Camera Manufacturers

[mehguy]

If you could rank the all the major camera manufacturers in terms of quality and reliability with 1 being the highest, what would your list be?

 

[mweintraub]

No.

No.

Lets not get into this.

 

[MattKing]

There are a whole bunch tied for first.

And a couple who aren't.

 

[Sirius Glass]

No.

No.

Lets not get into this.

+1

 

[Theo Sulphate]

All the real dogs were weeded out by the mid-1970's or earlier and there were only a few anyway.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

This question is a can of worms. Not all camera designs are equal in quality. Even the major manufacturers came out with stinkers.

 

[benjiboy]

There are a lot more low quality photographers around than there are cameras.

 

[fstop]

There are a lot more low quality photographers around than there are cameras.

+1 The instructor in my photography class 40 years ago always said that composition wins out over technical quality all the time, an image with good composition made with a Kodak Instamatic could beat a top of the line SLR.

In the 70s Canon, Minolta, Nikon, Olympus were duking it out, they all had quality optics and they all had a good top of the line body.

I don't know I'm not really into 35mm SLRs...

 

[Les Sarile]

Argus of course as it is the only one that I am aware of that offered a Lifetime guarantee . . .

 

[Kyle M.]

I wonder what the lens quality was like on the C3.

I don't know about the C3 specifically but I had a C44 with the 50mm F=2.8 and it was a fine lens indeed.

 

[MattKing]

To the OP:

More generally, I see your question as being emblematic of a common problem I see now on the internet, and that I used to see as well in camera stores (in the 1970s and 1980s).

It would be comforting if there were clear and objective differences. If we could say something like: "Nikon cameras will last 3.5 years on average without repairs, while Canon will only last 3.3 years on average without repairs."

In fact, all of the common brands have good reliability histories generally, and each of the common brands will provide examples of cameras and lenses and accessories where at least some individual equipment will malfunction unexpectedly. Sample variation and user handling issues are as likely to affect the results more than any manufacturer's design philosophy.

The cameras that were aimed at the professional market tended to be rugged, but the thing that made them suitable for high volume professional use was the availability of support and quickly obtainable loaners.

 

[albada]

I repair cameras as a hobby, so I've seen what's inside of them. I agree with MattKing: "There are a whole bunch tied for first. And a couple who aren't." Through the 60s to the mid-to-late 70s, I'd say all the major Japanese brands of SLRs had about equal quality. These are: Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Konica, Minolta, Olympus, and Mamiya. Yashica is probably as good, but their offerings seemed uninspiring to me. Miranda was also good, as was Cosina and its labels of Ricoh, Sears, and such. But brands like Praktica and Petri were a step down. Things went downhill when electronics and plastics took over in the late 1970s. Some such SLRs are good, such as the AE-1, but I suggest avoiding some others such as Minolta's X-series or the Olympus OM-G. I've never seen a Minolta X or OM-G with good electronics; perhaps your luck has been better. It's a similar story with rangefinders, except that a few good brands like Aires didn't make it through the 60s.

Mark Overton

 

[MattKing]

I, of course, have two OM-Gs .

One does have a switch that is worn, but the other works perfectly.

 

[nolanr66]

I guess were talking about 35mm camera's. My vote goes to Nikon and Leica. Excellent quality , diopter eyepiece available if you need one back then and presently. Both companies have brand new models available today.

 

[Malinku]

all major brands have great cameras. so a list it just pointless opition for the most part. Should be out using those great cameras rather then talking about them.

 

[anfenglin]

Speaking of quality in MF, I am all for the Germans. Rollei, Zeiss Ikon and such. I repair and clean them as a part time job and they are very well made indeed.
A well serviced Rollei TLR with maybe updated screen will go on forever, that of course only being the case if nothing irreparable breaks inside or a shutter spring or part breaks (which is very unlikely).
They of course have no electronics to go wrong, with electronics you never know which part broke and you have to switch out the whole board.
I don't know about the mamiyas but from what I hear, they are also very reliable.

 

[blockend]

I'd say all the major Japanese brands of SLRs had about equal quality. These are: Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Konica, Minolta, Olympus, and Mamiya. Yashica is probably as good, but their offerings seemed uninspiring to me.

Yashica are better known for their rangefinders and TLRs, but the original FR is a fine camera and one of my favourites to use. A contemporary reported rated it higher than the Contax RTS (also Kyocera made), and the Yashica and Contax lenses are excellent. Its one known flaw is a frame counter that dies young.

To the OP's question, this long after the fact the way a camera was treated is more important than theoretical build quality. However if I was forced to gamble on a bargain bin camera that should be dead judging by its external condition, but was likely to function correctly, it would be a Nikkormat. Mine vary from pristine, to dented on every surface and brassed to oblivion, and all work perfectly. They are heavy, which can be an issue if you need to carry more than one. An FT or FTN with a pre-AI lens is the nearest thing to an indestructible SLR camera.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

If you could rank the all the major camera manufacturers in terms of quality and reliability with 1 being the highest, what would your list be?

Nikon=1
Hasselblad=1
Mamiya=1
Practica=.1
Ricoh=.5

 

[blockend]

If you could rank the all the major camera manufacturers in terms of quality and reliability with 1 being the highest, what would your list be?

A more meaningful question might be "which is the most reliable camera at a given price point?"

 

[Soeren]

Kenn Rockwool used to test cameras.
They gave him a bunch and the ones given the a-label were named Nikon and the ones with a b-label they named Canon. One day he was given a camera he couldn't give even a b-label and then Pentax was born.

 

[Paul Howell]

I repair cameras as a hobby, so I've seen what's inside of them. I agree with MattKing: "There are a whole bunch tied for first. And a couple who aren't." Through the 60s to the mid-to-late 70s, I'd say all the major Japanese brands of SLRs had about equal quality. These are: Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Konica, Minolta, Olympus, and Mamiya. Yashica is probably as good, but their offerings seemed uninspiring to me. Miranda was also good, as was Cosina and its labels of Ricoh, Sears, and such. But brands like Praktica and Petri were a step down. Things went downhill when electronics and plastics took over in the late 1970s. Some such SLRs are good, such as the AE-1, but I suggest avoiding some others such as Minolta's X-series or the Olympus OM-G. I've never seen a Minolta X or OM-G with good electronics; perhaps your luck has been better. It's a similar story with rangefinders, except that a few good brands like Aires didn't make it through the 60s.

Mark Overton

In the 70s a few lines with a known history of poor quality or design left the market, Petri, Kowa's 35mm, the DX killed Miranda, then cameras which were quite good , Topcon's top of the line 35mm, Kowa's MF, and in the 80s Konica, followed by Yashica and Minolta, all left for different reasons. Although Petri's bodies were not made well made I found their lens were quite good for the price, and their Rangfinders were also much better than their SLR, I have several Petri FT FTII and EE, along the 135, 200 and 300 and 70 to 230 Zoom, the 200mm is as good as my Pentax or Konica, the zoom is the best 70s zoom I have.

 

[summicron1]

The Exakta RTL 1000, sold about 1974, the last of the looooong Exakta line, came with a lifetime guarantee, which was fine as long as your lifetime consisted of dying within two years of buying the camera.

In general, however, I agree with others: Lots of well built cameras out there. As a collector/user the bigger issue is which cameras stand the test of time. There are some that have not, in my experience, aged well because of materials issues, or whatever. They tend to be all Exakta, the Minolta SRT line, Petri and a few others that do not come to mind at the moment.

Leica, Nikon and the better Canon, the ones Marty Forscher called "hocky puck cameras," tend to be what last.

 

[narsuitus]

If you could rank the all the major camera manufacturers in terms of quality and reliability with 1 being the highest, what would your list be?

1. Ebony

2. Hasselblad

3. Leica

4. Rollei

5. All the rest

 

[michr]

Argus of course as it is the only one that I am aware of that offered a Lifetime guarantee . . .

I can't tell if you're serious, but I'll assume not. People like to make fun of the C3 because of its ugliness and ubiquity, and perhaps because it was intended for the average person to use. But have you ever picked up a C3, the youngest of which are 50 years old, and had it not work?

In a lot of ways the C3 epitomizes American engineering of its period, reliable, serviceable, and designed to be used, rather than admired. Mechanically they are simple, unsophisticated machines. While it would be hyperbole to praise their design as minimalist, simplicity is their strength, since there's not much to go wrong.

 

[blockend]

In a lot of ways the C3 epitomizes American engineering of its period, reliable, serviceable, and designed to be used, rather than admired. Mechanically they are simple, unsophisticated machines. While it would be hyperbole to praise their design as minimalist, simplicity is their strength, since there's not much to go wrong.

Very true. The antithesis of this might be a camera like the Ricoh GR film series, or indeed most of the super-compacts of the nineties and early noughties. Well built physically, and ergonomically very nice, but containing fragile components with a short life span and no long term repair and component trail. In the end, simple, tough cameras will always outlive technological marvels.

It's remarkable to think that a screw thread Leica, a camera that popularised the 35mm miniature format, is likely to be among the last film cameras still working, and will have seen off a few thousand film camera designs in between.