Disassembling and reassembling SLRs from the 80s: Limits are set by complexity, not skills

The Nikon EM for example is considered a simple SLR. Both in terms of operation and structure.

The former is certainly true, its target audience appreciated and appreciates the few functions that are not meant to be overwhelming.



Easy to use, relatively simple in construction: The Nikon EM from 1979, aimed at everyone.


However

if you compare working with the EM with a photo smartphone, even the small EM is only something for specialists, if only because film has to be inserted.




Electronics in SLRs are never trivial, but at least in the EM they are still arranged quite clearly and do not block the way into the interior of the camera.



If you want to disassemble, service and reassemble the EM, the clear construction is a plus compared to SLRs with more functions.

Removing the front panel, which gives access to the shutter and mirror box mechanism, requires comparatively few steps.

But here too there are invisible traps that take time to escape. Unless you are already familiar with the camera.


At the other end of the scale

are complexity giants such as the Canon T90, which probably has the highest level of difficulty among manually focussed SLRs. In the mid-80s, an almost unbelievable symbiosis of mechanics and digitally controlled electronics was achieved here, which is unparalleled.




From the outside, you wouldn't guess that the Canon T90 is probably the most complex MF SLR of all time.


The inner workings of the T90 are accordingly tight.

To get to the shutter, for example, you have to solder through several layers of flexible circuit boards. Without instructions it's a maze and even with instructions it's a challenge in terms of organization and perseverance.

This means that repairs to the shutter or mirror box are still possible, but fail due to the effort involved.




It quickly becomes clear that taking the T90 apart and reassembling it is a challenge for the organization. Flexible circuit boards are sandwiched on top of each other, and without instructions, getting to core parts like the shutter and mirror box without accidents is a pure gamble.


Since electronic components in cameras of that era are, with a few exceptions, surprisingly robust and durable, service and repairs focus mainly on electrolytic capacitors, switches, contacts and soldering points, which are easy to do if you could only reach them.

This also applies to the mechanical components in the depths of the camera.


So for such complex service and repair cases

we need less skills than organization of all the steps and the willingness to face the effort and high risk of failure.

The handling of tools and the soldering iron is the same or similar for all SLRs from the 80s, with the exception of soldering small SMD (surface mounted device) components and ICs (integrated circuit) with many pins.

I think every DIY repairman should try the impossible at least once. Also to explore and expand one’s boundaries.

It doesn't have to be the Canon T90

Even with modern lenses and cameras, it is possible to bring a repair to a successful conclusion by proceeding step by step and carefully documenting each step, provided that any necessary spare parts are available.
However, as I recently experienced, this can take days or even weeks of work, especially if the manufacturer's service does not provide any information about the disassembly process.
Your illustrated reports are sometimes a great help, Andreas!

forest bagger said:

Even with modern lenses and cameras, it is possible to bring a repair to a successful conclusion by proceeding step by step and carefully documenting each step, provided that any necessary spare parts are available.
However, as I recently experienced, this can take days or even weeks of work, especially if the manufacturer's service does not provide any information about the disassembly process.

Click to expand...

You have to be willing to invest this time. And as a professional you wouldn't be able to charge appropriately for the effort?

forest bagger said:

Your illustrated reports are sometimes a great help, Andreas!

Click to expand...

Thanks!

The Nikon EM is and was a wonderful and powerful camera; sophistication through simplicity!

It varies wildly from camera to camera. I'm currently working on a Yashica FX-D, released in 1980. It is wonderfully designed on the inside. Great use of flex cables. Removing the mirror box takes just a few minutes and doesn't require a ton of soldering. It's a really easy camera to work on.

I've also repaired the Pentax LX, released in 1980. It's a nightmare. Wire routing is super chaotic and there's almost no use of flex cables or connectors to keep things efficient. It feels like it's from a different era compared to the FX-D.

And despite their complexity, I think in some ways, electronic cameras can be easier to work on than fully mechanical cameras. On something like a Pentax MX, there are a lot of manual adjustment points and you need specialized measurement equipment if you want to do anything with the shutter. With an electronically controlled Copal shutter, you can disassemble and clean it without messing up the curtain tensions or the shutter timing.

In general, I think electronic cameras are misunderstood and people are overly fearful of them. In many cases, they can be serviced just as well as mechanical cameras.

When a working PJ I always took my Nikons F, F2, and F3P to Nikon for servicing. I took it for granted that the Nikon employed service techs were trained by Nikon and worked on Nikon day in and day out and would the skills and tools needed.

Without the software floppy disks and hardware interface (camera to computer) my opinion is electronic camera adjustments are impossible.

Mechanical cameras can be adjusted to with the 'usual' tools of the trade. Generic linear and electronic measuring devices, shutter and meter testers, collimators, etc.

I might need to qualify my definition of "electronic" camera. For me it is a camera with a microprocessor or at least digital electronics. I don't think analog metering and exposure circuits make an "electronic" camera.

ic-racer said:

Without the software floppy disks and hardware interface (camera to computer) my opinion is electronic camera adjustments are impossible.

Click to expand...

I agree, for example, the AF system of the Nikon F4 cannot be adjusted by yourself. But the mirror box can be removed without complications/subsequent adjustment and thus one of the main problems of this wonderful camera, the lame aperture control, can be repaired.

ic-racer said:

I might need to qualify my definition of "electronic" camera. For me it is a camera with a microprocessor or at least digital electronics. I don't think analog metering and exposure circuits make an "electronic" camera.

Click to expand...

Even without a clock generator for digital control, analog circuits with operational amplifiers in cameras from the late 70s are „very electronic“

Or take a look at the electronics of an analog-controlled flash unit.

I shot my T90 today. It never stops impressing me! Even when I forget about it for a few months. There was so much said about the electronics having a very limited life, but it really turned out not to be the case. The LCD screens are robust. The dual high and low power processing units were a brilliant idea. The lenses are an extremely good value for money. And your only sacrifice is to learn manual focusing.

Other than a few SLR Konicas, FS and FC-1 which all died of some sort of electronic shutter failure, my Minolta A mount, Nikon F4, Chinons and other all electronic cameras are still working. The Minolta A 9000 and Nikon F4 have a bit of LED bleed which is more of an annoyance. With my point and shoots, I did have Nikon One Touch and Minolta Freedoms Zooms go to their karmic reward, buy my Chinon, Viivair , Pentax and Konica pop ups are still going strong.

Andreas Thaler said:

And as a professional you wouldn't be able to charge appropriately for the effort?

Click to expand...

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. That depends on the customer (financial ability and the will to spend so much money).

Andreas Thaler said:

Even without a clock generator for digital control, analog circuits with operational amplifiers in cameras from the late 70s are „very electronic“

Or take a look at the electronics of an analog-controlled flash unit.

Click to expand...

I was thinking more about the need for a computer to do the adjustments. Most of those cameras would have trimmers for adjustment.

I picked up a broken Olympus OM-2s for $5 and had a go at fixing it. Luckily there are actually fabulous repair documentation for the 2s with everything from unfolding the flex pcbs to extraction of the shutter. Unfortunately while I was able to solve the film travel and mirror issues there’s now a bug and the camera only shoots at top speed when in electronic operation. I’m pretty confident I know the fix, but I can’t stomach going through all that fiddly soldering a second time.

This was my first time diving into an electronically controlled camera and I actually left pretty impressed with what I could do and get at as a repair person without software. The shutter and film transport has only small differences from the OM-1, and there are instructions in the service manual to adjust most anything you could imagine from a small handful of potentiometers.

That all being said, I would not run off to do it again.