On 24 Mar 98 at 14:52, Paul Van Tuyl wrote:
> The OM-10 has received a bad reputation that is not deserved. We sell more of
> these
> than any other OM body. The reason? The bad rep has made them a cheap
> bargain. We
> have less problems with these than the OM-4! Of course the people who bought
> these
> little gems originally did not ever service them! A little TLC goes a long
> way with
> these little guys! Paul.
>
> John Hermanson wrote:
>
> > It is hardly a cheap design. It facilitates self timer, and prevents the
> > shutter
> > from working with wrong, weak , dead or no batteries.
> >
My experience in 12 years of owning an OM-10 leads me to agree with both of the
above statements:
-the one and only time my OM-10 has locked the mirror/shutter was from a weak
battery after shooting approx 12 rolls in less than an hour during a wedding.
Although I was annoyed at the time, this feature probably saved me from ruining
the last few rolls, which I had to shoot with a Minolta 7000AF. All shots taken
with the OM-10 were perfectly exposed, so the battery check mechanism seems to
work just fine.
Aside from the current oil-on-magnet problem, my OM-10 has been flawless with
*no* maintenance in 12 years. Once I find some cash, I hope to send it to John
H. for its first servicing... :-)
========================
Shawn Wright
Computer Systems Manager
Shawnigan Lake School
250-743-6240
swright@xxxxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|