At 09:01 AM 4/5/03 -0800, Winsor Crosby wrote:
Not sure why people are so averse to spending a little bit to keep their
classic equipment going.
Guess it depends on what you call a spending a little. Putting another
$400 (see below) into these two old bodies isn't what I'd call a small
investment considering their real worth.
I also don't understand the logic that one would dump something with a
minor malfunction to buy something similar, probably with a malfunction,
from someone else.
Me neither. :-)
Clint or John could certainly do a CLA for much less than what you have
been quoted and they may end up good as new.
The quote was from John. He says he won't look at an OM-4 for less than
his CLA price of $179 and by the time you add shipping both ways you're
close to the $200 I used in "round" numbers.
There is an old used car buyer's saying, "The cheapest car is the one
you all ready own." I think that applies to more than just cars.
It's about a lot more than being cheap though. If that was the case I'd
still be driving the first car I bought and using that really cheap twin
lens "2 1/4" from the late 50's. :-) One of the bodies in question was
CLA'ed by John about two years ago and was giving bad meter readings within
less than 18 months. I don't think that's a reflection of John's work but
it probably is a sign of the potential problems with the aging electronics
in the bodies.
Anyway, OM's have been my primary SLR system for the past 25 years but I
know that at some point I'm going to spring for a new system that includes
autofocus lenses and both film based and digital bodies. As I said before,
now is probably the time to cut my losses. Is that the call of a Canon
EOS-3 that I hear in the background? :-)
Later,
Johnny
__________________________
Johnny Johnson
Lilburn, GA
mailto:jjohnso4@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 >
|