Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/04/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
- --- John Collier <jbcollier@shaw.ca> wrote:
> I agree but remember few M4-2 cameras were actually used with
> a motor in
> the first place. I think motor use will cause the early
> coupling to wear
> fairly quickly. Otherwise why would they have redesigned it?
>
> John Collier
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
In the electronics industry we have "accepted" for a long
time that European equipment is "underbuilt" and prone to
failure. ( Ask anyone who owned one of those "Flagship" BMWs of
about ten years ago how long the ECU ( computer ) would last ).
I think the M4-2 coupling may be a similar case. But
almopst every product ever made has had design changes during
its production life. We hope they were improvements, not just
cost reductions,oops, make that "value engineering".
But my point was that your used camera probably had seen a
lot of use before you bought it. The person who sold it
probably knew it was badly worn. He just did not tell you.
We had a situation that may be similar at the University
some years ago. A fellow tried to set himself up as a "dealer"
and was offering used Nikon F2s to the students. They had been
"CLA'd" and repainted. The prices were at the high range for
clean, used.
They were worn out cameras he had bought cheap from the
Chicago Tribune.............
>
> On Thursday, April 25, 2002, at 11:08 AM, Photo Phreak wrote:
>
> > I think John has given us two big clues.
> > 1. The motor drive coupling was worn out
> > 2. Repairs of questionable quality before his purchase.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see
http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html