I've had a 283 for years, along with a T-20. I've never broken any of
the feet, or a flash shoe for that matter so I guess I'm lucky. I've
been extremely careful though. I was thinking more about the shoe on the
camera than the flash units with my comment. I notice that is one of the
things that was changed on the OM-3 and OM-4.
I also wasn't aware that replacement shoes were still available from
Olympus for the flash units. At least that says they can be repaired.
Had I known that, I wouldn't have passed on the T-32 I saw with a
cracked foot for $20.
--
Jim
rtomcala wrote:
>
> Jim,
> Other brands do, in fact, have this problem. The best known one is
> the venerable Vivitar 285 and 285. The major difference being that the
> Vivitar replacement feet cost sometimes 4 times what the T-32/T-20 feet
> cost. The good point there though is that they are at least 10 times
> easier to replace than the Olympus. This problem is also frequent on
> the larger Minolta flashes.
> This brings up a good question. What is the proper procedure to
> replace the broken foot on a T-32/T-20 flash ? I have at least 6 or 7
> T-20's laying around with broken feet awaiting repair. Never broken one
> myself, but just can't pass one up at the flea for $0.50 or $2.00.
> Rand E.
>
> Jim Sharp wrote:
> >
> > This sounds like something a salesman would come up with...
> >
> > Did you tell him you prefer "None of the above"
> >
> > I love my OM's but I think the whole flash setup is somewhat "cheesy."
> > The shoes are weak, both on the camera and on the flash units. There is
> > no reason a flash shoe should break just from trying to pivot the
> > flash...
>
> "It seems other brands don't have near the same problems."
>
< 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 >
|