When the time comes, I
> > will not hesitate to spend thousands of dollars on the project. That
> > today's digital media is cheap, even though possibly prone to failure
> > in a year, means nothing to me.
>
> I beg to differ, if they were my family memories on video tape, I'd be
> looking at getting them into a digital format such as MPEG asap.
>
Driven by how cheap the blanks are?! This was your voiced reason.
Nik Simpson
> Nik Simpson wrote:
>>
>> making digital copies now rather than later. If better storage
>> medium than DVD-R is available a decade from now, the digital copies
>> you make now will be much better quality than what's left on the
>> tape and they can be copied to this "new" media much more easily and
>> quickly than the tapes.
>
> THREE times, you assumed TEN years! I assume TWO years until a better
> format comes along.
Yes, but the files you used to create the DVD are still on your hard disk,
no need to go back to the decaying source tape.
>Care to bet who is closer? I strongly disagree
> with your assumption that DVDs burned today will be "much better
> quality" in ten years than tapes that are already twenty years old.
> I'll bet that the tapes will outlive the DVDs.
>
I hope your right, it's your memories not mine.
>
>> I have, guessing here, well over 100 hours of archival video going
>>> back 20 years. Merely switching formats is not the problem. It will
>>> require a massive editing job, of many hundreds of hours, to
>>> recombine the "footage" into really nice pieces.
>>
>> Again, once you've got them in digital format, it's easier to edit
>> them, unless you have a professional analog video editing rig.
>
> Why are you so hung up on "digital"? "Digital" is irrelavent. For
> all I care, the next step may be back to analog, without the loss of
> translation. For example, imagine a 4 pixel camera. Would you still
> like it because it was "digital"? How many "pixels" do you think that
> an ISO-100 35mm negative equals?
I'm not hung up on Digital, I do think there are good reasons for taking
aging analog tapes and convert them to a digital format, but if you don't
fine, no need to have a cow ;-)
As to the Mpixels of a 35mm film, I beleive you'll find that 8Mpixel cameras
are offering similar if not higher resolution than 35mm film.
>
>>> I've already went
>>> down the wrong road when switching 8mm home movies (from the
>>> Fifties!) to VHS without special equipment. When the time comes, I
>>> will not hesitate to spend thousands of dollars on the project. That
>>> today's digital media is cheap, even though possibly prone to
>>> failure in a year, means nothing to me.
>>
>> I beg to differ, if they were my family memories on video tape, I'd
>> be looking at getting them into a digital format such as MPEG asap.
>>
>
> Driven by how cheap the blanks are?! This was your voiced reason.
One reason, but the big reason is the ease with which those digital formats
can be archived vs. analog tape. I sincerely hope that you don't find out 10
years from now that your videos are unreadable, but if you don't want to
worry about it, I'm certainly not going to.
--
Nik Simpson
Ron Hammon
>
snip
> the files you used to create the DVD are still on your hard disk,
> no need to go back to the decaying source tape.
You're kidding, right? I am supposed to also archive "well over 100
hours" of high-resolution video "on my hard drive"? Besides, we all
know how infallible hard drives are. ;-)
Ron Hammon
>
snip
> With the current price of hard drives, I'd be inclined to pick up
> a few 200GB drives, burn them in for a few months, then copy the
> files onto them and store in separate places.
>
snip
I thought about that as a simple, redundant "re-mastering" job,
independant of of the final, edited product. Redundancy is the most
valuable thing to do, even if suffering some loss in translation to
digital.