Anecdotal Accounts regarding Reliability of Things Made During the 1980s...

Sumarongi

Sumarongi

Registered Vaudevillain
Local time
3:13 PM
Joined
Feb 7, 2018
Messages
575
(Inspired by another post...)

In, say, 1988, 30 years ago, cameras had been becoming much much cheaper than in the 1950s, 1960s, or early 1970s. (Just compare the income data, and the difference becomes clearly visible.)

One of the reasons for the decreased prices: the makers had replaced heavy but sturdy mechanical parts with sometimes all too flimsy plastics and —— ditto electronics. (Notable exceptions are, as always, Leitz/Leica M, Hasselblad, and few others —— but of course, their cameras and lenses didn't become cheaper!)

Thus, thanks to lower prices, many more cameras were bought than previously, and consequently, the individual cameras were used —— less.

I strongly suppose many cameras —— even semi-pro and pro cameras —— from that period still work fine just because they haven't been used as much as one would have guessed.

That again, IMHO, is the main reason why many today erroneously think that they've built reliable cameras, then, *thirty years ago*.

Your thoughts?
 
I'll disagree to get the ball rolling! The Nikon F3 is better than anyone ever says it is and they say a lot. There were problems with some early Leica M6's but the run overall has been remarkable. I have an Olympus OM2n still going strong after some years of professional use when bought new in the early 1980s by my father. I did replace the light seals about ten years ago. One of the great developments after the 1950s has been the quality of lubricants. Many cameras will never be serviced or need servicing. Many cameras, Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Leica, Minolta of that era of the 1980s were overbuilt and can take more than most could throw at them, not just what they have thrown at them.
 
Reliability from the 80s is IMO related to the widespread use of electronics, which in their first instances weren’t always the best. Most of them worked and still work fine, there’s just a few bad apples that do what bad apples do.
 
Yup, I think if they fail it's usually electronics related, like the Nikon F3 meter readout etc., while the mechanical side was usually very mature and durable. So how much they were used wouldn't have much impact because the electronics die of age and maybe exposure but not from heavy use.
Lenses, I think, in many cases became more mechanically fragile due to use of plastics (thank you, Pentax, for not going that way until AF). Stupid because lenses should be forever, bodies can be replaced.
 
Damn, never seen m-dash used twice to show an m-dash. Usually a double dash is used when you can't use a proper m-dash. "--". Props to you for re-invention, and blowing my type nerd mind on Monday morning. Sorry for off-topic post. :confused:
 
In my experience newer electronics, including computer equipment, phones, and digital cameras from the 2000s and 2010s, are not reliable at all (sensors fail and can't be replaced, for example, or a chip or battery failure turns the camera or computer into a brick). Film cameras with simple electronics from the 80s can last a long time (especially if the electronics are only for metering or a non-essential display), and when they fail sometimes the circuits can be fixed. Not so much the ones with more complicated electronics.
 
The older cameras were built simpler and better compared to now, and prices generally work on a supply and demand economic basis. If the market was saturated with cameras, the prices go down because people look for a less expensive camera that still gives them what they want. A lot of the most popular cameras like the AE-1 and AE-1 Program from many years ago had electronics and are still chugging along. Reliability usually has more to do with design and quality, not usage. Those old cameras are awfully hard to kill!
 
AE-1 for example, more have died due to mechanical issues, not electronic ones. My family's AE-1 was used for over 20 years, before it finally succumbed to the dreaded shutter squeak and would lock up randomly. The electronics were still working perfectly at the time.
 
My old cameras, for the most part still work. They are mechanical.

The equipment being made now is, for me, much superior to any of my mechanical stuff. I’m amazed at the photographs I can make with my iPhone and iPad.

The early electronic assisted cameras left a lot to be desired. Although I thought it was quite an achievement when I bought a Nikkormat in 1972 and it has a TTL light meter.

I can remember when Popular Elevtronics in the 1970s had on its’ cover an I.C.chip made from Intel. Just for grins google the ic chip, intel, fairchild and others on the building of businesses that would become silicon valley.

Digital photography took a short time period to get going. It was the coming together of hardware, software and component manufacturing most notably the ic chips.

An early visionary had a device calked Newton. The idea, when the hardware and software caught up to Steve Jobs vision changed society with the iPhone.

At any rate, there was a period during the transformation of mechanical to electro/mechanical with growing pains. The visionaries had the vision it just took a while to turn their dreams into reality.

Info on Newton:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Newton

John Draper, a character, interesting read on silicon valley:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Draper

IC chip info:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit

Info on Fairchild:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Semiconductor

I find it interesting how photography has played a major role with the development of ic chips.
 
Remember that the late 1980s saw the increased use of autofocus. For the first time, there were autofocus cameras - F4 and EOS 1 - that were intended for professional use. For autofocus to work, the lens parts have to be lighter, and built to a somewhat sloppier tolerance, than the old brass and glass lenses. We used F4s for a number of years and found them anything but durable. The F5, however, lasted until we switched to digital. The autofocus lenses, however, lasted into the digital era and we used them hard at our newspapers.
 
The primary issue is batteries. We saw this with mechanical cameras with light meters when they discontinued mercury batteries. There are some kludgy workarounds but it is a problem for otherwise working cameras from the 1960s and 1970s. I fully expect my two digital cameras to be working in 30 years, except that the proprietary batteries will wear out long before then and replacements may not be available. Legacy memory cards also may be an issue. But cameras and lenses are just tools and can be replaced. They need not last decades. Technology moves too fast to worry about that. Day to day reliability in the near term is more important.
 
The "longevity", or to say "reliability after 30 years" as opposed to "reliability at the time they were on the market", of the low end cameras from the 1970s & 1980s may well be lower than those from the previous decades. At the time those cameras were marketed, they were reliable as a general rule.



Ruggedness suffered a bit in the cheaper offerings due largely to the plastic used, but often it was poor engineering that was realy to blame. A clear example can be seen when comparing Canon's P&S models (Sure Shots, ...) and Nikon's. Canon's worked fine is handled properly, but broke easily (particularily the back latches) while Nikon's could take a beating. I replaced hundreds of backs on Canon Sure Shots because of a broken latch hook and never replaced or repaired a single competing Nikon for similar problems. The plastics used in both cases were very similar. It was Nikon's engineering design that proved well suited for the materials chosen while Canon's was very very poor.
 
I took this photo 9 or 10 years ago before sending the meter in for a repair with one of my old Weston Master II's that needed rebalancing. Both are still going strong nowadays and no batteries required. I like having the complete outfit as if I bought them together new...

Leicameter-L.jpg



It's from the mid 1930's by the way and has a sticker underneath reminding me of the upgrade.

Regards, David
 
Last edited:
I have used heavily my two Nikon FE2 bodies purchased around 1987 and they are still going strong. Nikon replaced the seals, checked them, and said they met factory specs. I haven't personally been disappointed with anything made in the 1980's.
 
the most important factor in the reliability of electronics is storage. the right storage makes the difference between a working camera and a paper weight.

do all of the usual things: store in a cool, dark, dry (but not too dry), dust-free environment. take the batteries out. get those static shielding bags, too.
 
I think of all the cameras I've owned, the 1980s ones have been the most reliable. I've owned three Nikon F3s, F4, FA, various point and shoots like the Action Touch. All have worked fantastically. The same for my older Canon EOS bodies, when I was in that phase. My very first 35mm SLR was a ~1981 Pentax ME Super and for the decade I owned it, it performed flawlessly.

Phil Forrest
 
As far as I see, we have (so far) three factions:

1. Plastic (among other factors) is to blame, e.g:

Dwig said:
Ruggedness suffered a bit in the cheaper offerings due largely to the plastic used, but often it was poor engineering that was realy to blame. A clear example can be seen when comparing Canon's P&S models (Sure Shots, ...) and Nikon's. Canon's worked fine is handled properly, but broke easily (particularily the back latches) while Nikon's could take a beating. I replaced hundreds of backs on Canon Sure Shots because of a broken latch hook and never replaced or repaired a single competing Nikon for similar problems. The plastics used in both cases were very similar. It was Nikon's engineering design that proved well suited for the materials chosen while Canon's was very very poor.
Click to expand...

2. Electronics (of the 1980s) are to blame, e.g:

michaelwj said:
Reliability from the 80s is IMO related to the widespread use of electronics, which in their first instances weren’t always the best. Most of them worked and still work fine, there’s just a few bad apples that do what bad apples do.
Click to expand...

3. Electronics (of the 1980s) are *not* to blame, e.g:

olifaunt said:
In my experience newer electronics, including computer equipment, phones, and digital cameras from the 2000s and 2010s, are not reliable at all (sensors fail and can't be replaced, for example, or a chip or battery failure turns the camera or computer into a brick). Film cameras with simple electronics from the 80s can last a long time (especially if the electronics are only for metering or a non-essential display), and when they fail sometimes the circuits can be fixed. Not so much the ones with more complicated electronics.
Click to expand...

All the other statements are precious, too. (aizan's recommendation cannot be repeated often enough, I guess!)

Hm, so far no consensus in sight?!
 
I am aware that some compromises were made in that decade. Famously the Leica M4.2 was regarded as being a notch below the earlier Leicas in build quality due to the use of inferior materials including zinc top plate and plastic. I have no personal experience of the M4.2 but I did own an M4P and can say that I came to regard it as being of poorer quality than my M3. (But then again what camera is equal to that beauty?). I recall for example that the flash sync port assembly was poorly designed and made with a plastic interior mount which was inclined to crack and break away with use causing the port exterior assembly to fall off. For what was one of the most expensive 35mm cameras available I thought this intolerable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom