In article <46rae1$m9l@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, kyteflier@aol.com
says...
>In article <46quka$5k6@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, d_ruether@hotmail.com >(Bob Neuman) writes:
>> I would NEVER get a "clean-and-lube" - it is a waste of money, and
>>may sometimes be better called a camera "mark-and-misadjust"....
>Huh?!? Why? Are cameras ~that~ dust/dirt proof that they don't need
>cleaning? Or are you saying that dust/dirt doesn't affect gears/small >mechanisms? Bumping and moving around (bouncing around in a car, on >your body...etc) doesn't slowly loosen mechanisms, screws, attachments >interior and exterior? Therefore throwing off adjustments throughout >the camera? Aging doesn't affect electronics? Really? You sure? I >wonder how much dust/dirt it takes to throw a shutter off a few >milliseconds off in its timing? I guess I'm just surprised by your >statement.

Finding good repair people IS a problem - a camera that is functioning
properly IS NOT a problem (the old, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"
line...) - a badly fixed or "clean-lube-adjust"ed camera IS a problem.
I make it a practice never to buy a used camera that has in the ad. something like, "recent CLA" - it either needed it because it had malfunctioned, or it didn't need it, and in either case there would be
a high likelihood of there now being some misadjustments. Whatever my gripes about modern cameras, one thing I have to give them: they do not need CLA's unless they have been mistreated - things do not generally
go out of adjustment by themselves in the newer cameras. If one uses a bit of common sense when using cameras, they generally do not need
more than an occasional cleaning that the user can do himself.
Hope this helps.