On Feb 22, 2007, at 1:10 PM, Peter P. wrote:

> James Nick Sears <jnsears <at> jamesnsears.com> writes:
>
>> With Sony's flat-rate repair costing within a few dollars of what a
>> new camera costs, it didn't seem that I had much to lose.  Of course
>> with an SLR that costs 1k+ the equation changes.
>
> True, but that's not the point. The point is that the SLR design is  
> not
> suitable for exchangeable objective service with digital backs  
> unless special
> measures are taken (like built in self cleaning).

So then the equation changes even more.  Agreed that I wouldn't go  
poking around inside a high-end camera without a solid idea of what I  
was doing.

>
>> Not to mention it was a great experience and really gave me a greater
>> appreciation of the mechanical engineering/industrial design that  
>> goes
>> into those products.
>
> That's true, but few people actually get to disassemble and  
> reassemble a modern
> zoom lens barrel without shearing the flat cable(s) in the lens  
> barrel ;-( And
> it isn't worth it for most 'point and shoot' cameras like you have.  
> Your camera
> retails for about $400. When there is a problem the value drops to  
> less than
> half of that. A thorough repair and checkout is hard to do without  
> billing
> about $100. So you'd end up paying $100 to make a $150-200 camera  
> work again
> (and be worth maybe $250).

I don't understand what you're arguing.  I said the camera wasn't  
worth paying to have cleaned.  You're saying the camera wasn't worth  
paying to have cleaned.  I think you are underestimating your  
audience here.  It was a relatively straightforward disassembly/ 
reassembly that I would have to guess the average person on this list  
(assuming some preselection among the members on this list toward  
hobbyist abilities) would be skilled enough to execute.  The most  
difficult part of the whole process was mustering the courage to pry  
the outer cover off, which was held in place by a few drops of adhesive.

>
> Worse, your camera has relatively low requirements compared to a  
> DSLR. That
> means that the lens etc is not so critical (because it is a F2.8  
> max. lens) and
> it can only 'eat' dust if the o-ring becomes really clogged. Also  
> the crystal
> filter is fairly far off the ccd and thus out of focus most of the  
> time.

Both the dust on my sensor and the dust embedded within my lens  
assembly were very visible on my photographs.  It had degraded to the  
point where the choice was between cleaning it or trashing it.

Again I'm not saying anything about cleaning an SLR as I have no  
experience with SLRs.  But for point and shoot cameras, a set of  
small screwdrivers and some patience can get you well on your way.

-n.









-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist