Gary Reese wrote:
> The only statement I disagree with is above. The Canon AE-1 is
> quite
> repairable and technicians consider it a bread and butter
> camera, due to
> the large numbers they get in.
What I had meant to say was that during the active marketing
time of the AE-1, they fixed a lot, but generally deamed the
camera to be replaceable as it cost more to repair than to
replace given the extreme quantities that they were made in. In
my opinion, the AE-1 is a half step between the OM-10 and the
OM-2 and the Rebel to be in the neighborhood of the OM-10.
And Motor Sports Vision wrote:
> While I always value and respect Ken's opinions
Boy do I have him fooled! <g>
> on this from a racing photographer I know who uses EOS-1s of
> various
> vintages who has one EOS-1 body he now calls a very expensive
> paperweight. This body still looks perfect on the outside.
It would not suprise me that any camera would suffer from
chassis damage from the fall that you described. A three foot
fall to solid ground of an EOS-1 with 300/2.8 is a chunk of
weight--especially if there was a battery pack with it too. It
all depends on how it lands. The lens was damaged (although
repairable) and the camera body was sprung inside. Had the body
not cracked, it is possible that the lens would have been
totalled. Also, if the lens was totalled, the body might have
survived. Rarely will both lens and body (of that size and
weight) survive a three foot fall onto concrete and rarely will
both lens and body be totalled.
The old FD series of lenses had hideously small lens mounts
(primary reason why Canon introduced the EOS series with new,
larger mount), which when a similar fall happened would snap.
Although expensive repairs were to follow, the camera body was
usually surviving with mount/mirror chamber damage and the
lenses required the replacement of the mounting area. (Nikons
are pretty much still this way)
No camera (Nikon F5, EOS1, etc) is capable of all forms of
abuse. It usually has to do with angle of impact as to the
resulting damage. It sounds like this guy's EOS-1/300/2.8 hit
the concrete at a slight offset angle (otherwise the lens should
have survived with just a whammed lens shade).
Another thought, my OM-1md was taken down by a single,
well-placed, grain of sand. But that very same camera with a
24/2.8 survived a 4 foot fall to the floor in the Dublin,
Ireland airport with just a dented filter ring. (that lens
still looks at me funny)
Ken N.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.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 >
|