It's a camera, not a car

ozgrakkurt 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Cameras can get really expensive, and kodak isn’t the only option. So it is very likely that the situation GP wrote would happen

Insanity 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That can still be an expensive costing hundreds to thousands of dollars once you add additional lenses etc.

Even hundreds of dollars for a camera is not “throw away money” for a lot of people..

tjr 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I for one have been known to keep some cameras longer than some cars.

	▲	vladvasiliu 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I think it depends on what you do with them. If your living depends on the camera, you're probably not buying Kodak anyway, since in that case you're buying more into a system, which Kodak doesn't have. If you're an amateur, it's likely that it will outlive its warranty anyway, so it doesn't make much of a difference. Also, since there's no "system", grabbing a different one isn't that expensive financially.