on 4/15/02 4:16 PM, Norm Nadel at ns.nadel@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Jim:
>
> Now I am really confused! I have two used Shoe 4 units. The Shoe 4 that I
> had been looking at did not have any pads. I looked at the other one and it
> did. Both have identical cracks.
>
> Looking at the one with the pads, I would think that sanding them off might
> be just enough to "widen" the angle so that it would not crack. If that is
> the case though, why is the one without the pads cracked.
>
> I looked at a new one I have and it has the pads. The pads appear to be part
> of the casting and not an add-on rubber item.
>
> Thus my further confusion .. why one with pads and why one without. Were
> there two different models? Could someone have filed off the pads, thinking
> as I have been, that this would prevent cracking?
>
> And here I thought that after I retired, all my problems would be gone ;-)
>
> Norm
I never noticed any that did not have the little pads. Without looking at
them too closely I always thought they were separate little rubber (rather
than hard plastic) pieces glued in there to pad the prism. Guess I'll have a
closer look. Other than rubbing the chrome or paint, I don't think a filed
one would cause any problem... many of my bodies are already rubbed from the
shoe anyway.
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) 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 >
|