Related Local Links:
Photo Industry Statistics Pages (sales..)
Photographic Battery Pages
Economics of Third Party Lenses
LCD Panel Limited Life Warnings
Related Links:
Bronica Leaf
Shutter Reliability (Edwin Leong) [3/2001]
Cameras and lenses enjoy a reputation of very high reliability and low
failure rates. Most of the failures are blamed on the photographer and
user error. Photographic batteries are
most often identified as the source of problems in today's electronic
auto-everything cameras and flashes.
Let me offer up a different view, based on some simple facts and industry
statistics. Replacing a shutter in a 35mm single lens reflex camera or a
medium format leaf shutter lens is a major expense. Yet such repairs may
be needed every 30,000 to 50,000 or so exposures. The shutter is actually
only "working" during a quarter of a second or so for the average
exposure, right? The math suggests you need a new shutter every 10,000
seconds (1/4th second times 40,000 exposures) or just about 3 hours of
continuous equivalent use. Surprise!
Even high priced and high quality medium format cameras are limited by
their lens in shutter reliability, as Pete Gomena noted:
The fact that very high priced professional medium format cameras have
lower reliability and fewer shutter cycles is
often also a surprise to many non-pro photographers. But it should make
sense that the larger size of medium format focal plane shutters, or the
more complex in-the-lens leaf shutters, have more problems and require
more frequent adjustments.
We can use the Hasselblad 500c Reader's Report No. 4 (in March, 1971 Modern Photography, p. 91) to do some modest reliability studies on this pro medium format camera to get an estimate of 0.132 repairs/year for 500c cameras, or roughly one chance in 7 of needing a repair any given year:
40 = number of
owners
45 = number of 500c cameras
23 = number of problems reported
14 = number of owners reporting problems (~ 1/3rd)
26 = number of owners with no problems to report (~ 2/3rds)
23 problems/14 owners ~ 2 problems per owner
174.5+ = total number of years of ownership (40 owners)
3.87 = average number of years of ownership
0.132 repairs/year = 23 repairs/175 years - Failure Rate estimate
Shutter problems were most common (7 reports), along with jammed (4) and lens locked (2) cameras. Other singular problems reported included back out of phase (jammed), back failed to advance, cocking mechanism failed, double exposure mechanics failed, x-synch failed, mounting mechanism of back failed, time exposure failed, mirror did not move up, MXV lever broken, and hood springs broken.
I hurry to add that the 500c models were the first of their type, and later models were improved to prevent many of these problems. But despite the claims of ultra high reliability for all Hasselblad cameras, this listing makes the point that the earlier 500c models were not ultra-reliable. My own 500c experience includes some body/lens jams, back retaining mechanism failure, rear curtains locked half up/half down, and failed X-synch on lens (along with lens cleaning and bad felts in backs replaced). Postings suggest that lens jams are especially prevalent with the older 500c models, and and it is even advisable to carry a small screwdriver for this purpose [see posting].
I also have a "lemon" theory, mainly derived from lens related studies. Bad lenses tend to be passed on to other buyers, and then resold and passed on, again and again. So the bad lens generates a lot of bad publicity, while the good or best examples are kept and rarely traded or sold. A corollary is that most of the problems happen on a few of the lenses or cameras. Perhaps you have heard of problems with cars made on Mondays (hangovers..)?
In the case of the Hasselblad 500c study above, only 1/3rd of the cameras had any problems, but the problems concentrated in these "problem" Hasselblads (2 repairs per camera in an average of 3.87 years of ownership). Yet 2 out of 3 model 500c cameras were problem-free, per their owners. So some cameras may well be "lemons", as this study suggests. Personally, I think user problems are also a major factor, and long periods of disuse can add to your problems too.
Alternatively, the users reporting no problems or repairs yet may simply be new buyers, who will need repairs or adjustments over time as they continue to own their Hasselblads. I don't think this is a likely explanation, because complex cameras with many parts seem to follow a failure pattern called the "bathtub curve".
The bathtub curve is a bathtub shaped graph of the failure rate of many complex objects like cameras or cars. There is a high level of initial failures, called "infant mortality" since the new items with flaws or weak elements tend to fail early or on initial use. Computer users have a type of early failure known as the "smoke test", as when you plug in the new computer and smoke comes out of it (hint: this is not a good sign!). After these initial failures and adjustments, you may enjoy years of good service and use. Finally, after many years of use and service, parts in the camera (or car or..) start to wear out, until a part fails or the camera can't be fixed (the other rising side of the bathtub curve). In many cameras, the entire shutter assembly or other mechanically stressed elements may be routinely replaced after so many thousands of rolls of film (in 35mm SLRs such as Nikon).
If the high quality Hasselblad SLRs require repairs every 7 years on average (or nearly every 2 years for a "lemon"), you should expect the lower cost medium format cameras to have need for repairs at least as often on average, right?
[Ed. note: The following section is duplicated from Third Party Lens Economics Pages]
We can shed some additional light on the question of camera ruggedness and reliability here too. Keppler reported a Japanese camera designer friend (Mitani of Olympus?) suggested that a professional camera should not experience a failure in less than 50-60,000 exposures, versus perhaps 30,000 exposures for a serious amateur's top quality camera. In a July 1980 Modern Photography SLR Notebook column, Keppler reported the following reliability estimates for Nikon.
| Nikon Reliability Estimates | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Camera | Expected exposures without Failure | Rolls (36 exp) | rolls/day (1 year) | type |
| Nikon F3 | 150,000 | 4,167 | 11.4 | Professional model |
| Nikon FE | 75,000 | 2,083 | 5.7 | Serious Amateur model |
| Nikon EM | 50,000 | 1,389 | 3.8 | Consumer model |
| Generic | 30,000 | 833 | 2.3 | Low end model |
What does this mean? We can infer that a Nikon F3 is twice as reliable as a Nikon FE, and three times as reliable as a Nikon EM. The F3 has a few features the FE doesn't have (digital readouts, TTL flash). The Nikon EM is an auto-aperture priority camera without manual mode. The updated Nikon FG (and upgraded EM) adds some F3 features such as TTL flash for little more than the EM price. Based solely on reliability, you might expect the F3 to cost three times as much as the EM/FGs and twice as much as the Nikon FE. Naturally, you would be way off. As with the Canon EOS vs. Rebel, you can buy a half-dozen of the lower priced cameras for what one of the pro models cost.
Sometimes you have to have the pro camera. Perhaps you need to interchange prisms for an underwater housing requiring a sportsfinder. In most cases, however, there are serious amateur cameras with virtually all the pro camera features (sometimes more) any photographer is likely to need or want. Should you buy the pro model or the serious amateur model?
The answer obviously depends on your specific needs and pocketbook.
For most of us, the attraction of the professional camera model is its increased ruggedness and reliability over the amateur models. Thanks to the data above, we can quantify that increase as roughly double the reliability of the serious amateur model.
From reliability engineering analyses, we can assert that two independent parallel systems each with half the reliability of a single system are not just as reliable as the single system, but rather much more reliable. Two cameras are much less likely to fail simultaneously if they are truly independent systems, right? In fact, the math suggests that two Nikon EMs are likely to be more reliable than a single Nikon F3.
So I'm left with a surprising contradiction of conventional camera buying wisdom. Professionals who claim to value reliability as the justification for paying up to 700% more for a more reliable professional model are losing out. They would be much better off spending much less and buying two cameras. Reliability theory suggests two consumer cameras such as the FE2 or even FGs would be much more reliable than a single pro camera model such as the F3, F4, or F5 series.
Many professional photographers have switched to feature rich but lower cost serious amateur cameras (e.g., FE2). While two such cameras may weigh slightly more than one pro model (with motordrive), they may jointly cost only a third as much (with winders). Besides extra reliability, two cameras offer more flexibility in carrying mounted lenses. Two cameras are also a substitute for interchangeable backs of the medium format and large format worlds. You can have slide film in one camera and print film in the other. That's tough to pull off with a single professional camera!
For related resources, see The Death Spiral Of Serious Amateur Photography also at this site.
A related topic is the high cost of increased reliability in pro
cameras versus consumer cameras and related camera economics issues.
See also Backups in Photography.
Addendum [11/99]:
Failure rates for Point&Shoot; cameras are 2 to 3 times as high as SLR
cameras, with lifetimes only a fraction as long too. The lowest cost
entry level SLRs have MTBF of 5,000 to 10,000 shutter cycles, while pro
SLRs such as the Nikon F4s reach 150,000. By contrast, the Leica M6
rangefinders hardly show any wear before 100,000 shutter cycles, and can
easily be expected to reach 400,000+ shutter cycles before failure.
Editor's Page, Photo Techniques, March/April 1998, p.68.
There are 177 million cameras in the USA shooting an annual average of 17
billion photos, implying 96 shots (4 rolls of 24 exposures) per camera
per year. That's about one camera for every adult, or 63 photos per
person per year.
Jerry O'Neill, APS..., Photo Techniques, March/April 1998,
p.49.
[Ed. note: see comments and corrections in post below:]
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999
From: "Mark Ravensdale" f100@nikon.dabsol.co.uk
Subject: [NIKON] Interresting comments regarding Nikon and Canon shutter
durability !
Hi to all list members !!!
Today while catching up on some reading of several photography related
magazines here in the UK, I came across a letter that had been sent in and
printed in the LETTERS section of the magazine AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHER (Issue
dated 3rd july 1999)
And I found it made for some interesting reading (As well as being a little
eye opening)
Here is the letter exactly as printed in AP !
==============================================================
It's nice to see the latest on all that lovely Canon gear, Especially the
new telephoto line-up (AP News, 19 june), Although it seems that Canon has
just caught up with Nikon.
However, My main point concerns the report in the french photo magazine
"Chasseur d'image" about the EOS 3 shutter test (AP News 26 june) because it
has been on the internet boards for some time and has gone down like a lead
balloon in most quarters.
At the time I could not understand why but I have since translated that
article and know why it has been kept quiet about, At least in Canon
circles.
Apparently, The article was really a testament to the Nikon shutter because
it was found that the shutter on the Nikon F100 failed after 130,000
operations, But kept accurate to within one third of a stop.
The Minolta Dynax 9 drifted after 50,000 frames by another one third stop
and failed after 80,000 frames.
The EOS 3 drifted after 70,000 by one half stop for every 10,000 frames
thereafter and failed after 450,000.
The magazine concluded that the shutter on the EOS 3 would be unusable after
110,000 operations due to excessive drift.
I think that's why Canon has stated 100,000 shutter use for its camera.
It's a bit embarrassing, But keep churning out the news on that lovely Canon
gear.
===============================================================
I will not print the authors name or e-mail address for obvious reasons !
As AP did not print a contradictory reply to this (Above) letter, Maybe they
also Know something which I/We didn't, But were unable to print the info for
fear of loosing advertising !
Quite an interesting letter isn't it !!!
Does anyone know if the above is true ? (Can anyone clarify it !)
If this info has been posted before (In the not too distant past) then I
apologise for wasting your time (And internet resources)
However I thought it may be of interest to the list members !
Thank You !!!
------------------------------
End of nikon-digest V1 #238
From Nikon Digest:
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999
From: "Christophe Heyman" christophe.heyman@ibm.net
Subject: [NIKON] Re: Interesting comments regarding Nikon and Canon shutter
durability !
Here's my reaction on the AP letter:
>Apparently, The article was really a testament to the Nikon shutter because >it was found that the shutter on the Nikon F100 failed after 130,000 >operations, But kept accurate to within one third of a stop. >The Minolta Dynax 9 drifted after 50,000 frames by another one third stop >and failed after 80,000 frames. >The EOS 3 drifted after 70,000 by one half stop for every 10,000 frames >thereafter and failed after 450,000. >The magazine concluded that the shutter on the EOS 3 would be unusable after >110,000 operations due to excessive drift.
I have read the original French CdI article several months ago, and have
just reread it.
The above is completely incorrect and utter nonsense.
Here is what CdI says:
About Canon: "Jusqu'....420.000 d,clenchements, l'EOS 3 s'est d,cal,...de
2/10 d'IL!"
In English: "Up to...420.000 shutter releases, the EOS 3 has shifted...2/10
EV!"
About Nikon: "L'obturateur du Nikon F100 a ,volu, en douceur au long du
test. A 120.000 d,clenchements, il ,tait un poil moins rapide (EV -1/10)
qu'. 20.000, mais toujours parfaitement bien cal, en exposition."
In English: "The shutter of the Nikon F100 has very gradually changed during
the test. At 120.000 releases, it was a tiny bit slower (EV -1/10) compared
to 20.000, but still perfectly adjusted with regard to exposure."
I've also studied the graphs shown in the article, and these are the
(averages across EV's) exposure deviations (excluding the very high EVs
because all cameras deviate considerably there):
Canon:
at 20000: -0.4 EV (pretty much constant but going to -0.3 at higher EVs)
at 120000: -0.4 EV (ranges from -0.3 to -0.5)
at 200000: -0.3 EV (constant)
at 400000: -0.5 EV (ranges from -0.6 to -0.4)
Nikon:
at 20000: +0.4 EV (constant)
at 120000: +0.3 EV (constant)
2 additional graphs are shown between 20000 and 120000, and they are pretty
much constant at +0.4 but with a small dip to +0.3 at higher EVs)
I fail to see any relation between the quoted letter and the CdI test
results. And about the alleged conclusion of CdI that the Canon shutter
drifted so much it would be unusable after x number of shots: nowhere in the
article do they mention anything that even comes close to this statement.
Maybe the author of the letter over-estimates his knowledge of the French
language?
A few things that CdI DID conclude and/or mention:
- - F100 is very thrifty on batteries compared to EOS 3 (batteries that the
EOS3 refused were used in the F100 for another 7000 shutter releases)
- - the chances that any camera ever reaches 100000 exposures are very slim
with amateur use.
- - (cited from the article): "When we were at the Nikon Service Center,
technicians were working on the readjustment of an F5 belonging to Peter
Lindberg, which showed ... 250000 real pictures! A number that does not seem
to surprise anybody (Canon mentions an EOS1 inspected at 450000 exposures)
but which belongs to the exceptions... even in the professional world!"
I'm not defending Canon here - I merely want to convey correct information.
I personally use both Nikon and Canon.
Hope this helps!
Christophe.
==========================================
Visit my webpages at http://pws.prserv.net/sfpsolutions
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999
From: -_',YsNETWH ctlee@ctimail.com
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: shutter reliability
Thanks for your message collection at
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/mtbf.html
[Ed. note: above is updated link]
As a serious amateur, I have something want to share.
Point 1
Shutter may be super reliable in lab testing, because
these tests are mostly carry out at about the same condition
like humidity, vibration of the whole machine, duration of
the opening, temperature, and mostly everything is under
control. At this point, I know that you may wonder if these data
really represent real world operations.
Point 2
Some of the shutters have problems due to some condition(s). Like
cloth shutters may be problematic due to high humidity, while
metal leaf shutters need oiling and may be less good to
low temperature. As different kinds of shutters have special
favourite conditions and problems, how is a simple test represent the
real usage?
Point 3
Shutter is not just open and close, it also has damping
and other electronic failure modes. EOS is very famous in damping
failure which causes melted rubber stuck on shutter elements
and shutter may be either inaccurate or not open. These failure modes
are significant especially after a long time using and constantly working
under high temperature.
I don't really trust those result of 150K time opening without
problem all because we are not shooting in the lab.
Happy Photography, Ct Lee.
[Ed. note: I slightly edited the above, but generally agree with Mr. Lee.
The lab results are probably maximum cycles, and your mileage will be
less under harsh or adverse conditions - possibly much less!]
From Nikon Digest:
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999
From: "Kok Hoo Lim" raphael@tm.net.my
Subject: [NIKON] Nikon F series shutters
Rodrigo Gimenez wrote 24 Sept:
"I would like to know if the shutter of the Nikon F and F2 cameras is tested
up to 150000 cycles, because I read it for the Nikon F3, F4 and F5
frequently, but I still don't have information about theNikon F and F2. I am
referring to what Nikon wanted the shutter
cycle number to be."
I notice that this is the 2nd time you are posting this query. You are
right. Both the F and F2 shutters are factory tested to last 150,000 cycles
as well. I think this is a selling point that they make with all F series
professional cameras - F to F5. This does not mean that each and every
individual camera in the series is tested that way. The testing is done in
the R & D stage not in the production stage although I am sure they do do
some testing on some randomly taken samples as part of their quality
assurance program.
Regards,
Dr. Lim Kok-Hoo
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999
From: Richard Lahrson tripspud@wenet.net
Subject: Reliability of AF, MF Lenses......
Hi Everybody!
Here's an interesting eBay item. Someone has (I've no connection, BTW)
dozens of broken Nikkors, all but two are Automatic Focus plan jane zooms
or normal fixed lenses. Item no. is 175045215.
I was curious about an important issue, gear reliability. Do these
auto focus lenses break down more? Are they more difficult to repair
than the manual focus ones? Will those old MF Nikkors be working 50
years from now, while the AF models are in the landfill?
Will Nikon eventually quit making manual focus glass?
Cheers,
Rich Lahrson
tripspud@wenet.net
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren@bayarea.net
Subject: Re: Reliability of AF, MF Lenses......
My friend at the camera shop told me he doesn't see much more of the
modern Nikon gear coming in with problems than he does of the older.
Whether that be due to age or the lack of it is hard o say, but it's easy
to say that the more complex a device is the more likely that it will need
maintenance someday. AF lenses are more complex than MF lenses so I would
expect them to need more service, but whether the additional amount of
service is significant is yet to be seen.
Will Nikon continue to make manual focus lenses or not? Completely
speculative. It depends on whether demand for the manual focus lens line
keeps up and whether it stays profitable to offer them. Nikon's target
marketplace is not necessarily the same as our NikonMF group's interests
target. Only time will tell...
Godfrey
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: A. Server alant@bdm.local.com
[2] Re: MTBF Camera Reliability URL Re: Why
+ are they afraid of printing the truth?
Date: Fri Dec 31 11:57:52 CST 1999
On 31 Dec 1999 04:08:13 -0600, rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan)
wrote:
....
>Naturally, 2 cameras are much better than one, at least in reliability >terms, even if they are lower end consumer cameras vs a pro model ;-)
A nit, but if you have 2 identical cameras, the probability of a
failure doubles. The availability of a camera with which to make a
photo does improve. It could that the availability of a set of two
consumer cameras is greater than that for a single pro model under
some circumstances. -physical hazzards, for example.
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000
From: "Tony Parkinson" tony.parkinson@dial.pipex.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: National Geographi Pictures
> David Alan Harvey used Leica M6 for his Cuba assignment > > Another observation: if photographer shoots 1000 rolls in three month this > is 36 000 exposures. Shutter mechanism of pro camera (like EOS 3) will work > about 100 000 times. This means that they have to change the shutter or to > throw away the camera every year....
Interesting !! Just this afternoon I was Reading an article on this
subject (shutter mechanism lifes). Apparently the froggie magazine
"Chasseur d'Images" tested shutter mechanisms on the Miolta Dynax/Maxxum
9, Nikon F100 and Canon EOS 3 using a robotic rig. Apparently the Minolta
shutter 'exploded' after 82,586 releases. The Nikon failed after 130,847
exposures and the Canon called it a day after 424,477 exposures !!
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000
From: christian becker 8fps@gmx.de
Subject: [Leica] Re:R3/R4 reliability - statistics
Raimo wrote:
>German magazine Color Foto did a survey among the readership 9/89 and
>really found out that there were indeed problems with (early) R4 cameras
>(not R4s). R4 is described as "Sorgenkind" - the child of sorrow - of the
>
>Leica cameras. {...} And yes - the M6 itself "ist kein Musterknabe" or
>model boy - but no details here, either.
>BTW the best was Nikon with 15.6% defects (FM/FM2 only 6.7%), then Yashica
>(yes, really) 16.6%, Ricoh (yes, really) 17.1%, Canon 19.6%, Leica - as
>stated - 24.3%, Pentax 25.9%, Minolta 26% and Contax 30.3%....
Raimo,
The survey IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE and just shows that the given percentage
of R3/R4 owners who had trouble or were unsatisfied wrote to the magazine.
That's all. Malfunctions/problems were not specified, noone had to prove
anything. Prices on the used market reflect a lot of facts but they do not
reflect reliability.
Still there is only one reliable source of information on the issue -
Wetzlar/Solms. But they won't tell you, won't they?
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000
From: "dominique pellissier" noct@club-internet.fr
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re:R3/R4 reliability - statistics
....
############
Yes, prices on the used market do not reflect a pure
information on the reliability because it is impossible to extract the
signal from the noises. But, by comparison, if we assume that noises are
the same, prices of used cameras are significant. For instance, in 1980 ,
a Leica R3 mot and a Nikon F3 had the same price in France : 6500 FRF. To
day we have, respectively : 990 and 3000. How do you explain the
difference ? In fact, all the R system since 1980 has bitten the sand
because of the R4 which was a dog.See the production statistics : 50000 R
cameras in 1980 and deep under 10000 today. People voted with their feet.
(My EOS camera is full of beans, thanks Mr Canon and adios Mr Leica) The
new CEO has just sent a signal to the market by extending the warranty to
5 years, only for the R8 (The signal was : yes, the R8 had problems but,
be confident, the sky is blue now). Is it enough to rescue the R8 ? The
market will judge.
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999
From: Paul and Paula Butzi butzi@halcyon.com
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Re: Why are they afraid of printing the truth?
On 31 Dec 1999 04:08:13 -0600, in rec.photo.equipment.35mm you wrote:
>yes, that's why reliability is usually rated based on so many exposures >or shutter cycles. The incremental cost of reliability in a pro camera >(EOS) is circa 700% more $ than the consumer grades (rebel..), although >the actual cost may be as little as 10% to 35% for materials such as seals. > >see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/mtbf.html Camera Reliability MTBF Pages [updated link] > >Naturally, 2 cameras are much better than one, at least in reliability >terms, even if they are lower end consumer cameras vs a pro model ;-) > >regards bobm
Pretty interesting.
The statistics are not so clear to me, though, as your page seems to
suggest.
Part of the difficulty I see is that you seem to be saying that a
person would be better off with two bodies with half the MTBF
than with a single body.
Is this really true? A lot would depend on things not stated.
First, are the probabilities of failure of the two shutters in the
cheaper bodies uncorrelated? If shutter failure is a Poisson
process, then the answer would be yes.
But more likely the shutter failure is a matter of wear and tear.
If you use the two bodies about the same amount, then they
would approach the failure point at about the same time -
that is, the failures would be correlated. This raises the
probability of simultaneous failure pretty substantially.
The solution to this problem would be to use first one
cheap body, and then when it fails, use the second.
This is a good plan if you can tell immediately when
the shutter fails. But shutters can fail in ways that are
not apparent at the moment of exposure, so this is
NOT a good plan if you want to avoid losing images.
What you really want to do is drive the integral of the
probability of failure down as low as you can. Exactly
what the best approach is will depend on the actual
probability distribution of the failures is for both the
cheaper shutter and the expensive one. As a general
rule, a good plan would be to buy the most reliable
shutter available, use it for only a fraction of its MTBF,
then sell it and buy a new one; this way, you're working
on the very thin left hand tail of the MTBF distribution
all the time. Note that this is what many pros actually
do.
Finally, there's a lot more to reliability than shutter
MTBF. The mean time to failure of an EOS Rebel
in the rain is about five minutes. The mean time
to failure for an EOS 1n in the same conditions is
probably days.
Interesting subject to ponder, though.
-Paul
--
Articles on B&W; photography, camera and equipment reviews, and
photographs at:
http://www.asymptote.com/butzi (updated 10/21/99)
(Latest change - review of lenses for Leica M cameras)
[Ed. note: Paul makes some good points, esp. about why pros sell off their
bodies "early" to avoid on-location failures etc. ;-). The standard
deviation of shutter failures is large (in the tens of thousands of
cycles), so the probability of near simultaneous failures is quite low.
But I suggest that it is a good idea to use the two more reliable cameras
at the same time, rather than use one and wear it out and then switch to
the other; the chance of a failure of one body can only kill those shots
by that one body; the shots in the other body will hopefully be okay (see
our pages on backups in photography. While it
is true that an o-ring protected camera will work long after another
camera would have flooded, I have to protest that such out of the envelope
trials are really camera "abuse" and not covered under warranty simply
because they are a predictable cause of direct failure. Using a 600 volt
trigger circuit flash such as an early Vivitar 283 will fry 100% of the
Canon EOS models. We can argue whether that is a design oversight or
camera abuse, but use one and plan on replacing your EOS.
Shutter failure remains the major (80% or so) cause of
non-abuse wear related failures in cameras, which is why we have focused
on it here ;-).]
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000
From: Paul and Paula Butzi butzi@halcyon.com
To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Re: Why are they afraid of printing the truth?
> However, as on my backups page (medfmt.8k.com/mf/backups.html) - having a > second camera is recommended for some of the reasons you noted...
I'd never argue that backups are a bad idea, sure.
There are other persuasive reasons for owning more than
one body besides reliability, and I'd argue they're more
important than the reliability issue.
> the key point is that the chance of near simultaneous failure of 2 > cameras is very low (even if used for identical number of rolls); > whereas when your one pro camera dies, you are out of business ;-(
Actually, I'd argue that without some really detail information about
the probability distribution of failures, you can't possibly substantiate
that claim.
A pro level camera will be engineered with a failure distribution which
has a long left hand tail where the probability of failure is as close
to zero as can be managed. This is so that pros that care can use
the camera during the low probability portion, and then simply
replace the camera to avoid the period of increased failure
probability.
A consumer level camera is engineered
for cost effective delivery of features and will have a distribution where
the left hand tail rises slowly and is everywhere substantially higher
than the pro camera. At some point substantially before the MTBF
of the consumer level camera, the square of the probability of failure
of the consumer camera will be higher than that of the pro camera,
and you'd be better off with a single pro level body.
> the seals on the EOS vs rebels are part of what that extra 700% cost > buys you, but actually costs more like 10-35% to put in there per Pop > Photos teardown comparisons. Many "pro" cameras use the same body shells > to reduce tooling costs, vary features moderate cost to put in, but make > major $$ differences in camera cost...
I can't comment on the cost ratio, but for a working pro, the cost of a
higher quality body is minimal compared to the business impact of an
ill-timed equipment failure.
What drives the cost of pro level equipment up is the cost to develop
the product amortized over far fewer units produced and sold. Cost
of goods sold is a small fraction of what you pay for in a camera in
any case; it's all product development costs.
> similarly, a camera with few independent features will be more reliable > than a feature rich electronic one in which the systems are tied together > (no LCD display = dead electronic camera, whereas bad counter on an old > mechanical camera means the camera still works fine, but you have to track > film usage.
Again, you can't really make such a statement unless you have statistics
about the failure rates that I've never seen. It's perfectly possible
(and in fact may be likely) that an electronically controlled shutter is
vastly more reliable than a mechanically timed one, especially in harsh
environments (e.g. serious vibration, extremes of humidity or temp).
Features which are software driven in an electronic camera need not
reduce the reliability of core features at all. Either the processor
works, or it doesn't; having extra code to allow custom functions
like leader out rewind won't reduce the likelihood that the shutter
will operate correctly when you push the shutter release. The
odds are good that even if you break the top deck LCD on
an EOS camera, the shutter will still work, and the viewfinder
display will still operate correctly. Or at least, that's true if
Canon engineers have even a lick of sense. Note that cost
tradeoffs may make it true for an EOS-1n but not true for
a Rebel; the 1n may have separate display driving electronics
for the viewfinder and top deck; the Rebel may run them both
off a single driver to cut cost.
> In short, buy a pro camera if you need the features, but if you need reliable > operations, buy a backup camera and shoot with both cameras to ensure you > aren't killed by that unsuspected glitch ;-)
I won't go so far as to say that two cheap cameras aren't more reliable
than one pro body, but I will go so far as to say that I doubt that such a
statement can be substantiated without far more statistics on failure than
I've seen released. If you've got access to such statistics I'd love to
see them (being a statistician by training) but I suspect they are very
closely guarded by the manufacturers. It's astonishingly easy to make
what seems to be a sensible conclusion about things like failure
statistics and be wholeheartedly wrong; I suspect that camera repair
statistics and anecdotal evidence from camera repair technicians are a
good example of badly skewed statistics. Repair techs see what comes in
for repairs, but the comparisons are uncontrolled; the EOS-1n that they
see come in was dropped from a cherry picker in it's 7000th hour of use
after being hauled around in a van for three years; the Rebel that comes
in failed in it's ninth year of life after being hauled down from the
closet shelf once a year for the thanksgiving group photos. The
technician has no way to adjust for hours of use, number of cameras in the
pool, type of use, etc. and thus gets a totally skewed view of the
reliability.
Much depends, of course, on what you feel is a failure. If a failure is
coming home from vacation with no pictures at all, then two cheap bodies
will work fine. If a failure is the camera failing and missing the once
in the history of the world image (as it is for a working photojournalist)
then the only choice is to pick the most reliable equipment available, use
redundancy when it will improve the odds, and replace things that wear out
long before the probability of fiailure begins to rise. Having another
body in the bag after the chance at the image is gone does not improve the
odds.
Anyway, I hope you have a happy New Year!
-Paul
[Ed. note: we know that cameras follow the "bathtub" curve for mortality,
and that the variance (and standard deviation) is very large (like +/-
50,000+ cycles on a mean of 150,000 cycles), so the chance of a second
backup camera failing within a typical day's shooting (say 350-1,000
shots) is much less than 1%, even if you exactly balance out your
shooting.
However, many pros do cycle their cameras every year or two, so as to have
them broken in but not close to the expected shutter life, and hope
thereby to avoid such failures. So Paul's point is a good one, if you need
to have the highest chance of getting that next shot. But I still believe
based on the failure curves and broad range of shutter cycles to their
failure point that several mid-range amateur cameras are going to be more
reliable than any one pro camera, providing it isn't abused by sand or
water or other adverse factors. Again, in that case, a sealed model is
desriable, and I have nikonos cameras in my kits to cover such bad weather
needs. Having multiple cameras provides parallel redundancy which
increases the chance that you can keep on shooting when - not if - your
primary camera dies....
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999
From: unlisted@usa.net-antispam (pQQks)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya 6 life expectancy
In all likelihood, you'll be able to buy a working Mamiya 6 in 30
years and it won't be cheap either.
We are fast approaching the year 2000 and I have on my shelf several
Nikon F cameras with Photomic finders. These (finders) wear out after
prolonged use, but that doesn't change the fact that the ones I have
are well over 30 years old and function perfectly.... electronics and
all.
The Mamiya6 has little in it that will fail over time. Excessive use
will certainly kill some components though.... the speed selector
contacts/brushes might be prone to wear. However, by the time that
happens that particular body will have given far more service than
what it originally promised.
The M6 shutters are likely to be far more reliable, if less
servicable, than any of the clockwork Compurs in the old HB lenses.
The point being; wear is a greater killer than time is for these
cameras.
I can see the Mamiya Rangefinders holding their values at least as
well as the average Hasselblad 500 model. They are unique cameras,
I can see a CCD back becoming available for this type of camera in
future... the same goes for 35mm. I'm not in the slightest worried
about not being able to use my Mamiya 6 or even my Nikons or Leicas
over the next 50 years.
I mean this for personal use ... if you are shooting weddings every
day, then your gear will likely wear out long before it becomes
obselete anyway.
Being a camera repairman myself, it is interesting how few new parts I
require when servicing old cameras. It is true that a faulty
curcuitboard will often spell the end of an electronic camera, but
then, there's always another one sitting around secondhand somewhere.
Certain cameras are consistently faulty in certain areas.... those are
well known and are easliy avoided. I'm not aware of any design faults
in the M6 yet.... though the rather plasticky shutter dial assembly
could become an issue.... nothing that couldn't be rebuilt in metal
though if it really mattered.
Parts are no longer available for many many cameras that are still
worth a lot of money. The same goes for anything.... cars, watches
and so on.
Buy it, use it, enjoy it.... don't worry about what's going to happen
to it in decades to come. It'll have outlived its price long before
then.
On 22 Jun 1999 02:50:43 GMT, shadcat11@aol.com (ShadCat11) wrote:
>I really like the Mamiya 6, but although used samples have dropped in price >after they were discontinued last year, they may be a not very good value. > >While Hasselblad may be more expensive, it holds value because nothing nothing >becomes obsolete enough to not be capable of being fully serviced. > >I would like to know: > >1. How long will Mamiya continue providing parts and service for Mamiya >6? > >2. When parts and service are no longer available, how much will working >samples of the camera and its lenses be worth on the market?
Date: 22 Jun 1999
From: shadcat11@aol.com (ShadCat11)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya 6 life expectancy
Well, my concern was that since there are some electronic components to
the M 6, they might not be repairable when replacement parts are no longer
available.
Older Mamiyas were all mechanical and if something gives out, conceivably
a replacement part could be fabricated as a substitute. Besides, usually
whan a mechanical camera quits, it usually can be restored by CLA or
replacing broken springs. Not so electronic equipment.
I do not question Mamiya's commitment to service its products, but it has
been my experience that when an electronic part becomes obsolete and is no
longer in production, once the last of them goes, the equipment can no
longer be made to function. Many years ago, I bought the last resistor
ring Nikon had in stock for my FTn meter. Next time the thing went out,
my FTn became an F (non-metered.)
This is an issue for me because I tend to hang on to things for a long
time. I still use a Crown Graphic, Graphic View, Rolleiflex TLRs and
Hasselblad C bought back when dinosaurs ruled the earth. My newest Nikon
is 14 years old. All these things work great and I have not replaced them
because they do what I need done.
I am not sure I really need a Mamiya 6. After all, I have worked
productively and well without one for a good many years. After having
spent a couple of weeks with one, however, I got extremely fond of it and
have been trying to find some way to justify its purchase.
Even at the lower prices for used Mamiya 6s, an outfit would cost a lot of
money. Hasselblad is even more, but I can justify a blad purchase on the
basis that I could usually get out of it pretty much what I put into it,
if necessary. I am not in the income category that permits $2400
discretionaryor be cheap enough to write off.
Thank you for your opinions on this matter.
[Ed. note: posting commenting on posting above...]
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000
From: Stephen Patriquen Stephen.Patriquen@7C.net
To: "'rmonagha@mail.smu.edu'" rmonagha@mail.smu.edu
Subject: MTBF and shutters and design
You said (I think it was you :-)
<Features which are software driven in an electronic camera need not reduce the reliability of core features at all. Either the processor works, or it doesn't; having extra code to allow custom functions like leader out rewind won't reduce the likelihood that the shutter will operate correctly when you push the shutter release.>
Maybe. Maybe not. Every time we add or change something, we introduce the possibility of unforseen failure as a result. Maybe "leader out" stresses the motor in such a way that precipitates early failure? It's so easy to "fix it in software" we forget that these are still basically mecahnical devices.
<The odds are good that even if you
break
the top deck LCD on an EOS camera, the shutter will still work, and the
viewfinder display will still operate correctly. Or at least, that's true
if
Canon engineers have even a lick of sense. Note that cost tradeoffs may
make it
true for an EOS-1n but not true for a Rebel; the 1n may have separate
display
driving electronics for the viewfinder and top deck; the Rebel may run
them
both off a single driver to cut cost. >
I disagree somewhat. First, the constant
changes
that are possible whith "software" allow less chance to
"prove" the value and longevity of any system.
Second - "a lick of sense" is not always available. Just like car manufacturers, camera designers have to compromise. Case in point - the Nikon FE2 - almost identical to the FM2, but - in my experience - the FE2 is much LESS reliable than the FM2. It has electronic controls, so should be MORE reliable. Even ignoring the fact that it is almost useless without a battery (unlike the FM2), the FE2 has important "chips" on each side of the pentaprism under the top plate. This is a spot where cameras often get bashed (it does stick up) and when that happens to FE2s, they didn't work anymore.
I shot a football game with a fellow photographer who was using the original Canaon A1. It rained, and the camera died. Canon's response? "We never claimed it was a "pro" camera".
Regards,
Stephen Patriquen
[Ed. note: followup posting with notes on shutter reliability etc...]
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000
From: Stephen Patriquen Stephen.Patriquen@7C.net
To: 'Robert Monaghan' rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: RE: MTBF and shutters and design
Thanks
BTW - I used to teach photography at a community college (over ten years) and we had a bunch (like 20 or so) FM2s. These cameras got beat up, of course, and I lost count of how many shutters I massaged back into usefulness after someone's finger went through the blades. We replaced a lot, too. And rewind knobs that they rewound backwards and screwed off the post (we are not talking future rocket scientists here).
However, other than failure from abuse, I think in over a decade I might have seen two shutters fail from use. On the FM2, the small rivets that the vertical blades pivot on wear out and the blade drops. Not bad for cameras that were used 24/7 by mostly idiots...
Also of note, perhaps, is my experience with FE2s. We didn't buy any for the college, but quite a few students did for personal cameras, as they were only slightly more expensive than FM2s and "better" due to their being automatic. I swear that, despite single users (and careful users for the most part) almost every FE2 failed within the two-year program. Almost always electronics. The worst failure is if you smack the pentaprism. That's where Nikon (in its wisdom) put the chips that run everything. Anyone who shoots multi-camera photojournalism knows that the pentaprism is going to get hit regularly.
I still have my first real camera - a Nikkormat FTn bought in 1973. I also have an FM2 and two F2s (Photomic and F2AS) plus motor drives and Nikkor lenses from fisheye to 300. My only zoom is the relatively rare 25-50 (soft, but handy). I have no real interest in autofocus (yet - I'm 44 and don't wear glasses, but reading glasses help after a long day... :-) or autoexposure. Since I don't work as a photographer any more, I can take a bit more time and "make" a picture. I once lost an F2 shutter when working as a news photographer. I was shooting probably 400 exposures a day, five days a week, using two F2s (the same two I still have) for five years, and lost one shutter (had two shots usable on that roll, and half a roll backup, so didn't blow the job).
I also have some Leica photo-jewellery - M4-2, M6 TTL, 24, 35, 50 & 90 (nice stuff - not that practical, but nice) and a few 4X5s (speed and crown graphic and a cheap studio Omega) with 135 and 90mm lenses for Ansel Adams imitations.
Never cared for medium format. Taught a lot of people to make money using it (bought Mamiya for the college - 645 and 6X6) but never cared for it.
Interesting site and comments. Thanks for it
Steve
Note - This e-mail address will self-destruct July 14 (I work on contract in IT) Permanent address is <patriquen@yahoo.com>
Final note :-) Whenever anyone asks me what point-and-shoot camera to buy (PHD cameras, for "push here, dummy") I always say, one which takes AA batteries. Because you can always find them, they are usually on sale, and in a little while you will have paid more for batteries than for the camera. (A very little while in some cases).
.....
From: zeitgeist blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com
I'm not sure if there were any problems, I've run through a couple of
them, they have an MTBF of about 1,500 120 rolls, the same up or down
the line.
super has the advantage of a manual shutter release of 1/60th so if your
battery gives out you are not completely screwed if no back up.
From Nikon Mailing List:
I think no one mentioned that the FE2 titanium shutter
is tested for 100,000 cycles while the FM2 alloy one
is only 50,000 (not sure but I read it somewhere).
Another thing about the mechanical camera issue, and
this is my opinion only, If I go out and dont have a
meter, Then I dont think It would help me that much
to have the shutter working and since I only take my
handheld one only when going out with the bronica, I
find the Mechanical issue quite foolish, given the
case your in the studio........... and no other camera
is around.... the FE still has a mech speed of 1/90.
Another thing is that electronic shutters need much
less service that mechanical ones that must be
adjusted more often. My FE got its FIRST service like 4
months ago, and then was only for CLA, no real problem
in the camera.
Just my 0.02 Euros (by todays rate, much less than
0.02$)
Diego K.
From Contax Mailing List;
That sounds right to me.
Bob
FRom Nikon Mailing List:
Greetings,
SoftTALK DOS shows how many shots have been fired for a connected
N90s/F90x.
You can download this program for free at www.cocoon-creations.com.
Regards,
Larry Rogers
From ROllei Mailing List;
Javier Perez wrote:
I have no own experience with unoiled shutters. However, Prochnow states
that he wouldn't oil a collector camera and would leave the shutter dry
after cleaning. The wear will be greater (a oiled shutter will last more
than 30000 releases, while a dry shutter will have a lifetime only 5000
releases), but a collector camera isn't used that heavily.
Martin
Martin Jangowski E-Mail: Martin@Jangowski.de
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
I recently spent some time with a friend of mine who owns the camera
repair store I take my cameras to for repairs. I asked him about the
aluminum blades.
He states that Nikon was forced into changing the blades to aluminum from
titanium because the manufacturing of the titanium blades caused a release
of environmental-damaging materials. He states that the aluminum blades
are not more reliable nor durable. The titanium blades are lighter and
stronger than the aluminum ones. He also states that the titanium are
more expensive to manufacture also, which may have contributed to the
decision to go to aluminum also.
--- Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren@bayarea.net
From Zeiss Interest CG Mailing List;
Richard Coutant wrote:
Richard
Why would you say this? The Contax shutter is a workhorse and has amazing
longevity, unlike the much less durable Leica shutter.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Minolta Mailing List:
--- In minolta@y..., "Pat nemes" patnemes@y... wrote:
Cd'I conducted a very interesting test on the reliability of entry-
level cameras. Among their findings:
In a few years the average number of mechanical parts for a SLR
camera has come down from 1200 to 350 (this is not a typo!) thanks to
the new step by step micro motors and optoelectronic sensors, which
are replacing a lot of gears, potentiometers and mechanical sensors.
The downside is that infrared films can no longer be used in some of
the newer cameras (Dynax/Maxxum 7 included, by the way).
The following cameras have been tested:
Canon EOS300 / Rebel 2000
The cameras have been equipped with a standard entry-level lens (28-
80 or similar), manually set to f/11 1/60s, and fired automatically
in the lab for hours without film and AF engaged (obviously). The
shutter was tested at all speeds after every 5000 firings.
Test results:
Canon 180k shutter firings. Shutter speed very accurate until 160k.
At 160k a small plastic axle had to be replaced for about $70.
Minolta 250k shutter firings. Shutter speed virtually unchanged
until 100k. At about 100k the mirror assembly had to be replaced for
about $100. The fix was very easy to do thanks to a very modular
design. It only took 3 welding points!
Nikon 64k shutter firings. First problem occurred at 29k and the
second one (of the same nature, mirror axle play) at 63k. The cost
for the first servicing was $130 vs. a $280 estimate for the second
one.
Pentax 145k shutter firings. First problem occurred at 10k and had
to be fixed for $80. Shutter speed was virtually unchanged until 140k.
The test had also shown that shutter speeds have been very accurate
at all speeds up to 1/500s or 1/1000s for all cameras. At higher
speeds the shutters were a bit faster or slower (up to 0.3-0.4 EV)
for all cameras.
One thing to remember is that the cameras have been tested in the lab
and not in the field (where rain, low temps, and dust happen) and
without film. But nevertheless the authors of the article say that
the results are amazingly good. Especially for these "plastic"
cameras!
Cheers,
From Minolta Mailing List:
I think it is very hard to determine the "life expectancy" of a certain
camera model - it depends on the typical use fo that camera, conditions
etc. But I can tell it was the Canon EOS 1n that was told to have the
shutter capable of 100 000 cycles
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/1992-1996/data/1994_eos-1n.html
And EOS 1v "even 150 000 cycles" in the finnish www-pages
http://www.canon.fi/tuote/eos1v_haastava.htm
The shutter of Nikon F4 is said to be capable of 200 000 cycles
http://privat.schlund.de/t/theNAIL/F4.html
- look for the "Q. How does the F4 compare to the N90/s?" at the bottom of
the page
I also recall some magazine tested the Dynax 9 with EOS (Cannot remember
if it were 1n or 3) and Nikon (F5 or F100?) and if I remember correct the
D9 shutter could "only" survive about 50 000 cycles (= about 1400 rolls of
36 frames shot continuously) as the competitors did more than twice that.
Now this is uncertain, I can remember it wrong. Anyway, a test like this
with only one sample body and without service in between is highly
unreliable, if you try to draw any conclusions to the real-life durability
of a camera model. If somebody remembers this same test, please confirm or
correct my information.
About the warranty: I think the length of it is determined more by the
market demands and laws than the actual durability.
No, I haven't worn out a single camera so far - I've been too active on
the used camera markets ;-).
Mikko
From Minolta Mailing List:
I cannot speak for the long term reliability of Minoltas, although
I've never had a failure with any half decent camera, but I haven't
taken remotely near 100,000 shots or more with any model.
However,in the now defunct Photo answers, October 1995, it was
reported a member of an RAF parachute team dropped a 700si from 4000
feet, hitting the ground at 120mph. Apparently Minolta's service
department were able to put it right in less than an hour!
I'm not sure whether that says more for the camera, the RAF or
Minolta's repairers.
Paul Pascoe
From: aerobat77@aol.com (Aerobat77)
I am gonna get smeared I know, but the fellow who listed his perferences
from his experiences in the repair area is correct in his ratings. I
repair and restore very old german folders and the like, and have worked
on everything but large format cameras. I collect all sorts of cameras
and love them all. My ratings are strictly from my own personal
experience repairing cameras. worst to best:
1. Minolta AF cameras....poor...way to many odd features and too many new
models to be well designed. They break often and the number of parts
Minolta has to stock and support for all those models is ridiculous!
2.Pentax AF cameras....fair.....odd un-needed features and they break too
often, though not half as bad an Minolta
3. Canon AF cameras.....fair in lower models....better in upper ones.
Elan, 10s, 630, etc are pretty good to keep going. Rebels get lots of
fixes and peeled off lens mounts, but the people who buy them are not the
most careful. Lower cost lenses quit pretty frequently, very cheaply
built. Not bad glass, just poor plastic and engineering.
4. Nikon AF.....Good in mid to upper models....toss the 4004 and 5005/n50
into the pentax AF catagory. 6006 a great camera that never breaks except
for the latch on the back door. Stupid engineering there, but an easy and
fast fix. The 8008/8008s cameras are fantasic. Film chips and batteries
are all that I have ever had to fix on 8008 cameras. I see examples of
8008s that look like they were put in a clothes dryer along with a dozen
house bricks and dried for a day or so that still work fine. My vote for
the most reliable AF camera and most camera for the money ever. The N90s
is very close to the 8008 in reliability. No F100, F80, N60/N65 yet
repaired, but they will have to go a long way to match the 8008 repair
record.
For the older manual focus cameras there is a different listing
worst to best
1. Minolta.......fair to good with noted exceptions. SRT series are great
cameras just now getting too old for good user status. There are a few
bits of balsam used here and there that are finally crumbling, hard to get
fixed. The XG-XD series suffers from leatherette shrinkage and
electroproblems. The last really well designed and built Minolta is the
X-700. Another huge amount of camera for the money.
2. Canon..........good in the A series ...very good/great in the F
series......T series lousy except for the wonderful T-90, which is the
best manual Canon ever.
3. Pentax......good to great......K1000 a very reliable machine, LX a
magnificent camera often overlooked, MX very good, ME super also very
good, and Spotmatics justly famous. M series are not the best old cameras
though, they are developing problems to match those the Canon A series are
brewing.
4. Nikon......good to great.....EMs and FGs are getting to have a few
problems, but the Nikkormats, FE, FM, FE2, FM2n, F, F2, F3, N2000, and
N2020 are all very well designed cameras that break once in a blue moon.
The meters on the Nikkormats are getting worn out (25-30 years! ) but the
mechanics of these cameras work until doomsday. The F2, F3, FM, and FM2n
are the most reliable cameras ever bar none. No glitz or extra stuff, but
super solid cameras.
These are my opinions from my own experiences. I have an XE-7 that I
truly love and still shoot, but I have been into it twice in four years.
Steve Gardner
ps sorry for my spelling, I HATE spelling and it hates me...
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001
It's mostly a waste of time trying to gather statistics like this ...
I've owned a lot of Leica RF and Nikon SLR since 1968. In all that time
and several hundred thousand frames of photographs, I've had a Leica
serviced once (1947 IIIc, needed new shutter curtains) and two Nikon
bodies serviced (both FMs, one because I smashed the top plate and the
other to restore the flash sync). I've had one lens serviced (lens that
was on the FM when I smashed the top plate). Otherwise, everything has
worked perfectly with no service at all.
Other cameras have required a bit of service from time to time. A Nikon
35Ti jammed and required service twice, the '51 Rolleiflex needed a
thorough CLA which I had done when I had the Maxwell screen installed, a
couple of the Minox cameras needed a tune up after 30 years of sitting
in the dusty bottom of someone's dresser drawer, one Rollei 35 needed
extensive repairs after it fell 10 feet onto concrete, and the Contax
Tvs needed service when it jammed once.
Either I live a blessed life or the Nikon and Leica gear I have had has
been very well made and very tough. None of it has been babied.
Godfrey
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 So I feel perhaps you should consider changing the text from "and there is Lots of people show awe for something they perceive as being the summum in a A perfect, perhaps even the best, way to do that is to have it fail and The Hasselblad Jam (being a quite harmless thing to happen, and, more Just wondering...
Regards
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Yashica
...
Having had a Yashica when they were new I am not so sure the glass was
that bad. There were a couple of lenses used, one a good quality Tessar
type, which I think would not be inferior to the Tessar and Xenar lenses
used in Rolleis. Someone would have to find a working camera to test this.
The shortcoming of Yashicas was mechanical softness. If used as a snap shot
camera it would probably last forever.
Another camera used as a "throw away" was Pentax. They had excellent
optical performance and were well designed for use, but not particularly
long lived. Press photographers would use them until they wore out and
replace them.
Keep in mind that this was common practice even with Speed Graphics. One
would trade the camera in for a new one every couple of years.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
[Ed. note: Mike Jenkins is a well known classic camera repairperson..]
From: "Mike" nedsnake@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Newbie MF question: 4 sec. min shutter speed - not enough?
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002
While I don't doubt the failure rate of Rollei's is roughly the same as
other brands, parts costs usually run much higher for Rollei products than
for Mamiya or Bronica. My friend in Seattle who has been repairing
Rollei's such as the SL66 series for many years has suffered from sticker
shock many times when ordering parts. When looking at the cost of
comparable parts the Rollei prices are very high as opposed to Japanese. I
do understand why you own Rollei equipment, in your place I might
do the same. :)
"Joe Schimpanzi" JoeSchimpanzi@Monkeybusiness.com wrote
> Agreed. I think this thought might be why the price of a Rollei starter kit
> (body, lens, back) dropped from $4400 to $2995 in the last few months.
> Prices for accessories are steep in the US, but here in Germany, it's a
> pretty level playing field. I think this may be an indication that Rollei
> is not to blame! Also, through all the research I've been able to do (and
> I'll admit, it hasn't been a lot on the theme of repairs) the word I've
> gotten is that Rollei's do not have a bad history of failures. About the
> same as any other manufacturers. Yes, I have heard of one where the entire
> electronics died, requiring 'mother board' replacement, but I've heard that
> about Canon EOS, Nikon F5, Pentax 645, Mamiya 645, etc, etc, etc...
>
> BTW, I'm in Germany working for the US Military. So repairs are not a
> concern. Braunschweig (Rollei's home) is a three hour drive, or overnight
> by regular mail. So yes, that was a consideration. Gotenberg Sweden is a
> one day trip, and with the Swedish limited participation in the Euro world
> (they didn't adopt the Euro currency, but accept it?!?!?!), so this was also
> a consideration in my purchasing decision. Tokyo on the other hand (for
> Mamiyas and Bronicas) would be a longer trip :~)
>
> Jim
From: "ajacobs2" ajacobs2@tampabay.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Bad lenses, Bad, Bad, lens....
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002
Rambling on about Lenses:
About once a week someone writes about a lens and lately the conversation
seems to be "did I get a bad sample of that lens". In most cases I think
their fears are wasted energy.
I see things from a broader or from a different view point. Sort of a
compressed viewpoint. For forty years I have had Nikons, Canons, Minolta
and Pentax. Possibly "just a few more than the average consumer" because I
was a dealer, whole sale, retail and a consumer as well. I sold and dealt
in new and used. Couple thousand give or take a few....
Other than I dropped coca-cola on it, mold, fungi, the kid pitched it in the
pool, If fell in the surf, it rained at the game, I tripped and landed on
it....it had moisture so I put it in the microwave, I leant it to my buddy,
the cat peed on it, the dog grabbed it and a thousand other things that
prove SH*T happens, I have sent very few lenses ever back to the factory /
manufacturer / repair center for repairs that came from the better
manufacturers due to poor workmanship. Probably 99 percent of the majors
sent back was consumer neglect and damage. Of course the consumer "thought",
the lens should survive a four story drop.....
Now the big four we carried were in the manual days. WE sold more of Nikon,
then Canon and Minolta were neck and neck, then Pentax which did well in the
beginning, slowed to fourth place. We never sent a Pentax back, but the
sales dwindled to nothing. We had very few problems with the others.
After market was another story. Tamrons were good but a few accidents took
place with the old mounts and the customer finding the camera in hand and
the lens on the floor. Wrong latch technique. WE carried and used Sigma's
as "the OK we have K Mart Stuff and prices" It came back to haunt us.
It changed with the AF lenses, more gizmology, more problems. The first
lines we dropped were Pentax and then Minolta... a dealer could not compete
against KMart. Minolta was selling it retail through KMart cheaper than I
could buy them. When I had a request for a Minolta, and if it was a good
customer, I ran to Kmart bought a newer model than they were shiping me and
sold it to the customer.
Upselling to the Nikon was easy, the PROS used it...that was enough
endorsement for many people. Upscale trade liked that.
So we had Canon and Nikon and a few lens problems showed up but still rare
and not inconvenient to us, we stood behind what we sold.....
Canon had a couple bad years and started plasticizing things and more
problems. The AF Minoltas we again tried had started turning white rubber on
us ( rubber oxidized on the noslip black surfaces) ....
The Tamrons got better, better engineering, rarely got any back and very
consumer oriented. Especially the SP's that were on a par with anyones
lenses. The 17, the 90 are still classics twenty five years after their
time....I know forensic guys who won't part with their manual 90's.
Sigma on the other hand with the AF lenses drove us nuts. After selling a
dozen and getting back seven, I threw them out, with the rep and ate the
bullet. You see if you sell a Canon and the Sigma lens and the Sigma comes
back you give a prime manufactures lens in return...or you get the whole
sale back, Camera and lens....much work, teaching, time and then the deal
unwinds.
Up to a couple months ago, still 98% of the incoming product worked fine in
35mm. Digital was another story. And the digitals are not bulletproof nor
as strong as the 35's. Exceptions are the D1 type and maybe the E10/20 OLY.
I have blown through two 950 Nikons....But the 35 mm lenses had no problems.
We have and always will have "consumer problems". But I have taken a "bad
lens", shot a roll in front of the customer, put it in our one hour lab,
went to Mickey D's bought him a coke while the girls processed the film and
got beautiful results...and I would ask him or her what the problem was.....
"my friend told me, blah, blah, blah..... After showing the results, it was
more like poor technique.....
Sounds like this group at times, those who write here asking about something
get a negative thought back and now are totally insecure about their
purchase. Or they get the response to a lens by someone WHO NEVER owned the
lens...the Nikkor 24-120 comes to mind, try taking my wifes away from her, I
have have shot with it and it has saved my butt on one occasion on a huge
commercial job....or a Canophile throws two cents in about a Nikkor or
versa visa, or visa versa or VISA-Mastercard.
I won't touch the word Leica because I know what that can trigger here.
Actually If you had fifty or more years to perfect something and not
radically change it, then theoretically never should a Leica ever have to be
repaired. Thats right it's called "serviced". In spite of the kidding,
they are incredible cameras. I have an M4 and if I didn't hate scanning and
the need for speed for websites, I wouldn't bother with the digital...
If you buy locally, bring your camera body with you, try the lens you wish
to purchase, shoot the dam thing right in the store with the worst of
conditions.Low light, fluoresents, straight aisles, look for convergence
lines for distortion, put i through it's paces. Run to a one hour lab and
look at the results.
A fair retail consumer oriented store will allow that. We encouraged it.
Unfortunately that nice person who stood behind the counter in that nice
store who stood behind what they sold is vanishing and the web and mail
order with the exception of a few can't be trusted as well.....
The level of the 35 quality lens today is still good in spite of the digital
onslaught, maybe better.
And then there is grey market and .......................
Just my thinking....
(B>)# I wish you well,
Al Jacobson
Website: www.aljacobs.com
Teaching site: http://web.tampabay.rr.com/ajacobs2
From: "Mark Morgan" mmorgan2@san.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Bad lenses, Bad, Bad, lens....
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002
"ajacobs2" ajacobs2@tampabay.rr.com wrote...
> Rambling on about Lenses:
> About once a week someone writes about a lens and lately the conversation
> seems to be "did I get a bad sample of that lens". In most cases I think
> their fears are wasted energy.
The funny thing is... Is most of us were actually taking consisent shots
where the only flaw in them were those attributable to bad lenses...We would
be literally the KINGS of the photographer world!!
If only we had merely our lenses to blame for all the bad shots we are all
guilty of shooting.
:)
Dream on, and keep those "flawed lenses" (wink wink) around so we don't have
to feel bad for our own screw-ups.
from minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002
From: "aranda1984" stephen@aranda4.com
Subject: Re: buying old lenses/lifespan of lens
Hi Michael.
Just like any other mechanical device the lens because it was designed
to a finite life cycle of so many thousand or millions of shots....
eventualy will fail.
However, in normal use it is very unlikely.
The three biggest problems that migh cause a malfunction is:
1. The oil seeping out from the focusing ring thread and contaminating
the aperture blades.
Prevention, do not expose the lens to high heat, keep the lens stored
in a "filter down" position.
Cure: take lens apart, clean blades etc.
2. The oil dries out at the focusing ring, causing stiff movement.
Actually, if the oil dries out corrosion between the aluminium and the
brass part will take place. This will show up on the aluminium like a
salty substance. The metal swells up from this alu. oxide and causes
stiffness in movement. With time it will happen.
Cure: take lens apart, clean and relube thread.
3. Fungus on the surface of the elements next to the aperture blade
assembly.
Prevention, store lenses with moisture absorbing packs.
Cure: take lens apart and clean surfaces.
Your lens the MC 35/2.8 W Rokkor-HG is a very nice lens. Not a very
expensive lens but a good one.
If you can take the lens a part and fix it, it is worth the effort.
You might as well do it. You'll learn about the lens at the same time.
Stephen I. Molnar
From: "Mike" nedsnake@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Vacilating - Used Hassy or New Bronica ?
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002
Most of my MF customers are heavy shooters, I see their magazines usually
twice a year for over hauls, most of them own 8 or 10 magazines and have one
or two photographers in the field all the time plus what's shot in the
studio.
Over laps, jammed magazines or wind levers not returning are the usual
problem with magazines.
I do see more magazines than bodies or shutters.
Shutters more often than bodies. I get a lot of older Mamiya RB lenses. Here
the big problem is wear and lack of parts most can be repaired however.
The only service I provide on magazines and shutters is what I call a strip
down over haul.
I have found over the years that this catches problems a typical CLA might
miss and greater value for the customer.
And I do get a few oddball things two.....lol
Gotta luv this job.
"Robert Monaghan" rmonagha@smu.edu wrote
> yes, annual CLAs would presumably involve preventive parts replacement
> too; on some pro cameras (nikon F series) run hard, that might go up to
> a shutter replacement as approaching 150k exposures (average for 35mm pro
> shutters) and so on at each annual cycle...
>
> what kind of back problems do you see most often? Other than light leaks
> on worn light traps and reports of spacing problems, it is hard to think
> of many frequent problems (oddballs like counter errors now and again,
> but?) with backs being reported. That's why I'm surprised if that is a
> big part of the repairs and most frequent - also the relatively simple
> nature of the back mechanics vs. a leaf shutter and mirror flipping SLR
> ;-) ;-)
....
From: "Mike" nedsnake@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Vacilating - Used Hassy or New Bronica ?
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002
No one said batteries were not a potential problem.....hell when you walk
across the street you have the potential of being killed. What we said was
that the problem is exaggerated.
I have been repairing medium format systems for a number of wedding
photographers here in the NW for 25 years. Some of them own Mamiya RB's, a
few own Bronica equipment and several own Mamiya RZ's. Without exception
they all carry LOTS of backup equipment to weddings. Not one of them who
owns a battery powered camera (Mamiya RZ or Bronica) has ever had a problem
with the battery. Does that mean that there will never be a problem? No.
What might be interesting is that they ALL have had mechanical problems.
What a surprise.
Because you seemed to be concerned with battery powered systems holding up
perhaps you should talk to your local photographers. Ask them what they
use, why they bought what they own.
That is my last 2 cents on that.
"Entropia" photoguy1967@hotmail.com wrote...
> "Mike" nedsnake@earthlink.net
> wrote:
> >IMHO Bob is right, the entire battery issue has been blown totally out of
> >proportion.
>
> Please people, stop this nonsense. If batteries are not a problem for
> you, fine, but stop telling people who have no idea that it isn't a
> potential problem when it can be.
From: "Steve Miller" sjmiller@optonline.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Vacilating - Used Hassy or New Bronica ?
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002
If you need the flash to successfully complete your assignment then the
answer may be yes! It could be higher if you have a bad flash.
We're talking about the reliability of a system. The shutter mechanics,
battery, autofocus, film back, exposure meter, flash, etc. are all
independent components of the overall camera. Failure in any one of these
components may put you out of action. The hazard function, h(t), is from
reliability theory and gives the probability of time to failure of the
system given that it has successfully operated for t hours. If you knew
your hazard function then you could calculate the chance of getting through
the next wedding without your equipment failing :)
Here's the punch line:
The hazard function of the overall camera system is the SUM of the hazard
functions for each independent component. Everytime you add a component or
feature to your camera system you increase the probability of the overall
system failing based on the hazard function of that component. If you add a
component that is very likely to fail then the overall system will then
become very likely to fail
Following is a paraphase from "Analysis of Systems in Operations Research"
by Sivazlian and Stanfel starting on page165
Improving reliability
1. Improve the components through better design or technology
2. Redundancy at the component level (Can a camera have two shutters?
YES, when each lens has it own)
3. Preventitive maintenance which essentially starts your hazard function
over at t=0
4. Increase the quality of the components (longer mean time between
failures)
Rules for improving reliability (This is a partial list I eliminated
some )
1. Simplification (by eliminating components when possible) Think of a
Rollei TLR vs a modern high end 35mm)
2. Select the most reliable components
3. Eliminate infant mortality of equipment by breaking in the equipment
(Check your brand new spare batteries before going to the wedding)
4. Preventive Maintenance program
5. Standardization of components (interchangable backs - one fails you
pull out another)
The bottom line
Buy quality equipment - buy the best components
Maintain it
Have backup systems/components
KISS principle (keep it simple stupid)
BobM pointed out that pros tend to buy better equipment and have backups. I
think this happens because they use their equipment so much that they can
actually see the advantages.
Steve
"Mike" nedsnake@earthlink.net wrote...
> ROFL......God help us all.
> Then I surmise, by your logic, that adding a flash increases the probability
> of failure three fold?
> Are you and Daniel related by any chance?
> Interesting your ignoring most of what I said.
> I do have a suggestion, take it for what its worth; given your fear of
> stressful weddings and camera failures I would recommend that you take up
> wild flower photography.
>
> "Entropia" photoguy1967@hotmail.com wrote...
> > "Mike" nedsnake@earthlink.net
> > wrote:
> >
> > >What might be interesting is that they ALL have had mechanical problems.
> > >What a surprise.
> >
> > Oh please. Cameras that run on batteries have mechanical parts as
> > well, so thats something else to worry about on top of the battery
> > issue.
From: "Mike" nedsnake@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Vacilating - Used Hassy or New Bronica ?
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002
All I have to go on Bob is my experience of more than 25 years repairing MF
equipment.
I do not service Hassy equipment so I cant speak to the frequency of repair
of that equipment.
What I can attest to, based on my experience, is that magazines will on
average fail more often than shutters or bodies. And even Pete's friendly
hassy repairman says that annual preventive maintenance is needed to help
avoid breakdowns. Doesn't preventive maintenance equal repair and or parts
replacement?
Not every lens or body or magazine will operate the stated number of cycles
before they fail.
"Robert Monaghan" rmonagha@smu.edu wrote
> quote:
When you use a system that consists of a body, lens and magazine, battery
> powered or not you have a one in three chance something will fail. With
> the above system you stand a better chance of the magazine failing than
> the body or lens. The next highest failure rate will be the lens
> (shutter) battery powered or not.
> end-quote:
>
> huh? the backs need new light traps every ten years or so, ultra-reliable
>
> quoting http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/mtbf.htm (mean times before failure)
>
> Pete Gomena noted:
> Our friendly local Hassy repairman said something to the effect that a
> Hassy lens can be expected to need repair after 30,000 exposures, and the
> bodies after about 60,000. He suggested preventative maintenance every
> year to help avoid breakdowns.
From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002
From: Bob Camp ham@cq.nu
Subject: Re: a future 88 owner asks...
Hi,
If that is the direction you are headed then a Pentacon probably will not
change things much.
One point that has not been made very often: At least among the cameras I
have owned and worked with over the last 40 years or so the 35 mm stuff has
out performed the medium format stuff on reliability. If you are comparing
any medium format camera to a reliability expectation based on 35 mm gear
the medium format camera simply will not measure up.
I have had very good luck with both types of camera and they have worked
very well for me. I'm not bashing one versus the other. The point is that if
I absolutely had to depend on one and only one camera to absolutely
positively work under any conditions I'd bet on a good 35 mm. Any other
camera will come off looking like it has problems if you compare it to a
good quality 35.
And yes before you ask that applies to Bronica's and Hassy's as well. I
would stack a decent high end 35 mm Nikon (or Cannon) of similar vintage up
against either one for simple reliability. This of course says nothing about
the quality of the picture any or all of them will take. It also says
nothing about bang for the buck. If you are going to pack the camera up Mt
Everest to take the once in a life time picture it says quite a bit.
Certainly some medium format cameras are more reliable than others. However
you pay a *lot* as you work your way up that curve. I would consider a
couple of bodies as the minimum investment regardless of the brand. Even
with a Kiev all the money will wind up in the lenses anyway. The investment
in a spare body or three is not going to up the total by a whole lot. Two in
hand and one in the shop is a tried and tested formula that has served a lot
of people over the years. I have seen that formula applied to all the
camera's mentioned above by a number of very experienced people.
I suspect that observation will cause a bit of conversation, but it is my
observation.
Enjoy!
Bob Camp
From: tomlyons@melbpc.org.au (Thom)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hartblei and their likes
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003
kuzen001@duke.edu> wrote:
>Brett
From: thomandpam@yahoo.com.au (Thom)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: All that Kiev88 stuff for sale on ebay
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003
rmonagha@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan)
wrote:
>depends on the vintage of the 'blad. I have one of the early 500c, and it
>has the 'blad jamming problem now and again. My personal experience has
>been that the 'blads are a bit more finicky and delicate than some other
>kits, with more odd ways to glitch them (dark slide not quite all the way
>in, shutter release lock not quite fully on open etc.).
snip snip
when I was in Nam we found the Blads to be useless. They were in the
shop more than out. We found the Mamiyaflex C-2/3's and Bronicas SLR
to be 100X's more reliable. After a while when we had a job we
grabbed to Mam's and Brons. Same with the 35mm's. I wouldn't touch a
Nikon and always used Pentax gear. The Nikormat was OK cause it was
one piece and there was no place (unlike the Nikon F) for crud to get
into it.
THOM
From: "BCE" bellis60@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: SHUTTER OPERATION IN HASSELBLAD C LENSES
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003
I attended a photography workshop in Arizona and Utah earlier this year.
One of the participants was using his new Hasselblad. Something jammed the
first day out so he couldn't use it. He contacted Hasselblad customer
support. They were kind enough to ship him a new Hasselblad to use while at
the workshop and he sent his back to them for repair. A couple days later
the new one they sent him broke too. He sent that one back to them, they
returned his to him, now repaired, and it worked fine, at least for the
remainder of the workshop. The level of customer service was impressive, the
quality of the brand new multi-thousand dollars worth of equipment wasn't.
"Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@tiscali.nl wrote ...
> Dennis O'Connor wrote:
>
> > I have noted with interest over the years the large number of plaintive
> > posts about Hassy's with this or that problem, especially things that jam,
> > wedge, or break... The shutter is jammed, the back is wedged on and won't
> > come off, the back is off and won't go on, the dark slide won't do this or
> > that, I changed the shutter speed before winding and now the lens won't
> > work, etc...
> > Seems a bit paradoxical that the most finely engineered and built
> (according
> > to them) MF camera system in the world has so many problems...
> > Not an invitation for a flame war, just an observation..
>
> Denny, we are dealing here with heavily used equipment that is likely way
> over 30 years old. Considering that, one or two problems here or there is
> not bad. Not bad at all.
> I have Hasselblad equipment of about half a century old that still works
> fine. Equipment of this sort that has been used that much for that long a
> period of any other brand is, well... let's just say not very common.
From leica mailing list:
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003
From: LRZeitlin@aol.com
Subject: [Leica] Electronics vs. mechanics
Vik writes:
The "build quality", or more so "longevity" of
electronics is orders of magnitude different (lower!) than the mechanics
of the MP. In 50 years, I bet there will be a bunch of dead useless
M7's around, but the MP, M3's, M4's, IIIg's, etc will still be firing
away (if you can buy film).
The failure curve of electronic equipment is entirely different from that of
mechanical equipment. There is no reason to suggest that the MTBF of a
mechanical components will be "orders of magnitude" different from that of electronic
components. With electronic equipment there is a probablity of failure of a
few percent at initial turn on or very soon thereafter. If it survives the
intial burn in, it will generally work perfectly for a very long period of time,
units failing randomly throughout the total life span. When operated within its
ratings, the failure rate of electronic equipment is usually independent of
the number of use cycles. Electronic equipment usually fails abruptly in an all
or none pattern. It works or it doesen't.
Mechanical equipment tends to fail as a function of use in a slowly
increasing curve. There are two kinds of failure, abrupt mechanical breakage due to
some material flaw or overstress, and gradual deterioration because of wear. The
expected life span is usually given in the number of operation cycles, i.e.
exposures, of time of continuous use, i.e. operating hours. Failure is usually
defined as operation outside of expected tolerances. In the jargon of the
trade, mechanical things tend to fail "gracefully". We can always tell when the
camera needs repair when the 1 second exposure is 2 seconds, or the film winding
gets hard or the camera makes "pocketa pocketa" noises instead of a smooth
click.
The virtue of the Leica mechanical design is that there is enough adjustment
capability in the various moving parts to bring the camera up to nominal
performance specs during a CLA. By and large, integrated electronic components
which fail need to be replaced rather than adjusted. The upside of electronics is
that they are considerably cheaper than precision machined parts that perform
the same function. Consequently we may look forward to much lower prices for
new Leica cameras.
I have no idea how the electronics of the M7 are incorporated into the
package but modern electronic design strategy suggests that all the integrated
circuitry be contained in a module that can be easily replaced without the
necessity of unsoldering and resoldering a number of wires. If this is the case, then
the short time to repair might ameliorate any anxiety engendered by knowing
that your camera could fail abruptly at any time without warning. I lied about
the lower prices. Just wanted to see if anyone was paying attention.
Larry Z
From: Bob Monaghan [rmonagha@engr.smu.edu]
Sent: Tue 10/21/2003
To: Monaghan, Robert
Subject: Re: MF System with the most mechanical problems?
Let's suggest some simple principles for predicting gear troubles:
#1) Older models are likely to be more worn and difficult to adjust
or repair (unless using specialty repairers like Greg Weber, Harry
Fleenor etc. who know the issues to fix and check)
#2) Less expensive models are more likely to have more problems for
similar designs (e.g., Kalimar 660 SLR vs. Bronica S2)
#3) Models with more electronics have more failure points (e.g., Bronica
ECTL vs Bronica EC)
#4) Models with motorized designs have more failure points (e.g., 500 EL/M
vs 500 C/M)
#5) Autofocus models are newer designs with added software and other
problems in integration and more features to go wrong
=====
We would expect that a viewfinder Hasselbald SWC/M or Rolleiflex TLR to be
among the most reliable camera models - no electronics, no focal plane
shutter, no removable backs, no motors - in short, less to go wrong in an
expensive camera model. We would expect fewer problems with a kiev 60 than
with a kiev88, if only due to the backs in the Kiev88 design. We would
expect the later models of series, such as the Bronica S2A and Exakta 66
III to be better debugged and more reliable than earlier models. We would
expect a leaf shutter body to have less failures than a focal plane
shutter body, again due to the shutter complexity. But each system may
have its own unique poor design points as well (see the "cons" in Danny
Gonzalez' comparisons at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/gindex.html by models)
================
Among new in the box current MF equipment, I would think:
Worst to better:
toy cameras - plastic cheapy diana clones, LOMOs..
Lubitel TLRs (mechanics)
Seagull DF series SLRs (mirror string..)
Seagull chinese TLRs [the high $ shutter version is excluded here]
Seagull folder (645..).
Russian/Ukrainian gear:
kiev-88
modified Kiev-88 [because of the backs, more problems than K60]
Horizon 202/202s and larger clockwork swing lens panoramics
Kiev 60
modified Kiev-60 [the modified versions have problems fixed, lubed etc]
Moskva folders etc.
Pro MF photogear:
rotating lens cameras (panoramics..)
SLRs with a camera back due to back related problems
SLRs with fixed back or insert (fewer ")
fuji folders (bellows issues)
rangefinders and viewfinder (Hassy superwide etc.)
fixed lens specialty gear (ultrawides..) [hand-made and tweaked]
Rolleiflex TLR (f2.8) - most debugged and reliable design at big $$ price?
Among the classic used MF SLRs in amateur usage, I would suggest:
Focal Plane Shutter Bodies:
Oldies such as Pilots, Corfield, reflex korelle, early exaktas, DF-4 etc.
low cost focal plane SLRs like fujita 66, kalimar 660, praktisix, optika..
early bronicas (Z/deluxe only for age/parts) before S2/C series SLRs
hasselblad 1600f and 1000f
Warner 66, Rittreck 66, Norita 66 (parts issues)
Bronica S2A and EC/ECTL (EC lacks some of later ECTL electronic failures)
early focal plane Hassy bodies (early FC 2000 shutter issues etc.)
hasselblad later F series focal plane bodies (electronics issues)
Rollei SL66 series [focal plane body]
Leaf Shutter 6x6cm SLR Bodies:
Kowa 66 and Kowa 6MM and Kowa 6 (due to age, backs on Kowa 66)
early hassy 500c bodies (jams fixed in later models)
Hasselblad 500EL and ELM series (motor bodies)
rolleiflex 6k SLRs (most expensive SLR ever made, electronics/motors...)
hasselblad 50X c/m series
etc. for different formats, types and bodies....
From: Bob Monaghan [rmonagha@engr.smu.edu]
Sent: Wed 10/22/2003
To: Monaghan, Robert
Subject: Re: MF System with the most mechanical problems?
Hi Lourens! - yes, I agree with many of your points;
Rolleiflex SLR
the "most expensive SLR ever.." was from Rollei's own advertising, and I
did rate it as the second most reliable leaf shutter SLR, only behind the
all mechanical hassy 50x c/m (not 500c) series, again because it was also
a high $$ camera where reliability had not been sacrificed to costs etc.
Hasselblad 500 EL/ELM
again, I rated above the 500c and kowa bodies, mainly due to issues with
battery failures and related problems in my own 500 EL/M experience and
many others (I get hundreds of hits on my 500 el/elm battery problem
pages) and lockup of body (and attached lenses) during such failures etc.
re: Electronics
it may be that modern electronics on the chip make for higher reliability;
but when it comes time to replace, you are totally dependent on ASIC chips
being available, which makes repairs often costly; usually the entire
board or motorized shutter is replaced. This is a serious problem now for
many 20 year old cameras (e.g, nikon FE flex circuits), so the older and
simpler discrete electronics (the EC vs ECTL II) may be repairable in
future when the proprietary circuit using models are on the shelf. Some
issues with LCD lifetimes may also be lurking in the future, and the
availability of selenium light sensors is an issue now for many TLRs etc.
you make a very good point on the avoidance of the early models until the
bugs are worked out; this is where I feel the latest AF models are today
in MF, so I'd also prefer to wait for a later model. ;-)
your followup posting is also useful, as I've noted, a kowa kit may be
better simply because it is more likely to be used by a serious amateur in
light use, or a weekend wedding warrior rather than a full time pro, so
far fewer cycles of use and abuse on the second tier amateur oriented gear
As you noted this is hard to factor into ratings, since lots of hassy gear
may have seen much more use and abuse -On average - than a kowa kit.
but I think this is an interesting generalized approach, and may expand it
into yet another page - I will try to find my copy of Ed Romney's camera
repairer's ratings of the MF kits, which is pretty much what I would have
guessed from these rules and insights. I think it may be easier to rate
these kits by groups (645 vs 6x6 vs 6x7) since that is often a starting
point for buyers, rather than try to figure if bronica ETR is more
reliable than koni-omegaflex etc ;-)
a somewhat similar idea might be "repairability" namely, how hard it is to
get repairs by competent repairers. In this case, some kits like Kowa have
only a relative handful of repairers, reflecting the demand and user base
and gear age; while others like hassy have a large availability of repair
sources, but issues like repair parts availability is beginning to become
problematic. For the current electronic setups, the future availability of
proprietary chips and motors for repairs may be a major issue. The example
of the hasselblad 2000 earliest series bodies, where shutter replacements
are problematic, is one good example where the lack of parts may sideline
or cut the perceived utility/value of an otherwise great camera model.
The other issue I struggled with is "shadows", i.e., a camera model which
is obscure because it is in the shadow of a much more often recommended
model. For example, the Bronica S2 is a fine body, esp. the later serial
number bodies, but the steel geared S2A is even better, so the S2 often
gets overlooked and may be a relative bargain, esp. as a backup body. The
Bronica EC lacks the autoexposure of the ECTL and ECTL-II models, so is
often overlooked, but has the mirror lockup and electronic shutter and
metering prism contacts missing in the all mechanical S2/S2A lineup. My
guess is the EC is more reliable than the ECTL/ECTL-II, due to the lack of
the discrete or chip based autoexposure electronics.
While you may be right that electronic cameras are more reliable, measured
on a feature weighted basis, they are often lower volume sales (due to
higher costs typically) and more often modified (due to rapid electronics
changes and streamlined fixes). Compare that to cameras like the Pentax 67
or others which have gone decades with the same basic debugged designs.
The other problem I have with electronic cameras is they usually either
work, or they don't work at all. I have a number of all mechanical cameras
which have "glitches" such as a non-working frame counter on a nikkormat,
which doesn't impact the use of the camera to take pictures, or a meter
circuit taking an unavailable mercury battery (use a handheld meter). But
if the metering circuit in most all electronic cameras goes out, that's
the ball game - it won't work at all.
A related point is that someone mechanically handy may be able to do many
simple camera repairs to most mechanical cameras in the field (on a long
trip in India say), or at a local watch repairer or camera tech, while the
more modern super electronic cameras can often not even be fixed by the
local distributor, but get sent back to the factory for complex repairs.
This has the paradoxical effect that even pros with the latest and most
reliable electronic camera bodies may feel the need to have a backup body
(such as the 6001 you cited) in order to cover such problem situations and
repair and CLA requirements. Oddly, it is the pros who have the backup
cameras for the most pricey kits, yes? And the amateurs who go out
shooting with the lesser cost kit without backups in too many cases, yes?
;-) ;-)
My final point is that pro cameras are as reliable as they need to be, and
aren't likely to be optimized for reliability past the current plateau.
The mfgers don't want costly in-warranty repairs, but after that, repairs
are a profit center ;-) Pro cameras are expected to have shutters replaced
and worn elements replaced or repaired during periodic, typically annual
CLAs. This is one reason why many hard used hassy and rollei pro cameras
have such high user reputations. see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/mtbf.html
By contrast, one of my used Kowa bodies had last been CLA'd over 20 years
ago. No doubt it has seen less use than the typical pro body, but there
may be more repairs needed and problems in such amateur used bodies which
haven't seen the anticipated levels of maintenance and lubrication and
tuneups in their use life. Again, I don't see any way to factor this out
except to say it is remarkable that so many kits are still working well
after decades of hard pro use and a lack of anticipated maintenance.
Another problematic issue is that like fixing software introduces more
bugs, repairing cameras introduces more problems. Lots of irrate postings
by folks who didn't get the original problem fixed, or if they did, they
got the camera back with more and worse problems after the repairs! ;-)
This is why it isn't just important to send the camera to a repairer but
to a repairer who actually knows how to repair and tune up that specific
camera model. I think the internet is going to help here, since we are
sharing info on who repairs what, and there is enough mail order volume to
make it possible for specialty repairers of Norita or Kowa cameras, for
example, to setup and stock parts and donor bodies to service and support
such "orphan" camera systems past the mfgers support cutoffs...
Finally, my bet is that the digital revolution will bring more electronics
to Med Fmt, and more rapid obsolescence and model changes (and bugs etc.).
Repair parts and resources will be problematic; Kodak can't repair my 5
year old digicam, and even if they could, it would be cheaper to buy a
working version of the same camera on ebay than fix it. The same is true
of many modest cost used MF SLRs and RF kits (e.g., norita, bronica,
koniomega etc.). They are cheaper to buy than to fix ;-)
grins bobm
From: Randall Ainsworth rag@nospam.techline.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF System with the most mechanical problems?
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003
> Why would you think the Kowa was a dog? It was in fact a faithful
> companion. I'd say the reason it failed was due to marketing and
> financials.
Because they broke down a lot?
The initial RB67s - you had to have at least 2 backs because they
malfunctioned often. The initial RZs had a 100% recall back in the
80s.
From: "Bo Wrangborg" bo@visicon.se
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF System with the most mechanical problems? Hassy thart is!
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003
I would say Hasselblad has most mechanical and other problems.
Even if Hasselblad has the lowest failingrate of them all, there are
probably more Hasselblad systems having problems than all the other
toghther. As most are choosing Hasselblad as being their MF-system and there
are a huge amount of Hasselblads out there. Since around the 50:ies think of
all those 500 C and C/M:s out there.
That is, in absolute values there are more faulty Hasselblades and certainly
you will hear it perhaps here in this NG, as it is big news when a Hassy at
last fails.
On the other hand we (And I) buy Hasselblad because of the low PERCENTAGE
having mechanical or other problems.
Isn't that fun! When you hear/read that a MF has problems it's most likely a
Hassle-blade!
I love IT!
Bosse/Sweden
...
From: "zeitgeist" blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF System with the most mechanical problems?
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003
> I would think Kowa and Pentacon would be at the top of the list. Any
> others worthy of the same notoriety?
Why would you think the Kowa was a dog? It was in fact a faithful
companion. I'd say the reason it failed was due to marketing and
financials.
Various makes have been branded unreliable, I've heard many photogs complain
about their RB's, how they needed three of everything, one to use, one as
backup while the third is in the shop.
However, the average medium format camera has an MTBF of about 1,500 rolls.
If you shot a couple dozen weddings a year that would be 5 to 6 years, if
you shot seniors like so many did doing ten shots for an 8 openning folio?
again anywhere from one to six years depending on how many students.
I figured my bods were good for three years. now don't forget, that doesn't
mean the camera is junk in 1,500 rolls, just that's the expectency of the
major systems, something is due, most of the time its a standard repair.
From: Lourens Smak smak@wanadoo.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: SHUTTER OPERATION IN HASSELBLAD C LENSES
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003
rmonagha@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan) wrote:
> A somewhat related effort has been to look at the costs of repairs, see
> http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/repaircosts.html - for example, some shutter
> repairs on Rollei 6k can be quite pricey for parts due to complexity etc.
But this shutter is extremely reliable; it has no springs, for example,
and is never "cocked" or "not cocked". Because of the design it is
almost wear-free. It's also a far less complex system than any
mechanical in-lens shutter. But indeed parts are expensive, esp. for the
PQS high-performance shutter. A pair of new magnets will cost you...
I find it a bit amusing that the H1 has a very similar shutter,
"designed" over 25 years (!) later. (but slower and with a smaller
diameter of course)
> the real goal or utility here is some hindsight rating, for buyers of used
> gear, to see that they are likely to have high repair bills for some
> brands (e.g., rollei 6k?)
I have had 2 repairs in about 15 years of Rollei 6000 shooting. Both
were quite cheap. I also own one 25-year old lens with a shutter that
should be repaired, but actually still works. (An 80mm that has been
replaced, so I won't bother with repair. the problem is the shutter
doesn't open completely at the end of the cycle. The exposures are fine.
pressing the dof/measuring button then opens the shutter completely. I
think it must be a dirt/dust/gummed up grease problem or so.)
> One reason blads may have a better rep is that being more
> often used by pros, and being pricey, it is more likely they are annually
> CLA'd than another less costly brand (Kowa?) of similar age but less cost.
My experience with Hasselblad reliability is pretty bad, and I've worked
with ("work", not "play" or "shoot" with) about a dozen bodies and close
to 30 lenses over the years. Unreliabilty is the main reason I bought
something else myself, when the time came to invest in a MF system. (the
other reason is the ergonomics that suck, but that's for another thread
maybe.) Like someone else in this thread, I have also had brand-new
hasselblad equipment fail on me. (2-week old actually) A 50mm with one
of those handwritten "quality-control" notes with it, saying it was
hand-checked and found to be perfect. This shouldn't happen, it's as
simple as that.
Lourens
From: qnu@tiscali.nl (Q.G. de Bakker)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF System with the most mechanical problems?
Date: 22 Oct 2003
Bob Monaghan wrote:
> Let's suggest some simple principles for predicting gear troubles:
>
> #5) Autofocus models are newer designs with added software and other
> problems in integration and more features to go wrong
#6 Models that see more use are more likely to develop more faults
than other models of same age and complexity that are used less
(hard).
A difficult one. We would perhaps need to see sale demographics to be
able to even begin "predicting" what brand/model will be more likely
to see more, heavy use than another. But that does not mean that this
aspect is not reflected in actual "repair statistics" (including
numbers of complaints expressed through USENET and WWW), so i would
not want to ignore it.
Difficult too, perhaps, because the choice of what brand/model to buy
will be influenced by how good/bad that brand/model will stand up to
the intended use.
So it's quite possible that a camera of brand X will show as many/few
failures as a camera of brand Y, both of same age, yet any one of the
two may actually be quite a good deal more robust.
That would only show if and when we also know how each was treated.
And the above includes the possibility that a camera of brand X will
show a good many more failures than a camera of brand Y, both of same
age, while camera X still is the better, more robust one.
Again, we would only know if and when we also know how each was
treated, and just counting the time spent in repair shops, or numbers
of complaints may well paint a very wrong picture.
I believe the "RB" Mamiyas (extremely robust machines these are) were
mentioned as "need to have three of them" cameras. I think i
understand why... ;-)
From: Lourens Smak smak@wanadoo.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF System with the most mechanical problems?
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003
rmonagha@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan) wrote:
Hello Bob,
> Hasselblad 500 EL/ELM
> again, I rated above the 500c and kowa bodies, mainly due to issues with
> battery failures and related problems in my own 500 EL/M experience and
> many others (I get hundreds of hits on my 500 el/elm battery problem
> pages) and lockup of body (and attached lenses) during such failures etc.
I have posted a story on usenet (about 7 years ago I think...) about the
"exploding hasselblad", which is a true story about a brand new -faulty-
Varta battery that exploded while being charged inside an ELM. The
battery extends (without room to extend...) and produces gasses, and at
a certain point...kaboom. The camera was standing on a desk with the
battery-door facing a wall; pieces of Hasselblad were found 10 meters in
the other direction...luckily nobody was sitting at the desk at the
time.
> it may be that modern electronics on the chip make for higher reliability;
> but when it comes time to replace, you are totally dependent on ASIC chips
> being available, which makes repairs often costly; usually the entire
> board or motorized shutter is replaced.
That's a good point. My Nikon F2 was repaired (by Nikon NL) using a
donor-camera, about 8 years ago. Otherwise they couldn't repair it
anymore, I was just lucky the repairmen kept the "old junk" and the part
I needed was somewhere in there.
> you make a very good point on the avoidance of the early models until the
> bugs are worked out; this is where I feel the latest AF models are today
> in MF, so I'd also prefer to wait for a later model. ;-)
;-) being an early adopter has a price...
> a somewhat similar idea might be "repairability" namely, how hard it is to
> get repairs by competent repairers.
This is a very good point, and also, as I'm a Rollei user, a bit more
problematic for me than finding a Hasselblad repairman. I don't think a
Rollei is more dificult to repair (probably easier than a blad even) but
it will definitely require specific knowledge and equipment.
> In this case, some kits like Kowa have
> only a relative handful of repairers, reflecting the demand and user base
> and gear age; while others like hassy have a large availability of repair
> sources, but issues like repair parts availability is beginning to become
> problematic.
You are correct in that parts availability isn't a mechanical vs
electronical thing; it's just a matter of what the factory thinks is
necessary (for their "image" for example) and what is economically
feasible for them.
Often spare parts are produced in quite large quantities, but there will
often be something in a certain model that always breaks first, and the
part needed for this repair will be the first to be unavailable. (and
the next camera coming in for repair will probably need the same part...)
Nikon F2 lightmeter-needles are such an example, and indeed the blad
2000 shutters.
> While you may be right that electronic cameras are more reliable, measured
> on a feature weighted basis, they are often lower volume sales (due to
> higher costs typically) and more often modified (due to rapid electronics
> changes and streamlined fixes). Compare that to cameras like the Pentax 67
> or others which have gone decades with the same basic debugged designs.
These days electronics are far cheaper to produce than high-quality
precision mechanical equipment. the 6001<>555 comparison in price says
it all. For saving $2000, you get a faster motor, a ttl-flashmeter, a
better viewfinder, 1/1000s, and some other nice stuff.
I think that Pentax probably make much more profit on the 67-II than
they were making on the old 67 in the end. Just because it has more
electronics at about the same price-point. It will be faster to produce
and easier to produce, using less material, with simpler adjustments
etc. : cheaper. (while retaining or even improving durability)
Higher cost for electronics isn't true anymore, development has been
fast in this area. On the contrary: precision mechanics are one of the
most expensive things today. (Have a look at watches...)
> The other problem I have with electronic cameras is they usually either
> work, or they don't work at all.
That is a very good point indeed. see above where I could use a broken
Hasselblad lens by using the dof-switch and looking at a dark image.
> This has the paradoxical effect that even pros with the latest and most
> reliable electronic camera bodies may feel the need to have a backup body
> (such as the 6001 you cited) in order to cover such problem situations and
> repair and CLA requirements. Oddly, it is the pros who have the backup
> cameras for the most pricey kits, yes? And the amateurs who go out
> shooting with the lesser cost kit without backups in too many cases, yes?
Most amateurs won't have MF backup I think. Most pros I know have at
least 3 MF bodies. On the other hand, I have had so many broken
Hasselblad flash-contacts over the years that if I had this system
myself I would certainly also want to have at least 2 lenses twice; that
would be pretty (and too) expensive to have lying around for
emergencies...
The 6001 is perfectly useable as a main body, if you use flash in a
studio setup or don't really need metering and automatics. It's basic
but it already has more features than most other MF camera's.
(ttl-flashmeter, autobracketing) Often it is seen as just a cheap backup
for a 6008 but it's a different camera.
(and not very wanted and therefore cheap 2nd-hand, because hobbyists who
buy used, all want the 6008...)
> Finally, my bet is that the digital revolution will bring more electronics
> to Med Fmt, and more rapid obsolescence and model changes (and bugs etc.).
The rapid obsolescence is what worries me a bit. In 35mm it's even
clearer (I'm a Nikon user) that manufacturers do this *on purpose*...
I have some "old" lenses like a beautiful and very good 85mm 1.4, and
it's slowly getting almost impossible to buy a new camera that I can use
this lens with. (In a few years it will likely be impossible) So, if I
want/need a new -digital for example- body I have to pay $1500 extra to
buy something I already have. That sucks. (I would actually need a 50mm
1.4 but that's beside the point, and sucks even more.)
Digital and rapid-obsolescence is going to be worse. as soon as some
part in the chain breaks, be it a computer, a digital back, or a camera,
you will probably often have to buy a *complete* new kit in the near
future. the new computer-software won't work with the old back, the new
back won't fit on the old camera, etc etc.
;-)
Lourens
From: "MXP" max_perl@post11.tele.dk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 500 CM or not...
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004
The problem is when you buy a 500C/M 2nd hand you don't know how
and how much it has been used. It could have shoot many many rolls e.g.
20.000 is not a unrealistic no. of rolls. for a prof. photographer over some years.
A good thing is to look at is the wheel which advances the film in the magazine.
It is looks in good condition and has sharp edges on the tooths it is a good sign. Also
try the mirror lockup a no. of times. You should not push the knop very hard before the
mirror prefire.
The first 500C/M I got was a very old one. I paid USD 100 for it and after have used it
in a couple of months without any problems I send it to be checked at Hasselblad. It was just
before a journey to Australia and I wanted to be sure the camera was 100% OK.
It costed me USD 200 and I got a nearly brand new 500 C/M. I could see the
tooths wheel has been replaced ect. The prefire worked much better too.
I asked Hasselblad how often I should send the 500C/M to service. The said
that I should do it approx. every 2nd year if I shoot about 200-300 rolls every week. Thats
many.......
Max
"Alan Browne" alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca skrev
>
> ..so this evening at the phtotoclub I mention my desire to find a 500...
>
> ..the president of the club is an 'ole feller and he says "don't do it,
> they're always broken." Now I know that Hasselblads break.... they're
> mechnical machines... but how bad is it... how many rolls per break, or
> how many months between breaks and how much of a hassle (!) to get
> fixed? I'll be using the camera for studio, still life and scenics. It
> will be treated quite gently...
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.
From: "Tony Spadaro" tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: New lens oddities I picked up today
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004
Take for instance Jay Maisel who owned 16 Fs and F2s because the general rule was
4 to use
4 on the way to the shop
4 in the shop
4 on the way back from the shop
The F3 greatly increased reliability as did the F4 and F5, cutting down the
numbers he owned progressively until by the time he went Digital he felt
safe with two D1s.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
From: Lourens Smak smak@wanadoo.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 500 CM or not...
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004
"McLeod" cervezas61@sympatico.ca wrote:
> I have used at least 5 different medium format systems in the last 20 years
> and by far Hasselblad is the strongest and most durable camera I have ever
> used, bar none.
That's funny because my experience is exactly the opposite. In over 15
years of professional photography I have used Bronica SQ, Fuji GX,
Rollei 6000, Mamiya RB, and Hasselblad. The number of
Hasselblad-failures I had is easily much larger than all other systems
combined. I've had problems with absolutely anything that had a
Hasselblad badge on it, from focusing screens to backs to bodies to
flash-contacts, shutters and apertures.
I would never recommend someone to spend their hard-earned life's
savings on an older one. (But then again, much H'blad gear is hardly
used over the years; make sure you buy from an elderly rich dentist
amateur photographer or so, if it has to be an old camera.)
;-)
Lourens
From: Lourens Smak smak@wanadoo.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 500 CM or not...
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004
Alan Browne alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca wrote:
> > ..the president of the club is an 'ole feller and he says "don't do it,
> > they're always broken."
> Thanks to all that replied. Looks positive. Club Pres must be a friend
> of Lourens...! ;-))
My story is one from experience, I didn't hear your club pres talking at
the bar... ;-)
I'm a studio photographer from the Netherlands. (advertising, product
catalogs, that stuff.) I have used many different Hasselblad bodies, and
lenses from 24 (the ultra-rare one) to 500mm over the years, not just
owned and pampered a specific example. They wear out if you use them a
lot. (fair enough...) But, I've also had a brand-new (2 weeks actually)
50mm with a failing shutter.
The "built like a tank" stuff really is a bit over the top, if you ask
me; photo-club bar-talk....
;-)
Lourens
From: "McLeod" cervezas61@sympatico.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 500 CM or not...
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004
"Alan Browne" alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca wrote
> ..the president of the club is an 'ole feller and he says "don't do it,
> they're always broken." Now I know that Hasselblads break.... they're
> mechnical machines... but how bad is it... how many rolls per break, or
> how many months between breaks and how much of a hassle (!) to get
> fixed?
I have used at least 5 different medium format systems in the last 20 years
and by far Hasselblad is the strongest and most durable camera I have ever
used, bar none. The 500CM is built like a tank. If you don't believe me
pick one up and just try it. The only failures I have ever seen in 20 years
have usually been the backs, which is also the weak point in any medium
format system. It's not a catastrophe, the spacing usually just starts to
become erratic.
Other problems I have seen with the camera have always been caused by
operator error, usually putting an uncocked lens on a cocked body and vice
versa. Look inside the camera body from the back with the mirror up and
baffles open and look at the screw dead center just under the opening for
the lens. If it's all scratched up then it has been jammed a few times,
which doesn't necessarily mean bad news, just that the previous owner was a
hamfist.
Do you know who owned it before? In Canada, the 500 CM was used extensively
by government and military photographers and a lot of used ones on the
market were used very hard by a lot of people. Lisle-Kelco used to sell
these, but they recently went out of business or bankrupt, which is why I'm
asking.
If you are buying the 50mm wideangle shoot some film through it before
buying it. This lens quite often is unsharp at the edges. Every other lens
for this camera will take your breath away.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Costs for photography
From: "Tom Thackrey" use.signature@nospam.com
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004
jfopie@freenet.de (John F. Opie) wrote:
> "Tom Thackrey" use.signature@nospam.com wrote:
> {snip}
>
> >It's hard to compare them because a hard drive has a service life, that is
> >if you run it for some period of time (usually about 5 years) it will
> >probably fail. It also has an MTBF, say 50,000 hours, which says that if you
> >run a 50 drives for 1000 hours the odds are one will fail. The only way
> >to
> >use a hard disk as a reliable backup is to use more than one, preferably in
> >a RAID array. If you use your external hard disk as a true backup, that is
> >you don't delete the originals when you back them up, it should work pretty
> >well. The danger is that your main disk will become corrupt and you won't
> >discover it until you've tried to make a backup on your external HD and the
> >process has corrupted or erased the backup disk.
>
> {snip}
>
> I see. According to your logic, if you take 50,000 drives and run
> them, a drive will fail within 1 hour?
Actually, I would bet that the probablility is very near 1.0 in this case
and I doubt if you'd have only one failure.
>
> Sorry, that's not what 50kh MTBF means. It means that the mean time
> before failure is 50kh, i.e. 50% of all drives manufactured will have
> at least one significant failure of a component on the drive that
> makes the drive unusable by 50kh. That doesn't mean that you won't
> have a drive arrive DOA, nor that you might well get 500kh from a
> drive, but rather simply that any given drive of that particular model
> will with a 50% likelihood last at least that long.
I once did QA on hard disks and I can assure you that MTBF numbers are
created by running a number of drives for a relatively short period of time
and extrapolating. That's one reason drives have a service life in addition
to MTBF. The failure curve for hard disks is usually a U shape. Many
failures early and a sharp rise late.
From
http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/perf/qual/specMTBF.html
"To be interpreted properly, the MTBF figure is intended to be used in
conjunction with the useful service life of the drive, the typical amount of
time before the drive enters the period where failures due to component
wear-out increase. MTBF only applies to the aggregate analysis of large
numbers of drives; it says nothing about a particular unit. If the MTBF of a
model is 500,000 hours and the service life is five years, this means that a
drive of that type is supposed to last for five years, and that of a large
group of drives operating within this timeframe, on average they will
accumulate 500,000 of total run time (amongst all the drives) before the
first failure of any drive. Or, you can think of it this way: if you used
one of these drives and replaced it every five years with another identical
one, in theory it should last 57 years before failing, on average (though I
somehow doubt we'll be using 10 to 100 GB spinning-platter hard disk drives
in the year 2057."
> Given that 50kh is ca 5.7 years, that's not bad for continuous
> operation. Given that not all consumer PCs are on continuously, then
> you probably can get 10 years out of a drive.
If you never turn it on it will last forever. (Or be dead when you got it)
--
Tom Thackrey
www.creative-light.com
tom (at) creative (dash) light (dot) com
From: Alan Browne alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 500 CM or not...
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004
Bob Monaghan wrote:
{snipped}
>
> The 500cm series are a later model, and presumably have fewer problems
> (e.g., less dreaded jams ;-). Then again, 25 years is a long time, but
> problems tend to arise from use and abuse more than from years, and
> dis-use is a major problem for many cameras and esp. MF SLRs due to
> lubricants gumming up and so on, esp. with leaf shutter lenses etc.
>
> so you can't win ;-)
>
> grins bobm
I looked at the site that was linked in an earlier post in the thread.
MTBF for unspecified use is not terribly reliable as stats go. MTBF as
practiced in, for example aerospace, is operating hours. Most avioncs
systems have a clock built in for this purpose. For large aircraft, not
only flight-time and air-time are logged, but cycles (Take-offs/
landings) as well. Specific inspections and maintenance are tied to
each of these numbers.
For film cameras, "number of rolls (or frames) shot" would be a handy
reference. Canon touts 100,000+ frames for the EOS-1v, and Nikon brag
about some fellow in Germany with over 1,000,000 frames on their F5...
http://nikon.virtualpresscentre.co.uk/pressreleases/84.shtml although
this is probably on the right side of the bell curve, and the camera was
treated better than most.
So, the 1 fail per 7 years stat is interesting, but hard to judge for
relevancy.
Cheers,
Alan
[Ed. note: note correction in post below]
From nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004
From: jtom@dltec.net
To: nikon@photo.cis.to
Subject: [Nikon] shutter box
Hi all !
Let me say something !
Now I own an used D1x, and I was worry too about shutter life and I was
reading your posts about this, but I expect something like a MTBF and a
number ! :-)
Well,searching a little I read this, that cut&paste; here:
"The MTBF is not the expected life of a product such as a shutter. If the
product is repairable then the MTBF can be used. If it is not repairable
then other reliability indices can be uses such as MTTF (Mean Time To
Failure). Since the MTBF is derived from an exponential distribution, the
mean is not at the 50% point. The mean of an exponential distribution is
actually 37%. This means that 37% of the distribution is below the mean
and 63% is above the mean. This means that there is a 37% probability that
the product will operate without failure for a time equal to or greater
than the MTBF.
To use the MTBF we need not only the mean, but also a measure of the
distribution variance, usually the Standard Deviation of the population.
Additionally we also need to know the confidence that we want to report
the probability to, we may choose 0.95 or 0.90 etc.
I do not believe Nikon (or anyone else) publishes these figures. To use
MTBF you need more information. Remember it is only a reliability index,
and should be used as such. That is not to say the shutter will last for
that amount of actuations. You can only say that with x % confidence your
shutter is expected not to fail (with 37% probability) before the stated
MTBF. At this time you do not know either the the confidence interval used
or even the Standard Deviation of the population.
Cheers....now back to taking pictures
Ian"
the source can be reached here:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=8794
Best regards to all,
Josep Tomas
From nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004
From: Fernando Gleiser fgleiser@cactus.fi.uba.ar
To: nikon@photo.cis.to
Subject: Re: [Nikon] shutter box
jtom@dltec.net wrote:
> Hi all !
>
> "The MTBF is not the expected life of a product such as a shutter. If the
> product is repairable then the MTBF can be used. If it is not repairable
> then other reliability indices can be uses such as MTTF (Mean Time To
> Failure). Since the MTBF is derived from an exponential distribution, the
> mean is not at the 50% point. The mean of an exponential distribution is
> actually 37%. This means that 37% of the distribution is below the mean
> and 63% is above the mean. This means that there is a 37% probability that
> the product will operate without failure for a time equal to or greater
> than the MTBF.
This is not exactly true. it's true for some paricular cases, where the
failure rate doesn't change with time. For mechanical parts, which wear
out with use, the failure rate increases with time.
A shutter box MTTF can be derived from a normal distribution, in which case,
the mean is at the 50% point.
> To use the MTBF we need not only the mean, but also a measure of the
> distribution variance, usually the Standard Deviation of the population.
> Additionally we also need to know the confidence that we want to report
> the probability to, we may choose 0.95 or 0.90 etc.
>
> I do not believe Nikon (or anyone else) publishes these figures. To use
> MTBF you need more information.
Or buy a bunch of D70's and shoot them all until all their shutters fail :)
> Remember it is only a reliability index, and should be used as such. That
> is not to say the shutter will last for that amount of actuations.
Exactly.
Don't worry about it, unless you shoot tens of thounsands pictures a year.
Fer
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Mamiya 645 Question
> I guess what I would like to know is what problems were there with the
> "super" or the other models?
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000
From: clarck kent heuristica@yahoo.com
Subject: [NIKON] Re: FM vs. FE
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Shutter life span of Contax cameras
> From: "Kaisern Chen" kconeverest@hotmail.com
> Reply-To: contax@photo.cis.to
> Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001
> Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Shutter life span of Contax cameras
>
> Pretty sure it is a mistake, I thought the shutter should have been tested
> 100,000 cycles as did for most of other camera and for some professional
> model such as Nikon F5 or Canon EOS 1V were tested for 150,000 cycles.
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001
From: "Rogers" rogersnet@houston.rr.com
Subject: [NIKON] How many times has shutter been fired?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001
From: Martin Jangowski martin@jangowski.de
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Slow speed escapement question
> Hi
> Since I've been tinkering with cameras I haven't been
> able to decide whether to oil slow speed mechanisms
> or not. I've experimented with absolutely bone dry
> degreased mechanisms and have found the movement
> I've also been able to run them without trouble and
> apparently without undue wear.
> Using light machine oil works also, but if oil is used,
> it will without exception eventually evaporate and turn into
> gum mixed in with every particle of dirt it came into
> contact with. On the other hand, oiled mechanisms may
> last longer.What's the consensus on this?
> Javier
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001
From: Nikon Cameras NikonCameras@asean-mail.com
Subject: Aluminum blades
> wrote:
>My understanding is that the aluminum blades on the later FM2ns are
>an upgrade from the original Ti blades, more reliable/durable. The
>FM2 was the point at which they upgraded the focusing screen line and
>all FM2/FM2n cameras take the same screens as the FE2.
>
>godfrey
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: Contax number
>shutter (amazingly) works
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001
From: cd..@usa.net
Subject: Re: Reliability of Minolta
> What is the reliability of Minolta cameras as compared to the other
> major manufacturers?
Minolta Maxxum/Dynax 404si / Qtsi (?)
Nikon F60 / N60
Pentax MZ-30 / ZX-30
cd..
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001
From: "Mikko Niskanen" mikko.niskanen@turkuamk.fi
Subject: Re: Reliability of Minolta
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001
From: thepascoes@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Reliability of Minoltas
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 11 Jul 2001
Subject: Re: Minolta reliability, build-quality?
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren@bayarea.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: build quality & reliability Re: leica prod'n stats -
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" <qnu@worldonline.nl>
To: rmonagha@mail.smu.edu
Subject: Hasselblad Unjamming Tool
(medfmt.8k.com/mf/mtbf.html#survey)
Hello Bob,
I just read your "Camera Reliability and Mean Time Before Failure (MTBF)
Pages", and noticed you mention the "Hasselblad Unjamming Tool".
This "tool" gets more credit than it deserves. All one needs to unjam a
Hasselblad is a simple, run of the mill, small screwdriver. The "Hasselblad
Unjamming Tool" is a marketing hype, suggesting to people that you really do
need a special, purpose built, tool to accomplish the same, and, having done
so, extracting a far too high price for what basically still is a screwdriver. Bad.
And its (reported) existence suggests that the "Dreaded Hasselblad Jam" is a
bigger problem than it really is.
even a special Hasselblad "unjamming tool" for this purpose you can buy (or
make)" to something like "and it is even advisable to carry a small
screwdriver for this purpose"? [Ed. note: done in above text...]
I know how this tool is supposed to "help" in preventing damage to the lens.
But you would have to be extremely clumsy to slip far enough to damage the
lens when unjamming the camera. And to recock the lens shutter when the lens
is off the camera using a simple small coin (Hasselblad's intended way of
doing that) is safer still.
On the same topic, i often wonder about this Unjamming business and the
frequency of it being reported. I often suspect that a significant part of
it is (Hasselblad) psychology.
particular field (and you perhaps do agree that many people see the
Hasselblad that way (whether they are right is another matter)), and always
have desired to own themselves though they never seemed able to. It is, in
time, regarded as being an ideal of sorts. When the moment finally arrives
that this object of adulation falls within reach it needs to be brought back
to a more normal level, it needs to be mastered, quite literal (to overcome
the "i don't know where people find the courage to take this thing out of
the box"-syndrome).
needing you yourself, and not some distant persons wearing white coats, to
fix it again.
important, quite easy to fix) is the perfect occassion for such a
transitional rite. It elevates the photographer to the level ("been there,
done that") that previously had only been aspired, setting them apart from
the ones still only hoping to ever get there themselves. This makes it a
very desirable boast. So desirable one might even lie about it...
(Especially since there is absolutely no way of telling whether or not it is
true. And the "unjam" is so easy to do that it would be silly to doubt
anyone's ability to do so).
From: "Mike" NEDSNAKE@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: I really want to buy Bronica...But
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
I think repair frequency is a matter of the luck of the draw. For example I
have a friend who was neck deep in Pentax 67 equipment. He had a body in
the shop all the time. He told me one day he was dumping the P67 gear for
Hassy equipment, he did. during the first 18 months every one of the Hassy
bodies (2), every lens and all 5 magazines went in for warrantee repair.
Did he complain?......Nope not a peep. I often wonder what his reaction
would have been if it had been any other system. Magazines, no matter who
builds them, are more prone to failure then any other part of the system.
The Bronica magazines are on par with the newer Mamiya & Pentax magazines
when you look at the amount of "plastic". None of the critical parts are
made of "plastic" though. What I have found over the years is that one does
not CLA a magazine one over hauls them.
"Wayne Sircoulomb" wsircoulomb@kscable.com> wrote
> I own five Hasselblads right now and they all see some pretty heavy use.
> Cameras, lenses, and backs all go in every two to three years for
overhauls.
> My repairman sees my cameras a lot and does an excellent job on my
> maintenance. The two Bronicas I owned were for one year (I purchased them
> used) and were all in the shop at least once during that period. The
lenses
> gave me no problems. The biggest problem was with the Bronica backs. I
> even sent one back to KEH for warranty work and the repair guy told me
that
> I needed to trade my Bronica backs in for new ones at least once every
three
> years, that repairs were not always effective due to the abundance of
> plastic parts. I also noticed that repair parts for the Bronicas were
more
> expensive than for the Hasselblads.
>
> Wayne
>
> "T P" please.reply@newsgroup> wrote...
> > "Wayne Sircoulomb" wsircoulomb@kscable.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hasselblad, of course. I have used them both and you will get great
> > > pictures with either camera. But I like the Hasselblads better. And
my
> > > repairman agrees.
> >
> > If your repair man agrees, it can only be because he sees your
> > Hasselblads often and makes a huge profit on Hasselblad parts!
> >
> > I feel sure you didn't mean to say that.
> >
> > ;-)
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > TP
From: Lassi lahippel@ieee.orgies.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MTBF
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001
j-mhutch@shaw.ca wrote:
>
> MTBF is "mean time *before* failure".
No, it is mean time between failures, as standardised by the Pentagon.
See http://www.logsa.army.mil/alc/2b/DED/164.htm, for example.
-- Lassi
From: "eMeL" badbatz99@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Buying a Kiev 60 at Kievcamera.com?
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001
Stephe Thayer ms_stephe@excite.com> wrote...
> ...
> if I have
> to buy a new body every year for $200, that's less than what a CLA on a
> hassy system would be G> And don't think hassy's can't jam and need works
> too.
> ...
Tempted by you I went trough my records and...
In 25 years of use of a Hassy 500 C + chrome 80 and 150 plus two non-A
magazines (purchased well used!) the total maintenance/repair bill was
$125.00 (all of which was the fee for initial checkup/adjustments.)
In 17 years of use (and I mean USE!) of a 500 C/M body, 4 A-backs and 3 (4
at times) *T lenses, the total maintenance/repair bill was $690.00
In 3.5 years of use of Rolleiflex 6001, 6008i, 4 magazines, 4 lenses,
chargers, etc. the total repair/maintenance bill is zero.
If course this doesn't prove anything, but I'm the one G>ing now
:-)
Good shooting!
Michael
From: Jim Williams user@mail.email.server.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Reliability of Hasselblads?
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001
Can anyone give me some input?
I've been interested in getting a Hasselblad 500 series for some time.
I'm not a wedding photographer, but like shooting scenics and
portraits. (I'm not a professional, either.)
I like the 6x6 format and the Zeiss lenses, but I've read on photo.net
(particularly by Phillip Greenspun), that Hasselblads aren't very
reliable. He intimates that they need a lot of adjusting and
maintenance (going in the shop), etc.
Is this true? Are they as reliable as Rollei, Mamiya, Pentax 67, Fuji,
etc.?
Are the lenses that much better than, say, Pentax 67?
Thanks for any help. I'd really like to put my mind at ease.
Jim
From: "eMeL" badbatz99@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Reliability of Hasselblads?
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001
Jim Williams user@mail.email.server.net> wrote
> I've been interested in getting a Hasselblad 500 series for some time.
> I'm not a wedding photographer, but like shooting scenics and
> portraits. (I'm not a professional, either.)
>
> I like the 6x6 format and the Zeiss lenses, but I've read on photo.net
> (particularly by Phillip Greenspun), that Hasselblads aren't very
> reliable. He intimates that they need a lot of adjusting and
> maintenance (going in the shop), etc.
>
> Is this true? Are they as reliable as Rollei, Mamiya, Pentax 67, Fuji,
> etc.?
IMO Greenspun sometimes tells emotional stories of utter misery or joy with
very little factual information. I read him just like you should read this
message - with a barrel of salt (G) He fancies the "working pro" approach
with lots of use and abuse of the equipment, hence his conclusions. Every
camera requires repairs and adjustments under such conditions. OTOH I tend
to baby my equipment...
Before switching to Rolleiflex 6008i a couple of years ago, I had been a
long time Hassy user (since the 70s) and had very little problems with the
equipment other that doing stupid things, such as dropping a magazine on a
hardwood floor or sitting on the dark slide...
My transitional 500C - 500C/M camera (ca. 1973) never needed any
adjustments. The 500CM (1980(?)) developed a slight light leak in the
body-magazine coupling and was adjusted 3 times in 10 years but I was using
it every day...the 150 Sonnar's shutter was adjusted a couple of times and
the aperture ring on my 50 mm lens stopped working once. I jammed the body
once or twice and bent the filter ring of the 80 mm lens once. I had once a
mysterious breakdown on the 500 EL/M - the camera would fire only every
other press of the shutter, but it went away all by itself (was it
moisture..?) Well..that's about it - these were all my problems between 1974
and 1998.
For scenics and portraits you should be fine and your camera may never need
any adjustments or repairs! You may want to pick up a cheap, beat up extra
body (just in case - for all these times when your main body jams in the
middle of the Mojave desert) but treat is as an added insurance.
>
> Are the lenses that much better than, say, Pentax 67?
>
De gustibus...Zeiss lenses are very contrasty (with some exceptions...) bat
both Pentax and Zeiss are very sharp.
Good shooting!
Michael
From: david@meiland.com (David Meiland)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Reliability of Hasselblads?
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001
Xref: news.smu.edu rec.photo.equipment.medium-format:31968
I've had a fairly complete Hasselblad system for about 2 years and
have had occasion to have several repairs made. All of my gear was
bought used, and as far as I know, someone could have used it
professionally for 25 years before I got it. However, I have
-had 2 out of 3 A12 backs serviced for film spacing after having
maddening intermittent problems with overlap. One back required 2
attempts to make the repair right.
-had 1 out of 1 A16 back serviced to correct the function of the film
status signals.
-had a 500CM body fail to function correctly during a long trip. It
stopped closing the rear shutters completely after exposure, and
required removal of the back and a little prodding with a finger to
get them shut. I got all the shots I wanted, but had a repair bill
afterwards.
-had a C lens fail to time long exposures correctly. A CLA corrected
this.
-had ZERO problems with CF lenses. Mine are fairly old, I believe, and
work flawlessly.
-had zero light leaks in spite of how many I have heard of from
others.
Now, I use my cameras a lot, particularly on the road, and have had
lots of repairs made to other makes and models, also old and used.
However, I would not go to any important shoot without a couple of
spare Hassy backs, a spare body, and enough lenses to get me through.
The stuff will break and when it does you can't probably fix it
yourself. Fortunately, there is Brad.
---
David Meiland
Oakland, CA
From: rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Reliability of Hasselblads?
Date: 12 Aug 2001
if you use current hasselblads all the time, and have them annually
serviced as most heavy users esp. pros do, then they are very reliable...
if you use older models and if you don't use them very often, like maybe
for an annual trip, it is easy to forget all the details of operation.
Some of the early 500C models have greater tendency to hang-up and require
use of a tool/coin to unjam see unjamming hassys (3 pages listed at
mf/cameras.html - e.g., http://photoweb.net/pw_tech/hassy_unjam.html )
similarly, rarely used lenses may gum up lubricants etc. The biggest
errors are user errors in loading film and so on (film run thru paper side
up so no exposures etc.). On the older backs you have to do some tasks
like resetting counter which are easy to forget if not often used etc.
Again, a later auto-series back would eliminate this glitch too, but if
you buy an older model as an entry level kit, there are more issues to
mess up and chances for user errors so it varys by model and how much you
use them or like reading manuals before infrequent uses ;-)
Felts on the backs also wear out if you constantly pop in and out the dark
slide (and the slides should be black so they don't reflect light into the
back and onto film when this starts to happen, aargh! ;-). or if you store
the backs with the dark slide in and compress felts etc.
the 500EL and EL/M have issues with battery charging, memory of cells etc.
as well as possible glitches in settings during charging, confusing
control labels (now which one locks mirror up for single shots? hmm? ;-)
personally, I've had more CLAs done on my hassys and glitches than with
bronica S2 or Kowa or other medium format rigs which get similar use; most
of this is due to having an earlier 500C vs later transitional or 500C/M
no camera system is perfect, nor perfectly reliable; nor foolproof; you
should be able to list some of the problems and missing features etc. of
any camera system as well as the advertised features and benefits - see
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/gindex.html for sample pros and cons by
pro photographer Danny Gonzalez to see a great example of such a
listing...
HTH bobm
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Reliability of Hasselblads?
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001
Jim Williams wrote:
> Is this true? Are they as reliable as Rollei, Mamiya, Pentax 67, Fuji,
> etc.?
Mr. Greenspun spins some ripping yarns. None of it is true.
If you don't use your Hasselblad professionally, and thus put relatively few
films through them (yet still quite a lot), they will work for 30 and more
years without even needing servicing. Ever.
And even if you do thoroughly put them through their paces, they probably
still outlive any of the brands you mention above. 30 year old, perfectly OK
Hasselblads are very abundant. You can't say the same about Fuji's or
Pentax's, can you?
> Are the lenses that much better than, say, Pentax 67?
They are extremely good.
The differences between the Zeiss lenses and the other top brands'
top-of-the-range lenses however are very small. So small in fact that it
would be very difficult to decide which one makes the better lens. So
nothing to worry about.
> Thanks for any help. I'd really like to put my mind at ease.
You can't go wrong buying Hasselblad.
from Leica Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001
From: "Jim Laurel" jplaurel@nwlink.com
Subject: Re: [Leica] System Compatibility and Equipment Reliability
Marc James Small wrote:
> So much for tales of gloom and doom and despair about Leica quality. This
> is the photographic equivalent of the brick shit-house.
I've said it before...Leicas are just like Land Rovers. It's not
uncommon, in my experience, to get a defective one right out of the box,
but once you get them sorted out, they are very durable and reliable. As
you all know, I've had to return 4 defective M6s and 1 R6.2 bought new
over the last 3 years for problems ranging from RF misalignment to shutter
bounce, shutter button lock up and electronics failures.
That's why NO ONE gets to touch my M6s but me! The pair I use normally
have been round the world at least 5 times and I trust them implicitly.
But if one gets damaged, I just know I'm in for another long process of
testing/returning/testing/returning, etc., until I find one that actually
works. Seems to happen to me every time!
Veering off topic:....
...
The Leica M is truly the Land Rover of the photographic world!
- --Jim Laurel