When CLA is not a must (with caution)

[JPiettro]

Hello friends. Haven't posted here in quite a while.

Suppose you get off eBay a nice looking, clean and apparently completely functional camera. You intend to shoot a roll of film with it (for starters).
- You fire the shutter: all speeds are OK (maybe you even precision check it)
- You check the RF and focus - seems correct
- You advance the film transport - good
- The focus ring is a little stiff but OK

In which case, maybe with some specific camera makes and models you'd safely decide to delay the CLA and use the camera as is (for that test roll of film)?

It's probably wise to invert the above question and ask: for which cameras you would absolutely NOT attempt using them before CLA is complete?

I know a few specific cases when CLA is a must:
- Retina Reflex models (complex shutter mechanism is prone to failure if not CLA'ed first)
- Argus C-Four (CLA the shutter first to unload the small hardened steel lever in the shutter release mechanism - even better not try to test the shutter before the CLA, don't be tempted to take chances on that).

By the way I'm talking about budget cameras before 1970-s. Think of:
- ZI Contaflex, Contessa
- Voigtlander Vito, Prominent
- Agfa (Super) Silette, Karat
- Voss Diax; Braus Paxette; Franka's; Iloca's; King Regula's; etc.
- Konica (I, II, III); Olympus, Minolta, Aires, "35's" etc.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

For what it’s worth (not much, sample size too small) every Aires (in your list) camera I’ve had (2 x 35mm bodies and 1 TLR) have likely never had a CLA in their decades long life, and all worked fine the time I owned them, in every aspect. Some people have a CLA fetish and acquire cameras as you described (everything seems to be working fine) and automatically send it in for a CLA by someone who may or may not make it worse (let’s be honest) and be without it for months perhaps, without even trying the camera by running a roll of film through it to see for themselves if it “works” or not. Just seems a bit needlessly OCD, if not counterproductive.
Cameras with known issues which were made with known failure prone parts, or low quality, quick hardening, grease probably deserve to be addressed this way, but most don’t, in my experience. Some people tend to assume that everything needs a CLA just because it’s old, never run a roll through it to see if it works, send it off and get it back working and assume they thus did the right thing, so it’s a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts. Film isn’t that expensive, just run a roll of film through it and see for yourself if it works. If it doesn’t, then send it for repair. If it does, you just saved some money and time. And learned something as well.

But, as far as this thread goes, it would be nice to have an accurate list of those cameras with known, and agreed upon, issues.
I’d personally invert the question and ask when is a CLA actually needed, not when is it not needed.

 

[kshapero]

...Suppose you get off eBay a nice looking, clean and apparently completely functional camera. You intend to shoot a roll of film with it (for starters).
- You fire the shutter: all speeds are OK (maybe you even precision check it)
- You check the RF and focus - seems correct
- You advance the film transport - good
- The focus ring is a little stiff but OK/quote]

Why a CLA if all the above is true? Take a test roll and see for sure. Many a CLA has been performed when not needed.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

In a nutshell, expect a CLA; if the camera works when you get it, great, but don't hold your breath. You may need to unload your film in a changing bag if any number of things go wrong. Aside from a very select few from this category (largely fixed lens, leaf shutter cameras) I wouldn't put much money into them. Some of them have great lenses but there are enough of them that you can learn to service them yourself (Kodak Retina, Ansco Karomat, Agfa Karat). Other cameras are more complicated and should be gone over by a tech unless you have the specific experience (Voitglander Prominent, Voigtlander Vitessa.) The Vitos simply aren't worth the expense to have CLAd. Again, probably a great opportunity to learn some specific camera repair.

Phil Forrest

 

[madNbad]

I love Kodak Retinas but I also realize the last new rangefinder model was built over sixy years ago and most of them have been sitting in a closet for the last fifty. When I'm buying a seventy year old camera, I expect to have it serviced. I'm fortunate enough to live in a city that not only has several repair shops but two of them are within walking distance of my home.

 

[JPiettro]

I... The Vitos simply aren't worth the expense to have CLAd. Again, probably a great opportunity to learn some specific camera repair.

Phil Forrest

Quoting only a specific point of your reply: Why is it Vito?
Are they too complicated to be serviced while being very modest in their specs?
Vito's folders or Vito B (Vitomatic's as well)?

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Quoting only a specific point of your reply: Why is it Vito?
Are they too complicated to be serviced while being very modest in their specs?
Vito's folders or Vito B (Vitomatic's as well)?

It's just my personal opinion regarding most of the Vito line. The dime-a-dozen at thrift store fixed lens, scale focus cameras that have some of the best chrome ever put to metal. The viewfinders are also usually very nice. They can be an incredible pain to repair, for a scale focus camera with a decent-but-not-spectacular normal FL f/3.5 or maybe f/2.8 lens. The cameras tend to not be worth what the CLA cost is. If they have sentimental value, go for it, but they aren't great shooters to begin with.

Phil Forrest

 

[JPiettro]

Following you Vito example I'd think of excluding from the service a bunch of similar 'not worth the money' cameras:
- Ilocas; Paxettes; ZI Contina; Agfa Silette; Many early Japanese '35's' (Olympus 35, etc.) and many many more budget Prontor+Triplet German made cameras.

I'm actually only talking about DIY service, not the shop service.

I gave a specific example in my #1 post: Argus C-Four just to make a point that in some cases you don't really need to think of the CLA twice.

When I get a camera off eBay sent to my country from the US (I'm in Europe) the total cost of a nice Vito B example is around $80 on average.
Does it deserve to be serviced?
It's not your lucky US 'The dime-a-dozen at thrift store' thing!

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Following you Vito example I'd think of excluding from the service a bunch of similar 'not worth the money' cameras:
- Ilocas; Paxettes; ZI Contina; Agfa Silette; Many early Japanese '35's' (Olympus 35, etc.) and many many more budget Prontor+Triplet German made cameras.

I'm actually only talking about DIY service, not the shop service.

I gave a specific example in my #1 post: Argus C-Four just to make a point that in some cases you don't really need to think of the CLA twice.

When I get a camera off eBay sent to my country from the US (I'm in Europe) the total cost of a nice Vito B example is around $80 on average.
Does it deserve to be serviced?
It's not your lucky US 'The dime-a-dozen at thrift store' thing!

Got it.
I'd say that I'll take apart and repair just about anything, if it needs it. the problem is that I'm not going to service my own higher value cameras (Nikon F2, F3, Leica M4, Pentax MX, etc.) but I WILL work on much less expensive cameras available to me. All of those on your list are examples. But I'd never send one out for a shop to work on unless it had great sentimental value.

Phil Forrest

 

[KoNickon]

Based on some recent threads, I would say any Contax I that hasn't been serviced recently would need a CLA before attempting to use it.

 

[RObert Budding]

My Voigtlander Superb from the mid-1930's definitely needed a CLA. The focus was stiff and the mirror had degraded.

 

[DownUnder]

CLAs work best for mechanical cameras and have the advantage that they may fix problems that seem to be more serious than they are. Here I'm thinking of old classics like Rolleiflexes or 35mm mech cameras built like tanks in their day, those that keep on shooting and shooting long after the electronic competitors have given up the ghost.

In my case, I've had upper market Nikons (not Nikkormats, they are too cheap) and plentiful), Rolleis, some 1950s German folders (like the Zeiss Ikontas) etc etc sent off for fixing as and when the need occurred. Not my F65s, my Zeiss Nettar or my Perkeo I. My Lumix GF1 I bought for peanuts (silver coated nuts, but never mind) and seems to be worth about two and a half times what I paid for it two years ago, but to me it's still a Dinky Toy. (Which reminds me, I really should list it on Ebay now while the going is good and the kids want it, that train will soon pass the station and ne'er to return...)

I have four Contax G1s and apart from a hideously expensive minor fix I had done in 2004 when I mis-mounted a lens and damaged the pins linking that lens to the body, I would never ever again send in a G1 for anything other than a basic cleaning, even then only if it was caught in a dust storm or a volcano erupting (which happened to me in 2014, but that's a story for another day). The G1 bodies are cheap and plentiful (like Nikkormats) so not worth expensive repairs that too often jar something in the electronics to make the latter die shortly after the camera is returned.

Sadly, we live in an age of disposables. I own three Nikon DSLRs from 2009 to 2012 which keep on keeping on. When I bought them my very reputable retail shop in Melbourne told me to just use them, forget about CLRs, and when they popped off into that big digi-heaven in the clouds, buy another and use it. I wasn't at all pleased with this advice but that was my sense of perfectionism getting in the way. We live in an age where everything can be replaced (even I will be in due course, altho I hope to delay this process indefinitely and as the old Aussie saying goes, I intend to be very late indeed for my own funeral!).

I console myself with reminding my ego that the image is everything and the camera is really only the 'box' we play with to make the pictures.