It would be interesting to see what is in the camera. If its been
continuously immersed it may not have rusted much but I don't know what
is in the water. It would probably have to be disassembled completely
and cleaned, essentially re-manufactured. I wonder what else they found
in that canal and also how long its been since it was last drained.
On 1/8/2016 3:07 PM, Nancy Kennedy wrote:
Sven, I agree. It's more the challenge of doing that and the bragging rights. But Don's right, it would be extremely expensive, and perhaps not successful.
Well, that's what I like about this forum - lots of opinions.
Nancy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Sven Keller" <keller.schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*To: *"rollei list" <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent: *Friday, January 8, 2016 11:45:13 AM
*Subject: *[rollei_list] AW: Re: Rollei in a Paris Canel
Sure, but using a Rolleiflex isn’t exactly cost effective anyway…
And imagine bringing a camera to life that has spent decades in the gutter – very cool.
Regards,
Sven
*Von:*rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *Im Auftrag von *Don Williams
*Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 7. Januar 2016 05:00
*An:* rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Betreff:* [rollei_list] Re: Rollei in a Paris Canel
At 09:41 PM 1/6/2016, you wrote:
Would that even be remotely cost-effective?
Clearly not. I was given a Rollei by a diver-friend which had been flooded in the ocean. He declared a complete loss (said it sunk) but of course the housing was not damaged. I gave the camera to an optics engineer who worked for me so he might salvage the lenses. The diver had sprayed the camera with WD-40 but completely failed to open it up and spray the inside. If he had, salvage might have been a possibility.
DAW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
