Re: Disposable cameras

[P3D Tony Shapps <call@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In message <331E27A9.4A01@xxxxxxx>, P3D Andrew Eskind <andy@xxxxxxx>
writes
>p> Subject: Disposable cameras
>> Message-ID: <199704011902_MC2-13A2-7C4E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> 
>> > Besides, aren't disposables the "in" thing nowdays?  Doesn't making
>> > something disposable make it "modern"!
>> >
>> Actually, it just brings the century full cycle. When Kodak first began
>> selling cheap home cameras, they were "disposable", I.e. they were returned
>> along with the film for processing. Now we're back to doing it again. 
>
>Kodak's cameras of the late 1880s and 1890s were neither cheap, nor
>disposable.  Yes, they were returned to Rochester via US Mail for
>processing ("You Press the Button, We Do the Rest"), but the same
>camera was then re-loaded (100 exposures) and returned via mail
>presumably along with the stack of 100 successful prints.  The $25
>cost in 1888 dollars placed it in about the same upscale market the SX70
>enjoyed when it came out.
>
>ahe
>
>
Adrew is absolutely right, just being disposable doesn't make anything
modern!  However, it obviously appeals to some people.....in the U.K.
(That's Britain for the unitiated) we have sold well over 20,000 of the
3D MAGIC one-trip cameras alone,  and that does not take into account
the 3D WIZARDS,  3D-1000 and Rittai's to name but a few.   We also set a
policy of never ofrering secondhand dor 'old=fashioned' stereo equipment
because we're trying to foster a modern image for 3-D.   Fortunately
it's only the affionados like us on this group that see this stuff as
expensive...but then an auto only cost 600 ( about $900 dollars) in
1953!!!
-- 
Tony Shapps
http://www.wscreen.demon.co.uk


------------------------------