Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: While we're talking about OM-1 Foam

Subject: [OM] Re: While we're talking about OM-1 Foam
From: "John Hermanson" <omtech@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:03:30 -0400
Previous owner might have been a "wow, I got 15 years out of this mercury 
battery so far" kinda guy.   Check battery box for sweating, and clean up 
with lens tissue dampened with alcohol.  Also look for cracks in the battery 
box as the oldest OM-1 battery boxes were made of a different type of 
plastic that cracks with age (as do the meter frames).

John Hermanson
Camtech Photo Services, Inc.
21 South Lane, Huntington, NY 11743
omtech@xxxxxxxxx  |  www.zuiko.com
Factory Trained OM Service since 1977
__________________________________
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 12:22 AM
Subject: [OM] Re: While we're talking about OM-1 Foam


> Stephen Walker wrote:
>
>>......Anyhow, the OM-1 is in great shape.  It was in an
>>"(n)ever-ready" case so the finish is perfect although
>>there appears to be some rubber cement seeping out
>>from underneath the leather (perhaps a re-glue job?).
>>The wind and shutter mechanisms are smooth as silk and
>>the film path shows no noticable wear. It even had a
>>functional mercury battery!
>>
>>The question is foam degradation.  The back foam is
>>obviously showing signs of rot and there is a bit of
>>foam stuck to the corner of the mirror, so i'm
>>thinking the mirror box foam is also bad -- I'll have
>>to look closer tommorrow to see.
>>
>>The viewfinder is very clear -- I don't know if this
>>could be a model without mirror foam installed, or
>>maybe i'm just lucky.
>>
>>
> From an old John H. post:
>
> "My repair database shows OM-1 chrome ending around 1,593,xxx. The 1N
> starting around 1,644,xxx. The start of 1N production also signaled the
> start of the factory using prism foam again.
>
> OM-1 were made with no prism foam from  (approx)   1,119,xxx (3/77) 
> through 1,623,xxx (11/78)."
>
> If it isn't in that range, it's probably worth checking into the prism 
> foam situation.
>
>>Anyhow, I'm trying to decide if I should just order
>>the back foam and clean off the bit of foam on the
>>mirror, or spend the $$$ to have it CLA'd.
>>
> A CLA does a lot more than a foam job. From your description of the wind
> and shutter action and shutter/mirror noise, it sound like it doesn't
> need the lube part of a CLA just now. However, you don't know about
> meter and shutter accuracy. You should certainly be able to get an idea
> about the meter by using another meter, like the A2, to check it. For
> the shutter, and more exact meter test, a roll of slide film  used for
> test shots should tell the tale.
>
> If it passed those tests, and were mine, I would take the top plate off
> and make sure about the foam. Then if there is some, either remove it
> myself or have it done. The deteriorazation and ruination of the prism
> coatings can happen pretty fast when it hits. Either way, do the back
> and mirror foam and you are good to go!
>
>>And there's a decent chance I might turn around and sell
>>it anyhow.  But I couldn't resist -- I got the body, a
>>50mm f1.4, a 75-150 f4 (that looks nearly unused), a
>>spare focusing screen (1-3), a variety of 49mm
>>filters, and a weird little tripod for $60 shipped.
>>
>>
> Good deal!
>
> Moose
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
> 


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

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