pb908
Well-known
What do you think of that word guys?
I think that a reliable rangefinder is what everybody want here, but before we have too much debate of which one is,
i was stumbled on the word "reliable" itself.
I read here and there, alot of camera maker proclaim that their product are reliable one, but still i read that things do fail.
What do you think of "reliable" word?
Is reliable RF means:
1. It never fails and should be never fails? (but man made do fail aren't they?)
2. It should never fails up to a period of time since you buy it?
3. A good service support should be ready to fix it asap when it fails(reduce RF downtime)
4. Cheap enough for you to have more than one as a backup when the main is failing
5. Something simple enough that you can fix yourself
6. Something that the producer/maker warant for a period of time (10year maybe) and offer new direct replacement if it fails?
7. Something that survive a test of reliability? (but is there any benchmark test we can use for all, like a drop test from 3meter to street floor, or banging around in your car container in your trip, or a test in heat and cold for a month)
8. Something that can be fix by all camera service person? (like common simple design product)
9. Build like a metal brick, undestrucable?
10. What is your thought?
In dslr term, we know that there are benchmarking system to test the camera either mechanically, electronically, or in such a bad shooting condition real life test, so we know which one is the reliable one (different people have different opinion of course)
But in Rf, i don't think that kind of reliability test exist (maybe just user experience over years). The company maker it self never show us how much percentage of failure during a period of time when they release the product, or after a period of time of use, so how do people know which one is reliable enough?
For me, the one which reliable enough is the one I can fix my self, a simple mechanism that is proven good over time, and a lot of spare part i can cheaply junk from, over years..an example: a folder RF MF, it is just a dark box for your film, it has only simple yet reliable winding mechanism, fully thick metal body, simple leaf shutter mechanism, no batery, no automation, keep it stupid simple!
Please share your opinion..
I think that a reliable rangefinder is what everybody want here, but before we have too much debate of which one is,
i was stumbled on the word "reliable" itself.
I read here and there, alot of camera maker proclaim that their product are reliable one, but still i read that things do fail.
What do you think of "reliable" word?
Is reliable RF means:
1. It never fails and should be never fails? (but man made do fail aren't they?)
2. It should never fails up to a period of time since you buy it?
3. A good service support should be ready to fix it asap when it fails(reduce RF downtime)
4. Cheap enough for you to have more than one as a backup when the main is failing
5. Something simple enough that you can fix yourself
6. Something that the producer/maker warant for a period of time (10year maybe) and offer new direct replacement if it fails?
7. Something that survive a test of reliability? (but is there any benchmark test we can use for all, like a drop test from 3meter to street floor, or banging around in your car container in your trip, or a test in heat and cold for a month)
8. Something that can be fix by all camera service person? (like common simple design product)
9. Build like a metal brick, undestrucable?
10. What is your thought?
In dslr term, we know that there are benchmarking system to test the camera either mechanically, electronically, or in such a bad shooting condition real life test, so we know which one is the reliable one (different people have different opinion of course)
But in Rf, i don't think that kind of reliability test exist (maybe just user experience over years). The company maker it self never show us how much percentage of failure during a period of time when they release the product, or after a period of time of use, so how do people know which one is reliable enough?
For me, the one which reliable enough is the one I can fix my self, a simple mechanism that is proven good over time, and a lot of spare part i can cheaply junk from, over years..an example: a folder RF MF, it is just a dark box for your film, it has only simple yet reliable winding mechanism, fully thick metal body, simple leaf shutter mechanism, no batery, no automation, keep it stupid simple!
Please share your opinion..
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
Easy.
1. It should NEVER fail.
You talk only rangefinders, but this holds for all cameras. My M2 has proven to be not reliable, not even after a CLA by respected repairman. Of my extensive fleet of old manual cameras the Nikons stand out. They simply never break, unless I drop them and even then only maybe. I wish everything in life was so reliable as my Nikon FM.
That having said, there are no cameras yet that I got fed up with as a user camera so far. In fact the M2 comes closest, but it is also the oldest.
1. It should NEVER fail.
You talk only rangefinders, but this holds for all cameras. My M2 has proven to be not reliable, not even after a CLA by respected repairman. Of my extensive fleet of old manual cameras the Nikons stand out. They simply never break, unless I drop them and even then only maybe. I wish everything in life was so reliable as my Nikon FM.
That having said, there are no cameras yet that I got fed up with as a user camera so far. In fact the M2 comes closest, but it is also the oldest.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
(1) Keeps on working, AND
(2) Reparable when eventually it does fail (as everything made by man will, one day).
Cheers,
R.
(2) Reparable when eventually it does fail (as everything made by man will, one day).
Cheers,
R.
pb908
Well-known
I agree with you,
1. It should never fail !!
But as thing do fails, is there any other point to support the reliability factor?
In the past when I work in a remote area, i want to have a phone which can stand a lot of rough condition, water resistance, shock absorber, etc.. And it was costly at that time that i could't even buy a used one. So at the end i bought just cheap simple phone, for phone and sms. I use it everyday, drop it many times, use it in a humid, dirt and hot condition, and yet it survived up to now. Something reliable may not be the expensive one.
Maybe a zorki can survive better (or easily to be replaced) than a leica? Who knows..
1. It should never fail !!
But as thing do fails, is there any other point to support the reliability factor?
In the past when I work in a remote area, i want to have a phone which can stand a lot of rough condition, water resistance, shock absorber, etc.. And it was costly at that time that i could't even buy a used one. So at the end i bought just cheap simple phone, for phone and sms. I use it everyday, drop it many times, use it in a humid, dirt and hot condition, and yet it survived up to now. Something reliable may not be the expensive one.
Maybe a zorki can survive better (or easily to be replaced) than a leica? Who knows..
Mackinaw
Think Different
Easy answer. The camera works when I want it to.
Jim B.
Jim B.
mtargz
Established
What's reliable in my book?
A) The basics - film transport, lens-mount, body casing (and electronics, if applicable) are rock-solid. Film transport should be as simple as possible, while designed to reduce wear - I don't see any reason for it to fail, especially in 35mm cameras. Lens-mount and body-shell should, if possible, be made out of as few parts as possible, and interconnected as sturdily as possible to maintain alignment.
B) The more complicated features - shutter, rangefinder, viewfinder - should stay within spec for as long as possible, and be easily adjustable if need be: Calibration (rangefinder, shutter-speeds) via easily accessible screws, and the individual assemblies to be replaceable. A cloth shutter does not fit my view of reliable.
C) Easily serviceable, or has a good support-system. If my Mamiya C330 fails, any watchmaker can repair the shutters. If a Canon/Nikon fails, there's a big support-net to help me.
And D) Is a little more difficult to design but: A camera designed so that if a part fails, you could basically tape it up and keep shooting. Of course, if the shutter seizes/falls apart, it won't do much good - but I mean things such as backup mechanical speeds, wind & rewind on electro cameras, replaceable viewfinders and screens on SLRs, and a camera-back that you can just gaffer-tape back into place.
After reading this, I realize a Nikon F3 fits most of my requirements for an SLR. The Mamiya C330 certainly fits it. Dunno how my Hexar RF fits in this - it's quite sturdy and reliable electromechanically, but the rangefinder needs realignment.
A) The basics - film transport, lens-mount, body casing (and electronics, if applicable) are rock-solid. Film transport should be as simple as possible, while designed to reduce wear - I don't see any reason for it to fail, especially in 35mm cameras. Lens-mount and body-shell should, if possible, be made out of as few parts as possible, and interconnected as sturdily as possible to maintain alignment.
B) The more complicated features - shutter, rangefinder, viewfinder - should stay within spec for as long as possible, and be easily adjustable if need be: Calibration (rangefinder, shutter-speeds) via easily accessible screws, and the individual assemblies to be replaceable. A cloth shutter does not fit my view of reliable.
C) Easily serviceable, or has a good support-system. If my Mamiya C330 fails, any watchmaker can repair the shutters. If a Canon/Nikon fails, there's a big support-net to help me.
And D) Is a little more difficult to design but: A camera designed so that if a part fails, you could basically tape it up and keep shooting. Of course, if the shutter seizes/falls apart, it won't do much good - but I mean things such as backup mechanical speeds, wind & rewind on electro cameras, replaceable viewfinders and screens on SLRs, and a camera-back that you can just gaffer-tape back into place.
After reading this, I realize a Nikon F3 fits most of my requirements for an SLR. The Mamiya C330 certainly fits it. Dunno how my Hexar RF fits in this - it's quite sturdy and reliable electromechanically, but the rangefinder needs realignment.
Darshan
Well-known
...when it doesn't fail at a critical moment.
nobbylon
Veteran
Agreed, and that I can take it anywhere and not worry about it failing. Once something fails me, even when fixed, I never truly trust it again.
It's the same with anything, cars, boats, dishwashers etc etc. And it's usually electrical hence the reason so many Leica's, Nikon's, Pentax etc are still working. They used quality metal and engineering.
The minute you introduce complex electrics into something there is more chance of failure.
It's a simple formula for reliability really, good quality components whether mechanical or electrical and good assembly and quality control.
Mechanically I think Leica's are superb, electrically they have proven over the years to be in certain circumstances, fragile.
I think it's unacceptable to spend a fortune on a camera and then have to carry a back up for it.
Off topic I know but I'm hoping Leica were having a good day when they made my M9 and in all honesty one really shouldn't need to be hoping!
pb908
Well-known
quite impressive design, yet simple. I agree that simplicity is one key for reliability.
I have hexar RF as well,and adjusting RF is not that complicated to do yourself. If you want it i can share how to do it, off the topic/forum. So you can test later on how good it hold the alignment for years to come
I think, to heat up the thread more and more, at the end of your opinion, all of you should let us know what camera is reliable for you and prove it why it is.
For me:
+ bessa II folder, so simple manual mechanism, thick metal built, hard drop tested and survived! At least that is what i have drop tested
+ and i am willing to drop test my zorki 3M if my friend willing to do the same with his leica m3..ha..ha..ha..
if there is a common benchmark of reliability test for all rf, people will see the truth, not by the hype which was created by people opinion.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
N I K O N ... but I don't like the look of them much.
mtargz
Established
quite impressive design, yet simple. I agree that simplicity is one key for reliability.
I have hexar RF as well,and adjusting RF is not that complicated to do yourself. If you want it i can share how to do it, off the topic/forum. So you can test later on how good it hold the alignment for years to come
I've got the guides, I just need to buy the screwdrivers and do it. All the trained repairmen here answered "we don't touch analogue" (I cheekily argued that phrasing with the first), and the 'old-school' guys are sometimes so full of themselves (and rightfully so - the guy repaired 2 Seiko shutters before my eyes!) that I wouldn't trust them to consult a manual before messing with my electromechanical wunderkid.
Also worth an honorable mention: The Praktica SuperTL1000 I have. I dropped it, dragged it across rain and desert - and yet it works. With the single contact M42 lenses have (the stop-down pin), it's pretty bulletproof as far as lens-mounting goes. The meter works with every battery (Wheatstone Bridge circuits!), the metal shutter won't break or burn that easily, and 1/1000s is quite decent, for it's day. It still looks new! I don't use it that often these days - rangefinders do the bulk of my shooting - but I know that if I need it, it's there. Among my M42 collection, I also have a rather well-constructed 135mm f/3.5 Jupiter-37A lens that could take any Leica lens down in a fight for focusing-feel and operation smoothness.
chris00nj
Young Luddite
Interesting question.
Reliability to me is that if I had two with me on vacation, there would be a 0.000000% chance that both would fail.
Reliability to me is that if I had two with me on vacation, there would be a 0.000000% chance that both would fail.
mwooten
light user
When I mash the button, pull the trigger, flip the switch, I want it to do what it is suppose to do--every time.
gavinlg
Veteran
If I put it in a lightly padded bag with 2-3 lenses and travelled around the world, roughing it and constantly banging it round, using it in rain and dust and extreme conditions, dropping it every now and then, and it still works without fault, I deem it as reliable.
My 5d has been this for me.
My 5d has been this for me.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
REALITY CHECK
Nothing is 100% reliable.
Sooner or later, any made thing breaks or wears out. Even Nikon Fs, possibly the most reliable cameras ever made. I've encountered very few mechanical problems in the 35+ years I've had Fs (apart from Photomic heads, of course), and about the same number, in the same length of time, with Leica Ms. I've had ONE incapacitating problem (jammed advance on an M2) in all that time. Likewise I've had ONE incapacitating problem (rewind knob dropped off) on any modern Bessa 35mm since they came out.
But that's just me. I know others who've had better luck, and who've had worse.
Anyone who expects greater reliability than the kind of thing I have experienced is living in a fantasy world. If your cameras have never broken down, then you've been lucky; you don't use them very hard; you've not kept them very long; or any combination thereof.
Of course, on the internet, we hear about ALL failures, especially from the embittered, the ham-fisted, the fanatically mean buyers of clapped-out gear, and the hard of thinking. Cameras can fail for anyone, at any time, but the people whose cameras work are not, for the most part, those who post reliability statistics.
Cheers,
R.
Nothing is 100% reliable.
Sooner or later, any made thing breaks or wears out. Even Nikon Fs, possibly the most reliable cameras ever made. I've encountered very few mechanical problems in the 35+ years I've had Fs (apart from Photomic heads, of course), and about the same number, in the same length of time, with Leica Ms. I've had ONE incapacitating problem (jammed advance on an M2) in all that time. Likewise I've had ONE incapacitating problem (rewind knob dropped off) on any modern Bessa 35mm since they came out.
But that's just me. I know others who've had better luck, and who've had worse.
Anyone who expects greater reliability than the kind of thing I have experienced is living in a fantasy world. If your cameras have never broken down, then you've been lucky; you don't use them very hard; you've not kept them very long; or any combination thereof.
Of course, on the internet, we hear about ALL failures, especially from the embittered, the ham-fisted, the fanatically mean buyers of clapped-out gear, and the hard of thinking. Cameras can fail for anyone, at any time, but the people whose cameras work are not, for the most part, those who post reliability statistics.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Reliability in a computer is 5 year mean time between failure. I have a twelve-year computer that continues to work and I use it everyday. It has a 17 year old 1GByte hard drive in it.
Classic Mechanical cameras were built to last a lifetime. Of course, the ones I use are older than I am so they have met their design goals and can fail at anytime. That's what a repair is for.
Classic Mechanical cameras were built to last a lifetime. Of course, the ones I use are older than I am so they have met their design goals and can fail at anytime. That's what a repair is for.
Film dino
David Chong
Indeed, on the internet we get (unreliably at that) the numerator figure, with usually no denominator statistic, so a reliability assessment isn't really possible, even without the variables that Roger mentions
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Brian,
Beautifully phrased, and superbly elegant; but statistically disputable, because your life isn't over yet. After all, I'm 60, my IIIa is 76, and my father is 83. To last a lifetime, a camera need only survive a few hours, like a baby that dies just after birth. To last any lifetime, on best evidence so far, you'd need over 120 years (1891, so my Gandolfi Universal might conceivably qualify).
To use the Common Book of Prayer (I think, or it might be the Bible, I'm too lazy to check), 'For the days of man are threescore years and ten'. That's a long and misleading MTBF, as mean human life expectancy has historically been a lot lower, though 70 years might be a fair description of the design life...
Cheers,
R.
willie_901
Veteran
Real Simple
Real Simple
All it means is I only need one back up body instead of two.
Real Simple
All it means is I only need one back up body instead of two.