That's a pretty broad assumption, Bob, although it may be pretty accurate in many cases. The problem is in knowing which camera may have been treated in that manner, so, IAC, a CLA - as you've done with yours - is in order if one expects some good, long-term use from it.
Just a word or two about CLAs - I got an old Leica some time back, and it seemed to be just fine. It even tested to be "in spec." However, after getting a CLA it became almost a different camera - smoother, quieter, and providing somewhat better exposures. So, even if a camera seems fine, those adjustments and a cleaning after twenty years can be a big help. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The average user bought these cameras 20 years ago as an improvement over the > point-n-shoot they had (maybe an old Brownie). The purchase was spurred on > by that upcoming big vacation or the arrival of 'Junior'. It was the family > camera for recording family events. > > It came out for vacations and birthdays, for Christmas and holidays to take a > few shots. Most people were too frugal to waste the rest of the roll, so > Christmas and Easter shots sometimes came back from the developer on the same > roll in June. These Pentax cameras served their families well. > > But think about the light use they got. 10 or maybe 20 rolls per year for > the last 20 years. That is roughly 3,000 to 6,000 exposures on a consumer > grade camera designed for 50,000. These cameras are hardly broken in! In > fact, you could argue that the original owners have just done the initial > testing to verify that the cameras work well. > -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ "Faster horses, younger women, older whiskey, more money" - 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 .
