Jan Steinman's horror story about a buyer damaging a camera, then
sticking him with the repair charges, deserves some comment.
Because the buyer does not live in the same city, Mr. Steinman is not in
a good position to sue the buyer. But the buyer is in an equally
inconvenient position. This suggests that buyers should take aggressive
advantage of such situations to protect themselves.
If you know that you shipped something in proper working order, then you
should insist that the _buyer_ pay for the repair, with the repariman
and/or shipping company deciding who is at fault.
Yes, this sounds rather harsh, because most people _are_ honest, and
most of us believe in the Golden Rule. But I've worked in retail sales,
and I've seen my share of loony and/or dishonest customers. You _have_
to protect yourself from such people, even though the requirements for
doing so might make you feel slightly sub-human. You are not a business
that can afford to "eat" X percent of all sales.
By the way, I have never cheated, nor been cheated by, anyone. I don't
think I've been "lucky" -- most people are honest.
>>>>>
In Ken Norton's discussion of several SLRs, he commented that the
brighter viewfinders were harder to focus. This is normal. A coarse
groundglass scatters light more than a finely ground one. It therefore
goes in and out of focus more obviously -- and it's dimmer, since less
light reaches the eye.
There have supposedly been advances in screen design over the last
decade that allow brighter screens with little loss of focusing ability.
If anyone knows anything about these, I'd like to see more info.
>>>>>
I'd always wanted a Minox. Not necessarily to take pictures with, but
just because it's A Really Neat Camera.
Last year, the very first time I ever went on eBay, I typed in "Minox"
and found a Minox C in like-new condition, complete with original box,
chain, and leather case. The auction expired in the middle of the night,
so I sat up late and grabbed it at a good price (about 1/3 less than
what I would have paid for a not-quite-as-good sample from KEH).
Although 25+ years old, the camera looked as if it had never been used.
I loaded it with film and began taking snapshots. It took over six
months to finish a roll of 30 pictures; as a scale-focusing,
rangefinder-less camera, the Minox does not inspire casual shooting.
We've been spoiled by autofocus. (I even bought an ultrasonic
rangefinder to help when focusing closer than 6'.)
Anyhow, I got the pictures back the other day, and was utterly
flabbergasted. The quality (with Minocolor 100 Pro repackaged APS film)
is noticeably superior to pocket instamatic. Indeed, the naive user
might at first think the prints are from 35mm negatives! In bright
light, with closer examination, the slight grain and overall lack of
"subtlety" become apparent. But the quality -- from a negative with 1/9
(!!!) the area of a 35mm negative -- is simply unbelievable.
The secret is in the lens. About 25 years ago, The Magazine Formally
Known as Popular Photography tested the Minox C. The lens was so
incredibly sharp and contrasty, center to edge, that it beat out any
other lens they ever test (before or after).
Thus we arrive at the point of this posting. The Minox has made me aware
just how mediocre even "good" camera lenses are. (The Minox lens is
almost certainly superior to the 50mm Summicron -- and that's saying
something.) I am now musing over what photographic life would be like if
all our 35mm lenses (or at least those in the 40mm to 100mm range) were
as highly corrected as the Minox.
>>>>>
When one member of this group briefly commented on Ken Norton's reviews,
he quoted the _entire_ original, very long posting. 'nuf said.
< 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 >
|