When to stop repairing?

[dmr]

So, what's your opinion, when would you stop repairing a camera? Is it an economic decision or something more?

This thread really hits home personally for me, since I'm now struggling to make a decision regarding my 1980s vintage Pentax K1000 and lenses.

I've considered this to be my main camera until recently, when I started noticing focus issues with my main zoom and now with any lens I use on it. I've done several test rolls now and when very carefully focusing and examining the result, it's clear that the two zoom lenses both have focus issues, one which is WAY off and the other which kinda clicks in and out. In addition, I've found that the best plane of focus on the film, even with the prime lens, is in front of where it appears to be when focusing carefully.

Anyway, on one hand I realize that I've gotten my money's worth out of the whole kit, many years and thousands of great photos. I do have now two newer {d-word} cameras which I'm using more and more and I'm thinking that the best thing to do is "retire" the Pentax.

Doing it right would mean sending in the body and two zooms for a good CLA. I have a real good recommendation of a CLA for the body for about $175. The camera shop I sometimes visit has a lens repair service they can send the zooms to for a CLA and they say most lenses of that type are about $200 (each!) for a good once-over.

That's almost $600, and if I did it I would still have a 30-some year old camera with thousands of exposures on it. The replacement cost for similar ones, some which claim "recently CLAd" is less than 1/3 of that for a body and a similar zoom. Economically, it does not make sense to CLA everything.

On the other hand I LOVE the camera and would love to have it back to where I know I'm gonna get great images out of it again.

I really don't know what I want to do. I have several other cameras I can use for all kinds of shooting, including a Mamiya RF and a GIII (two actually) which all work quite well for film work.

Oh well, so it goes ...

 

[Fraser]

The camera doesn't need a cla it needs a repair, if it was me I would have it repaired the camera was given as a gift so its still only £100 for an f1.

That being said sorry dmr I wouldn't pay to get a pentax k1000 sorted I would either fix myself or buy another pentax unless it meant a lot to you!

 

[rbiemer]

My take on repair vs replace is: if the repair cost is reasonable, I would rather repair. The idea that one can just replace camera "X" for less than the cost to repair is a bit suspect to me: the replacement is likely to have its own issues and you may still have to decide. But if you have a camera repaired, you then have the surety that the specific camera you have is now sorted. This presumes that there isn't much or any emotional or sentimental value to the particular camera and that repairs are available at a reasonable cost. And "reasonable" is certainly a variable number.

DMR, in your case, I would probably get the camera sorted (especially if it is Mr. Hendrickson you're considering for the work!) and replace the lenses, I think. But I may be misreading your attachment to the lenses.

Rob

 

[CameraQuest]

I'm curious to what others opinions are on the value of repairing cameras and when you make the decision to repair or not repair a camera. When do you make the decision to repair, or not, a camera?

The reason I ask is that I've got a Canon F1 (Nov' '73' which I was given as a gift for a Christmas. It shows some minor battle scars, but the exposures are good and works like a charm... most of the time. However, there's a couple of issues; the 1 second shutter speed is erratic and the light meter needle gets stuck in positions f/2 and f/16.
I've been quoted about £100 as an estimate to get it repaired and once I get the money together I'm going to go ahead with it.
But why? I could easily just buy another camera for that amount, but for me I have this camera and I will continue to use it for as long as I'm interested in using an SLR and shooting film (I also have a Canon EF, which I use too). I feel that I affinity now with this camera and if we all keep on going junking and replacing old cameras, some day the only operational ones are going to be the odd hidden gems and collectors items.

Yes it's just a tool and means to an end, but it's my tool and means.

So, what's your opinion, when would you stop repairing a camera? Is it an economic decision or something more?

everyone has their own, equally valid reasons.

whether you value sentiment, repair cost, or camera resale value
there is no right answer.

just make the best decision for you.

that said, I would personally opt for repairing a Christmas gift F1 in a heart beat.

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I agree with the Head Bartender. This F1 was a gift so I'd have no qualms about money spent to keep it in good repair.
I've faced this same decision with cameras I've inherited. I sent my M3 off to be CLA'd and paid a good amount to have it done too. When it jammed the shutter two rolls of film later I was bummed, sure. But, I took it to a shop I'd found and trusted to do the right thing and I've now got an M3 that I can put film in with confidence that it'll turn out, barring any screw ups on my part. I found the first CLA really wasn't worth what I'd paid for it as now, I can fully understand the 'mystique' of owning a Leica. It is buttery smooth and is a pleasure to use/hold/operate. The fact it was my grandparents camera and traveled the world with them only adds to the pleasure.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

What is better to have camera repaired and CLA or to replace it with something completely unknown? For some it is easy to play lottery, but if camera is fixable at 100£ it is actually very good price.