Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Dings, Doinks and Dents

Subject: Re: [OM] Dings, Doinks and Dents
From: "Lex Jenkins" <lexjenkins@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:41:07 PDT
It can be as tough to judge the condition of a used camera or lens as it is to inspect a used car. Among the many misdeeds of my mispent past, I did the latter for a brokerage specializing in $big$ European cars and got screwed once on a Porsche 911. The car was fine, but they'd professionally tarted it up to be a counterfeit whale-tail version for money money. I missed a telltale paint line under the weatherstripping in the trunk. Cost us big bucks. Helluva car anyway, tho' - not a better snow and ice car in the world that I've driven.

Back to cameras...

I dropped my Oly XA-3 from waist level to the pavement. There wasn't even a scratch or chip in the black finish. The next time I changed film I noticed the back wouldn't shut normally unless I lifted it very gingerly into place. I figured the thing would have light leaks, but no. The efficient use of baffles instead of foam has kept it leak free for three years since. And the drop apparently didn't affect the optics or any normal functioning. Man, wotta camera.

Having owned lenses with and without ring-dings (chocolately, and creamy too), I'd be inclined to learn from Gary Reese's experience testing a lens so damaged and be aware that it *may* affect the optics. I don't automatically reject lenses with minor filter rim doinks, but I won't pay much for 'em unless there's an iron-clad satisfaction guarantee. The Vivitar Seriously 1 Heavy Lens I got with my first OM-1 has a minor rim dink. From what I can tell it doesn't affect picture quality.

But... today I saw the darnedest thing in a pawn shop. A different model Viv Seriously Too Heavy 70-210 zoom that wasn't doinked - it looked nearly perfect. But something was askew. The barrel was separating from the mount! That was a definite stay-away.

I'd be a bit less worried about dinks, doinks, doings and dings in smaller, lighter lenses simply on the probably irrational basis that there's less moving mass, therefore less chance of optical compromise. Somebody, please, argue with me here. ;>

With camera bodies, if the damage looks old (oxidized brass, etc.) and the body appears to function fine, and the price is right, keep it and the doinked lenses for beaters. Something to leave in the car so you won't be caught without a camera.

I'm seriously thinking of buying the next dirt cheap SLR of any kind in good working condition, and one cheap middling telephoto like a 135mm, and leaving it in the car for occasions like this evening when I saw a doe dart across the road, her little rabbit-sized fawn trailing her. I stopped to block the road for 'em and got out to shoo junior off the road. If I'd had a good trunk-camera, I coulda got several pix 'cause mom wasn't gonna leave 'til baby caught up with her.

Maybe that lonely, lensless Minolta SRT-101 I saw the other day. I'm not sure I'd subject even an OM-10 to the brutality of a car trunk in a Texas summer. OTOH, maybe an OM-77 or OM-88 might be deserving of a good baking...

Lex

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com


< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz