Clean, lubricate, adjust: A promise that costs a lot if kept

[Don_ih]

CLA, as a term, probably comes from Hasselblad basic service - which involves taking the camera apart. There is nothing you can do without taking the camera apart. It could also come from basic large format shutter service, which involves taking the shutter apart, It could come from basic Leica thread-mount service - which requires the camera be taken apart. That is, if it's meaningful at all, it should be cleaning the old lubricant and internal gunk, lubricating where required, adjusting the mechanism to establish spec. Frankly, it doesn't apply too easily to a camera like a Contax 139, which is not made in a way to be pleasantly serviced. Replace this, replace that, reassemble - once parts dry up, throw the thing away.

So people can use the term to mean SFA or they can use it in a more meaningful way. The majority of people seem willing to think it means SFA. Maybe people aren't familiar with SFA??

 

[BrianShaw]

If I had a Contax 139, I'd just send it to Andreas. This CLA/SFA/XYZ looks just like something he could do! Me, I'd sell it on ebay as "untested".

Contax 139 Resource - DIY Repairs

This page is intended to give some guidance to anyone wishing to attempt their own repairs. It doesn’t detail everything possible and probably never will but it should get you started at least. The page does get updated occasionally as I get to record and write up more things. Needless to say,

www.contax139.co.uk

Contax 139 Resource - Documents

All the following are free to copy or download. Just click on the links. If you find this resource useful, please spread the word that all these documents are here and are free to download so that the people who have downloaded them and then try to sell them fail to make a profit. Specifically,

www.contax139.co.uk

 

[Don_ih]

If I had a Contax 139, I'd just send it to Andreas.

It was an example, really. Cameras like those were not made with the idea they'd be being used 10 years later.

 

[Andreas Thaler]

Don't send me any cameras, I've already killed too many!

 

[MattKing]

A long time ago - at least four or more decades or so - people who used film cameras heavily and/or in challenging conditions - for example, Arctic conditions - used to have regular preventative maintenance performed.
And those cameras were made with the expectation that they would be maintainable.
And then the world changed.

 

[Don_ih]

And then the world changed.

 

[Nitroplait]

I sent a Leica CL to Sherry. Heard nothing from her for 5 months. She finally returned the camera to me, claiming that it couldn't be repaired. I sent it off to DAG, and they returned it to me fully repaired in just 5 days.

SK will not get any business from me.

...and you will be able to find someone who will say something very similar about DAG or any one of the others from the repair tech A-list for that matter.

They are not God's nor saints and on top of that; many of them are poor communicators.

 

[Roger Cole]

I disagree with the OP's premise, the price for replacing worn parts is not in the usual terms of a CLA, they are only found after the camera has been opened and if found faulty it constitutes a repair not a CLA. So it's an deceitful knee jerk reaction when people through having little else to say respond 'send it for a CLA' as if some poor idiot is going to spend $300 having their camera repaired when they can buy another for $250. It only applies to higher end cameras where the cost of the repair is less than the cost of buying another.

The "other for $250" will be an unknown quantity and unless it's known and documented that's been serviced recently there's a real change it may need that same $300 service soon. If I already have a camera I like, and $300 will fix it up nicely, I'd always choose to do that over buying another one for $250 that I have no idea about.

 

[GregY]

A long time ago - at least four or more decades or so - people who used film cameras heavily and/or in challenging conditions - for example, Arctic conditions - used to have regular preventative maintenance performed.
And those cameras were made with the expectation that they would be maintainable.
And then the world changed.

Some were specially built for those undertakings..... like the Nikon F2 Titan made for Japanese adventurer Naomi Uemura. But others used stock cameras like the Olympus OM1 on himalayan expeditions by Sir Christian Bonington , or my friend Pat Morrow's Pentax MX to the summit of Everest and many other expeditions.

 

[Paul Howell]

That's true. No one should expect a pre-arranged price to include the cost of any parts whatsoever.



That's not a CLA, then. That's a waste of time. Adding lubrication without first cleaning the old is a bad idea. You can't clean the old lubrication from a camera without taking it apart.

I think they clean then lubed what they can reach without a complete disassembly. Cleaning also means cleaning the mirror box and prisms, and focusing screen. I would need to price out a complete tear down, it will be more than $125.

 

[GregY]

...and you will be able to find someone who will say something very similar about DAG or any one of the others from the repair tech A-list for that matter.

They are not God's nor saints and on top of that; many of them are poor communicators.

That is not at all true of Don Goldberg, so you've made an example and impugned someone's reputation.....

 

[Don_ih]

I would need to price out a complete tear down, it will be more than $125.

If the camera is not taken apart, and the old lubrication is not cleaned out of it, the service is superficial and basically useless. Anyone can clean the mirror. Anyone can take a syringe and spray the oil into the AE1 to get rid of its wheeze. Those things do nothing meaningful.

I'm not denying that people generally get nothing for a CLA. And I'm not saying it's a real service (or ever was). But it should be a bit of insurance that an already-working camera will continue to work perhaps a bit better. Or people shouldn't get it done.

 

[qqphot]

That is not at all true of Don Goldberg, so you've made an example and impugned someone's reputation.....

Are you saying Don has never done careless work, or that he's never failed to communicate clearly? I find it really frustrating that it's so taboo to mention negative experiences with the big name repairers here. We're lucky to have them, yes, but none of them are infallible.

 

[GregY]

Are you saying Don has never done careless work, or that he's never failed to communicate clearly? I find it really frustrating that it's so taboo to mention negative experiences with the big name repairers here. We're lucky to have them, yes, but none of them are infallible.

I'm saying if you haven't personally had problems with Don, you're just gossiping.
I've had nothing but faultless communication and work from him.

 

[Andreas Thaler]

They are not God's nor saints and on top of that; many of them are poor communicators.

Good communication is half the success of a business. But not everyone has the talent or disposition for it, or simply doesn't have the time, as it's a one-man show.

When I was a customer of repair shops with their own premises here in Vienna, I admired the ability to communicate and do repair work.

In one case, the owner was alone and had to stop working when the door to his shop opened. Then he switched from working with great concentration on a camera to talking to customers.

Two worlds, switching between them without transition.

 

[qqphot]

I'm saying if you haven't personally had problems with Don, you're just gossiping.
I've had nothing but faultless communication and work from him.

That's great for you. And if I have, and dare to mention it, I get shit on for "badmouthing" him. This is what's frustrating.

 

[Hassasin]

I'll repeat what I had posted elsewhere: My Rolleiflex 3.5 F Planar was 40 when I bought it, looked never (or hardly ever) used and ran perfectly in every aspect But I got cute with it, went with Mr. Fleenor hype, and figured putting Maxwell in was the needed icing on the cake. Some 400-500 $ later camera came back, looked exactly same as before this service, nothing of note regarding functionality, and just did have the new screen. 20 years later, little use, camera needs service to be useable, everything is basically sluggish to stuck. Kill me for not "exercising" it through this time, but I'd bet a lot it would work today as well as it did 20 years ago had I not CLA'd it.

 

[BrianShaw]

I'll repeat what I had posted elsewhere: My Rolleiflex 3.5 F Planar was 40 when I bought it, looked never (or hardly ever) used and ran perfectly in every aspect But I got cute with it, went with Mr. Fleenor hype, and figured putting Maxwell in was the needed icing on the cake. Some 400-500 $ later camera came back, looked exactly same as before this service, nothing of note regarding functionality, and just did have the new screen. 20 years later, little use, camera needs service to be useable, everything is basically sluggish to stuck. Kill me for not "exercising" it through this time, but I'd bet a lot it would work today as well as it did 20 years ago had I not CLA'd it.

Maybe and maybe not. Those particular shutters can be finicky. About 1985 I bought a Rolleicord Vb from a guy whose father bought it and soon thereafter died. It was unused for a decade or so. The shutter was sluggish and the local Rollei-trained repairman, after marveling at how little it had been used, overhauled the little-used shutter. It worked flawlessly in constant moderate usage for about 29 years. Then the shutter started getting sluggish again. Unfortunately my Rollei repairman is long gone.

 

[Paul Howell]

I was looking though a box of negatives and work prints from the mid 1970s and found a recipe from Nikon Los Angles service center, I paid $80 for a clean lube and adjust on my F2 in 1977. Running the number through the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator that is now $415. In the 80s I paid a bit over a hundred U.S to my F2 and later F3 serviced by Nikon London.

 

[beemermark]

I sent a Leica CL to Sherry. Heard nothing from her for 5 months. She finally returned the camera to me, claiming that it couldn't be repaired. I sent it off to DAG, and they returned it to me fully repaired in just 5 days.

SK will not get any business from me.

Not to defend Sherry but there it’s very probale she didn’t have the part.

DAG has repaired three cameras for me in the last 5 years. An M7 ($200), R7 ($200 open circuit +CLA), and what was a working M4 that I wanted a CLA ($500). DAG will patient explain what he does for that money. The M4 is like the Nikon F series. Cameras were made to be adjusted in total and repaired, and made to last forever. The M7 and R7 with modern components require much less work.