Chris wrote:
> Where, roughly, is the cut-off date or serial number?
Don't know. I was told tha only early samples was affected. If I had to guess then
I'll say about 1985 or so.
>Also, what changes
> could they have made to prevent sticky mirror? Pentax still has the
> same rubber bumpers for the mirror rest that they always used to, AFAIK,
> so how can they be less likely to gum up over time? Or did Pentax change
> the rubber in some way?
Aparently they did.
> I imagine they replace those things routinely at service because they're
> likely to contribute to sticky mirror if they're *not* replaced. While
> this is good planning on the part of the repair company, it still doesn't
> say much for the LX's resistance to sticky mirror.
They replace the rubber on early LX'es and also the resitors for aperture and exposure
compensation/ISO setting with gold types. The older types can corrode if the camera is
left unused for a long period of time. I don't know when the resistor design change
happened.
> While the frequency of sticky mirror may be blown out of
> proportion, it can still be a very expensive repair.
Expensive? I don't think so. For $120 I got the broken switch repaired, new mirror
bumpers, new gold resistors, new sealings all over, bunped out bottom plate, new left
side (seen from the front) top panel due to a corroded shutter release lock.
It doesn't cost more than a regular CLA wich every camera old enough to develop sticky
mirror should have anyway.
Pål
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
