I think the extra stop of the 77 would be nice but the 70 came up s/h at a price I could afford. I'm pleased I bought it.

The 77 does hold it's price well but the 70 seems to be a bit of a bargain second hand. Almost as much bang for a fair bit less buck.

I have a DA70 and love it!

Some reviews place it equal to the FA77 but I have never tried the 77 so cannot say. What I do know is that I like it and I doubt if you would be disappointed.

Trouble with most camera bags is that they are designed to make it easy to get kit in and out, leaving openings for heavy rain to get in!

I had a bridge camera in a Lowe so called All Weather that got soaked in a fairly light shower. The rain cover fixed at the top of the belt loop and left all around the belt loop unprotected. My waterproof provided the channel for the water to pour in! I think the idea of the rain cover is good but it has to cover ALL openings and straps to work. As you pointed out the usual problem is that all the straps are rarely protected because you would not then have rucksack straps available. A bin bag over the top would work but you could not carry it as the straps are underneath!

Any good waterproofing needs to be like the tiles on a roof, overlapping in the opposite direction from the water flow direction or a total seal like on the waterproof bags in that link. The total seal is probably the best for wind blown rain as you can never be sure which way the water will flow!

Personally, I usually opt for a normal rucksack with a liner like these link.

thanks John

I understand the Theoretical value is around that figure but I have no idea how much would be reasonable to ask to knock off the price paid, bearing in mind the faults that are now apparent. I.E. what is the difference between a fully functioning camera and one that needs work.

I guess it depends on the two people involved but does anybody have any suggestion as what would be a reasonable percentage to deduct?

I have just taken delivery of an Asahiflex IIa with 58mm f2.4 and a 135mm lens to fit.

It is working ok except it seems to have been damaged in transit. The nameplate has been bashed and the screw that holds it on has been sheared off. This is also interfering with the finder opening. 58mm 2.4 lens is fine.
I also noticed that the 135 lens preset ring goes beyond the f3.5 setting and the focus requires some force to move it off the inf end of the focus throw. Moves fine otherwise.




The two items were lightly bubble wrapped in the box but able to move and I think this is where the damage has occurred.

The vendor has offered to fully refund or partial if I want to keep the items. I have been looking for one of these for a while now but am unsure weather to accept a partial refund and attempt repair or go for a full refund and continue my quest.

My questions are:-
1. Do you think I should start again and have the full refund or negotiate a partial refund?
2. What sort of price should I be looking at for the damaged camera and 135 lens.

I'm glad it is not just me then.

Happened earlier this evening, around 17.30. Same message as above.

I don't think I will test mine like that either but it's nice to see someone else testing the water resistance! Gives me the confidence that I'm unlikely to damage mine with little bit of rain.

Nobody?

I rather fancy having a go at the F 85mm soft.

But after recent purchases I think I had better not, for a while.

The position is that I sent the camera by Royal Mail International to New Zealand. I had arranged the repair by email and the return carriage was arranged by the repairer. Parcel Force Worldwide is the final carrier

How would this be different from using a carrier?