Too many problems?

[giellaleafapmu]

I follow several forums and, of course, have many friends who are photographers. Recently, I was noticing that I hear increasingly more and more problems associated to products which are supposed to be "!professional grade". I don't want to make a long list but many comes to mind. Nikon shutter oil problem (D7100, D600), Nikon glare problem (D750), Nikon IS problem (300mm f4.0), Nikon heating problem (SB900), Leica sensor problem (M8 and M9, although not the same one), Leica not having spare LCD screens, Leica card problem (recently reported in this forum), Olympus AF motor breaking down (50-200mm), Olympus OS problem (OM 5, I believe), Sony translucent screen problems (A77 and A99)... I didn't mention Canon or Fuji because I know nothing of them and I don't want this to become a post against or in favour of certain maker but isn't it a bit too long a list considering they are all professional or semi-professional articles? Is the whole industry getting so bad?

GLF

 

[nikon_sam]

Most likely Sales has a bigger vote than R&D...

 

[Godfrey]

Film cameras had similar kinds of problems. We tend to forget that since film camera introductions have slowed to a dribble since the middle 1990s and most of what survives as interesting and useable cameras are the more robust ones now. Also, the data about these problems in the pre-internet age was not always immediately broadcast by every and any unhappy enthusiast; those that were affected went to the manufacturer who took care of them and quietly rolled an update into the production line if the problem showed up often enough.

My impression, from the fifty some years I've been doing photography, is that little has actually changed other than the amount of noise and outrage expressed because of the access to fast, pervasive communications by the users. This is what the engineering of complex, high precision equipment in large quantities has always been like.

G

 

[giganova]

Theses sort of problems have always existed, but now we have Internet forums and web sites that bring attention to these problems.

 

[shadowfox]

We may have more variety of problems due to the coupling between a computer and a camera.

But, we also get the ability for manufacturers to release firmware that upgrades or enhance the ability of the camera without us having to send the camera anywhere.

I think it's a fair trade.

 

[zuiko85]

I think the easy availability of a public form certainly is a factor.
Lets say 200 people buy a certain camera, a DSLR for instance.
Ten people, 5% detect a problem with that camera. Odds are the forums will be alive with that chatter. But do the other 190 persons post to tell they are having no problems? Perhaps not. So the impression is that there are many problems with that particular model.

Of course it does seem that companies often take a position of 'deny, deny, deny, if there is a series problem. Then, when the hew and cry become a roar then they reluctantly admit that there is a design error or some other series problem.

 

[btgc]

Cameras, yes, they have issues. Still far behind from what I hear from Android phone users.

 

[JHutchins]

A camera is a complex set of unrelated systems (in the sense that expertise in one doesn't imply expertise in all) being bought to market in a time of rapid technological advance. Stuff is going to be wrong often. That's just reality. It's a fundamental fact of product testing that the larger the test group the more problems you will see and between even the largest test group and the market there's a gap that will reveal flaws.

 

[codester80]

I'm interested to hear about the problems professional grade film cameras had upon their release to the market "back in the day". I'm not familiar with any problems systemic to a particular model unlike some of the problems listed by the OP plaguing certain makes and models.
I'm aware of complains about functionality and form factor of certain cameras upon their release but those are subjective particular to the individual photographer and not a component or manufacturing failure.

 

[mfogiel]

The more complex a camera, the more problems, it's a law of probability. Only pinhole cameras have no problems. Personally I do not shoot digital, but if I did, I'd be buying cameras new and selling them as soon as the warranty expires.

 

[btgc]

Only pinhole cameras have no problems.

Pinch the taking hole with a nail and bokeh gets really ugly 😀

 

[JP Owens]

Perhaps our expectations are just much higher than they used to be.

I remember when a car with 70,000 miles on it was pretty much toast. Materials were such that revolving parts were trashed, and rusted out metal bodies were a fact of life. Now, I have a 13 year old Jeep with over 200,000 miles on it that is still going strong, and has had nothing but normal maintenance. Still looks great, too.

Cameras broke back in the day, too. My Nikon F's were built like trucks; but, 50 or 60 thousand exposures and the shutters were worn out. I've seen Canon 1D MkIV's with over a million exposures on them, and they were still going. Even consumer level digital cameras are good for at least 100,000 exposures these days. Modern photographers, though, are likely to have replaced the camera with another one long before they hit 100,000 frames.

And, as has been noted, modern cameras are incredibly complex, and dependent on software, which basically means there are going to be firmware updates. Unless, of course, you are Sony, who produces so many new cameras so fast that they simply update the camera, rarely the firmware.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

And you can add a lot of film cameras to the list that are/were electronic and, of course, the older mechanical ones that are suffering from old age or problems with minor electrics. Then there's the owners who believe they can repair them and the sellers who haven't noticed the problems and the makers who can't be bothered to stock spare parts. And there's all those lovely cameras that you can't get film for and so on and so forth...

Regards David

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

I see what the OP brings up as a part of a much worse trend: there's barely any photography left in photography forums. The little of it that's still there, is diluted among millions of threads focusing on specs, gear performances, technical problems, etc..

 

[richard_l]

I am not inclined to make excuses for the problems. The manual film Leicas are fairly dependable, as are those from other manufacturers. As for digital, I waited until most of the votes were in, and got a Leica D-Lux 4 (rebadged Panasonic) and later a Leica X2, both of which have been thoroughly dependable and a joy to use. The 'latest and greatest' digital cameras seem to have been put on the market in a rush to beat the competition, and it shows in their deplorable QC (and this, to my sorrow, includes Leica). I intend to wait a bit until things settle down, and then either upgrade if it seems reasonable, or else just stick with what I've got.

 

[dave lackey]

😛The more they overthink the plumbing the more likely you will be standing in a pool of sewage when you flush the toilet.

Or, if you are a Star Trek fan (I am certainly not):
"Scotty: The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."

 

[richard_l]

😛The more they overthink the plumbing the more likely you will be standing in a pool of sewage when you flush the toilet.....

It certainly seems so. Whenever dependability is an issue, stick to the tried and true.

 

[JP Owens]

Who needs to talk about art when my camera has 100 "Art" filters built right in! Tap the back twice and I'm an artist!! Tap it again and my art is on exhibition on all my social network feeds. 1,000 Likes before I finish my expresso.

 

[richard_l]

It's much easier to talk about the technical side. It's a real shame there isn't more discussion about art, there are a number of very talented and, I think, serious photographers posting here on RFF.

That's a good point. The camera is a means to an end, and that is visual art, which is the reason I took up photography in the first place. The camera is merely a tool, and it can never be as dependable as paint and brushes. However, anyone interested in photography as an art needs to have a medium on which they can depend. Thus reliability of camera equipment is a valid issue.

 

[JP Owens]

Rangefinders will always be relatively fragile cameras because the rangefinder mechanism itself depends on precision. A hard knock and a rangefinder can get out of adjustment in ways that aren't always apparent to the user until the photos come back when it's a film camera. In that sense, digital has helped, because by chimping you can tell immediately if something is wrong.