Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Jim Brick wrote: >I think the answer to this (in my own words) somewhat ridiculous thread, is >simple. If your cameras almost survived an environmental disaster like Tina >just experienced, send in your gear. If you have a Bovine incident, CLA the >recipient. If your camera is acting funny (ha ha), have it CLA'ed. > >Otherwise go take pictures.>>>>>>> Hi Jim, It couldn't have been said better, nothing like good old common sense! This business of CLA should only come into play as you mentioned, Tina's disaster, photographers working in the desert or other hostile weather environments. The majority of the photographers on the LUG could use their cameras for a 100 years and never worry about CLA. Mind you if they have money to throw away, hell go for it, but the money would be better spent on film and taking pictures. Marc pointed out that the older machines were made in such a way they required some kind of CLA, but I bet even some of those old beasts or beauties are working just fine after 60 years without any service. I have one from about '54 that I know it's never been touched and works fine. So folks, lets put the CLA to bed. There have been more posts than cameras that need the CLA service.:) ted The way many of you baby your equipment... UV filters over the >lens, Pledge or carnauba on the body, in a hermetically sealed vault most >of the time... You'll never have to have your equipment "CLA'ed". Even >after a Bovine attack! Like it's dipped in Teflon. > >Does Clinton belong to this list? > >Anyway... all kidding aside, I think that CLA is something you do if >irregular symptoms appear. Or if you buy an old camera, with an unknown >history, and want to make sure it is "in tune". Or you trash it (not on >purpose.) > >Otherwise, take pictures. > >Jim > >PS, if Ted takes 100 rolls per month, and you take 1 roll per month, and >Ted has his equipment checked at 5 year intervals (or never), you should >have your's checked every 500 years, or never. Whichever comes first. ;-) > >At 05:50 PM 12/9/98 -0500, you wrote: >>At 10:07 PM 1998-12-09 +0100, Nathan Wajsman wrote: >>> >>>So, my M6 is designed to simply work until it breaks, while my M3 should have >>>regular CLA. But what does "regular" mean here? Has Leica ever issued any >>>guidelines about it? I do not see any information of this type in my M3 >>manual, >>>nor in any of my Leica books. Note: I am not challenging your statement, I >>>really just want to know. >> >>I don't recall seeing it in the IB's, either. I believe it was contained >>in instructions given the dealers. And I might have a statement about the >>Leitz CLA policy in one of my old LEICA PHOTOGRAPHY magazines. German IB's >>RARELY contain any reference to the slightest possibility of your camera's >>needing repairs or maintenance. (The IB for my old VW Beetle stated, >>similarly, that "any reputable fuel was acceptable, though gasoline-benzol >>blends were recommended". In other words, they didn't suggest you run your >>Bug on cognac, as those gummy deposits would clog up the carburetter!) >> >>Marc >> >> >>msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 >>Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir! >> Ted Grant This is Our Work. The Legacy of Sir William Osler. http://www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant