No holes, that way they don't ask for a three year warranty!
----- Original Message -----
From: "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] Re: CLA
> Tom,
>
> It would be relatively inexpensive compared to the exhorbitant shipping
> cost. The camera holder requires the CLA, not the camera body. First
> problem to solve is the shipping container: how many holes are required
> and their diameter(s) so as not to degrade its mechanical integrity and
> still provide a sufficient number for the container's contents. This is
> where the smiley goes:
> :-)
>
> -- John
>
> At 11:35 5/7/02, Thomas A. Simmons asked:
>
> >After the last weeks posts, I'm wondering how much a CLA would cost?
> >In particular, fix the following problems:
> >
> >1) bad focusing
> >2) no film loaded
> >3) ASA meter incorrectly set
> >4) marketable picture lost because
> > 4a) lens cap still on lens
> > 4b) camera was at home
> > 4c) bad composition
> > 4d) "real" action at very edge of stupid picture
> >
> >Is it possible to have the camera come back with a varimagnifier?
> >Maybe a 350 F2? no extra charge? Is this where the smiley goes?
>
>
> < 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 >
>
< 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 >
|