on 2/11/03 10:02 AM, Thomas Heide Clausen at T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 06:22:16 -0800
> "William Sommerwerck" <williams@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Top-grade cameras are traditionally designed for 100K to 200K
>> cycles. That's roughly 2500 to 5000 rolls of film, which is
>> "nothing" for a heavy-shooting pro photographer.
>>
>> Five years ago a TIME photographer dropped by to photograph me for
>> TIME Digital. He had several cameras, and the shutter on one (a
>> Nikon) failed in the middle of the shoot.
>
> This begs two interresting questions....
>
> 1) William: for what occation were you being photograped by TIME?
> You must be some sort of celeberty, who I fail to know,
>
> 2) John, Clint et.al: with your propper service regularly, what
> should we expect from our OM bodies? I have one body that falls a
> few rolls short of 4000 (an OM2s/p, btw.) - should I start to
> worry, or?
1) William mentioned it here a while ago, he's got something to do with high
fidelity stereo equipment, testing and writing about it... after he said
that I recalled seeing the name in Audio or High Fidelity or Stereo Review
or maybe even all three. Since 30 years of loud rock music have had their
toll on my ears, I have a music system that is better than I can hear and I
don't really pursue the ne plus ultra anymore... at least in audio.
2) Seems like with proper CLA, you would get nearly another 100,000 cycles.
I can't see doing that much in a lifetime, but I've prepared by stocking up
a few... extra bodies in anticipation of ultimate failures. Yes, that's the
real reason I have all these OM's, its merely proper prudence in allowing
for the inevitable failure when that eventually happens. See, there is true
logic and reason behind it!
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-'s of all sorts, and no OM-oney...
< 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 >
|