How are your old camers holding out?

RalphLambrecht · Dec 7, 2014

my Hasselblads and their lenses are all in their twentiesand doing just fine.My mechanical Nikonsare in their fourtiesand looking forward to retirementbut still working steady and strong. my 50-year -old folderis refusing to come to workand my 90-year-old bbox camera couldn't care less about wake-up calls anymore.it's just too old to care. the digitals are in their teens and act that way.

GRHazelton · Dec 7, 2014

I have a Retina 1, uncoated f3.5 Ektar, the Compur shutter is accurate to my ear, at least. Sadly I put it away with a fingerprint on the lens, which is now permanent. I also have a Vitessa L from the mid '50s, and a Zeiss Ikon Contessa from the early '50s. Both work fine, although the 1 sec on the shutter sounds a bit long. Some of my Pentax film cameras could use a CLA but after that they should be good for many years, unless the electronics in the LX and the 645n give out. Life span for my Pentax DSLRs, K 10 and K 5? Only as long as the electronics last....

johnnyh · Dec 7, 2014

I'm with the predominant theme of the remarks here. My oldest cameras in use for scenic photography date from the '30s, '40s and early '50s; digital I mostly use for family snapshots, or documenting the repair of old cameras if necessary on acquistion (I don't avoid cameras needing repair if the price is right ;-) ). A mechanical camera can usually be maintained in use for as long as the film is available, whereas I regard any camera reliant on electronics as a perishable commodity.

DWThomas · Dec 7, 2014

johnnyh said:
[. . .] I regard any camera reliant on electronics as a perishable commodity.

Yes, this is one of my concerns as I have occasional GAS attacks. I have some Canon EF lenses for my -- uh -- other technology and I keep thinking I should get a super duper EOS film camera body. But then I think a)I shoot mostly medium format in film these days, and b)my older stuff may last longer than the newer. I have Canon FD gear, two of which are electronics dependent (A-1 and AE-1) but I have an original F-1 body - "Ker-chunk!" The only electrical thing in that is the meter which I don't actually need.

JDP · Dec 7, 2014

Thanks for all the replies - interesting! Seems everbody is very positive about the condition of their gear, but mostly for mechanical cameras. I have a mix of mechanical and electronic ones, and I hope enough of them to see me out! I do prefer to use the mechanical ones - don't know why.

Regular Rod · Dec 7, 2014

JDP said:
Hi,
I am wondering how old the average working film camera is these days, and thinking that it could easilly be 30 years. Many of these old cameras must be breaking and be unrepairable. Some of my gear is starting to show its age, and as a result I recently bought some newer gear which should keep me going a while longer.

If cameras break at a greater rate than photographers, there may not be enough to go around in years to come. Film Ferrania recently came up with a slogan 'film for 100 years' (or something like that). How many working film cameras will there be in 100 years time?

The oldest camera I use is a 1936 Zeiss Ikonta, but I would not rely on it for anything important!

How is your old gear holding out?

All my cameras are working. If any of them ever break, then I'll get it repaired. For me there is no point in owning a camera that doesn't work no matter how old or interesting it may be as a collector's item.

Just saying...
RR

Black Dog · Dec 7, 2014

Regular Rod said:
All my cameras are working. If any of them ever break, then I'll get it repaired. For me there is no point in owning a camera that doesn't work no matter how old or interesting it may be as a collector's item.

Just saying...
RR

Me too...all in fine fettle, like their owner

Trail Images · Dec 7, 2014

I use mostly a RB67 ProSD and after me using it all the time for 20+ years it has yet to fail. Thankfully, to date there are still a lot offered on the net if this one fails. I also use my Wista 4x5 often too, but trying to keep costs down a bit I'm more selective on it's usage these days with my dwindling Velvia 50 for it too.

In the end both units are being passed along to my niece who has a small in house camera museum. She likes using digital so the film stuff makes a nice history backdrop for her.

Sirius Glass · Dec 7, 2014

Voitlander Vito II is working well. 1950s camera

M Carter · Dec 17, 2014

Post got me thinking... I've either been a lucky bastard, or pro and semi-pro analog gear is made pretty well. (My digital stuff? Almost every Nikon body has needed a repair at some point, but I do shoot for a living. Of course, I shot film for a living, too, and never needed a repair...)

Nikon 8008, 8008s... run like new.
Forscher pro back - works like new.
Nikon N90s - had to clean the sticky rubberized stuff off the back. Other than that, like new.
Nikon FG - a champ.
Canon FTQL, 50mm and 35mm - love it. No issues. Big-ass metal brick.

RB67 Pro S - just gave it a reseal and re-foam. Works like a champ.
Re foamed two backs, weren't leaking but were crusty.
RB 90 and 250 glass - works like new.
RB 180 (main squeeze, I have two) - 1 needed a teardown and cleaning for stuck shutter. All parts fine. 1 minute soak and the shutter popped open.

Nikkor 85mm 1.8 AF-D - AF drive screw disappeared one day. Still a great MF lens.
Nikkor 50 1.8 AF, 100 2.8, etc - like new - some of those 2 decades old.
Nikkor 80-200 2.8 AF - fine, but electronically doesn't seem to send the correct exposure info. Shoots hot.

Minolta HiMatic 7 - lens screws were loose and shutter sticking. 20 minutes and it's good as new.

Mainecoonmaniac · Dec 17, 2014

By far, my most robust camera is my Canon F1(n). Been using the for over 3o years with no issues. My Zeiss Ikonta was CLA'd and and to have the shutter replaced. My RZ system is also doing pretty well and it's a 2 1/4 workhorse. My cameras that are older than 50 years I treat with kid gloves. Cameras made in the 80's are doing well. I might be wrong here, but in general 35mm cameras with electronic shutters are more robust.

flavio81 · Dec 17, 2014

early 1950s Zenobia 6x4.5 folder ... like new
early 1950s Zeiss Ikon Nettar 517/16 ... like new
1956 Kodak Retina IIIc ... works like new, except for the photometer
late 1950s Rolleicord ... just fine
1967 Nikon F ... like new, except for the photometer
1955 Ensign Selfix 820 ... just fine
1973 Canon EF ... like new
early 70s Rollei 35 ... just fine
early 70s Mamiya C330 (two) ... just fine
early 70s Mamiya C220 ... like new
late 70s Mamiya RB67... like new including the lenses
late 70s Canon A-1, stopped working after being unused for years, repaired by my tech easily, now works 100% perfectly
early 80s Nikon FE ... like new
early 80s Nikon F3 ... just fine but photometer isn't working
early 90s Canon EOS 5 ... like new

all cameras are working just fine!

Ok, one camera broke beyond repair -- Minox 35GT.

Helinophoto · Dec 18, 2014

Apart from my Hasselblad, Canon 1v and my Mamiya RZ 67 II, most of my other gear was made in the 50's, 60's nd 70's.
All doing very fine thank you, most were CLA'd before purchase though. ^^

Jesper · Dec 18, 2014

The LCD on my F3HP is getting a bit pale but apart from that everything works just fine. Apart from my Xpan I've got no gear less than 20 years old and most of it (and that's a lot) is between 30 and 50 years old.

benjiboy · Dec 18, 2014

In answer to the original post, the majority of the "old" film cameras that most of the members of this forum own will still be working perfectly when most of the currently produced ones are inhabiting the land fill.

johnnyh · Dec 18, 2014

benjiboy said:
In answer to the original post, the majority of the "old" film cameras that most of the members of this forum own will still be working perfectly when most of the currently produced ones are inhabiting the land fill.

My sentiments entirely. Even if acquired 'broken', many parts can, if necessary, be refabricated even with hand tools if you have the time. Whereas I wouldn't expect the factory test equipment, IC chips or surface-mounted component subassemblies etc for electronics based cameras to be around in, say, 80 years' time .

Sirius Glass · Dec 18, 2014

benjiboy said:
In answer to the original post, the majority of the "old" film cameras that most of the members of this forum own will still be working perfectly when most of the currently produced ones are inhabiting the land fill.

My old cameras are holding up better than I am! :sniff:

PentaxBronica · Dec 18, 2014

Regarding the electronics, in my experience those aren't the problem.

It's usually plastic drive cogs! All the MZ/ZX series bodies Pentax made in the '90s (with the exception of the MZ-S) have a fatal flaw. The motor shaft is just ever so slightly too big for the hole in the cog, and over time the plastic cracks leaving the gear slipping. You can buy new motors with a metal cog but fitting one is an absolute swine of a job.

Going back earlier, I've encountered a few ME Supers, MGs, ME Fs and MV1s with shutters which won't cock. In all but one case the electronics were fine, the light meter lit up and read accurately but the mechanical side let them down. ME Fs seem particularly prone to this, as so far I've ended up with a set of very tidy black body panels, a late 50mm f1.7 lens, and the correct case, but no ME F to inhabit them! If I ever see a scruffy but working chrome one it'll be bought and refurbished with the panels I have.

There's really no reason for the electronics to fail, they're solid state after all. As long as they're kept dry and given regular exercise to avoid capacitor death (not even sure if that's a problem with the caps used in cameras?) there are no moving parts to wear.

There is (or at least was until recently) a thirty-plus year old BBC Model B computer running an exhibit at a major museum. It had been running non-stop since installation and never gave any trouble at all. When the BBC were planning their first computer literacy project in the '80s they insisted on the best quality components being fitted, and the number of these machines still beeping away merrily stands as tribute. I suspect we'll see the compacts and cheap cameras fall by the wayside while the higher spec models carry on.

blockend · Dec 21, 2014

Kirks518 said:
As for stuff made in the 1990's, I think 95% of it was/is pure garbage, and I wouldn't trust them to last. But that's just my opinion.

It's one I share. Extensive use of plastic in moving and static parts, obsolescent LCDs and autofocus systems, meant the 90s were not a great decade for consumer cameras. In recent years I've bought bags full of SLRs from the period for pocket money, just to see what the hype was about at the time, and they generally fail for the most pathetic reasons. One of the dumbest failures was a pair of Nikon F601 cameras I bought new in the early 90s. They worked well until I put them away around 2001, but when I got them out again in 2009 both of the door locks had fallen off in the drawer! Christmas cracker plastic door hooks against sprung metal body locks meant there was only one winner. It was a common problem apparently. To think I sold a mint Nikon F for that junk!

AllanD · Dec 23, 2014

Judging by the Pentax SLRs I have already fixed, it will most likely be rotten foam that will cause my cameras to malfunction. Unfortunately, Pentax used the same crappy foam on the inside as well as for the mirror buffer etc. It is only a matter of time before a gunky bit of foam gums up the works, potentially requiring a full strip to rectify. I know that most of the M bodies (MX, ME Super etc) can be affected by this. I fix them myself, but it is a difficult and time consuming procedure, even with the service manuals available (actially, more like service notes as they are very terse). I hate to think how much it would cost to get a professional to do this, certainly much more than the cameras are currently worth. My guess is that other manufacturers would have used the same foam material inside their cameras, judging by how common place gummy mirror buffers and external door seals seem to be on other Japanese makes.

The cost and difficulty of keeping these old 35mm cameras going may inhibit the uptake of film into the future, given how important 35mm photography has been for begineers.

Sirius Glass · Dec 23, 2014

Fritz Coleman on Aging

This one is hysterical.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/LR2qZ0A8vic?rel=0

benjiboy · Dec 23, 2014

Sirius Glass said:
My old cameras are holding up better than I am! :sniff:

I was standing at a crossing waiting for the traffic to stop a couple of months when a young woman grabbed at my elbow, my first reaction was that she was trying propositioning me until she said "can I help you over the road sir"

Sirius Glass · Dec 23, 2014

benjiboy said:
I was standing at a crossing waiting for the traffic to stop a couple of months when a young woman grabbed at my elbow, my first reaction was that she was trying propositioning me until she said "can I help you over the road sir"

I am not old enough to be called "sir".

removed-user-1 · Dec 24, 2014

JDP said:
How is your old gear holding out?

My Nikon F3, about 27 years old I guess, has had new foam, a rebuilt NiCad pack, a good cleaning of the battery contacts in the motor drive, and minor other repairs. All but the battery rebuild I did myself. This camera really is a tank.

My Nikonos V was not well cared for by the previous owner and looks like it might have been flooded. I wouldn't take it underwater but it is fine for shooting in the rain.

Finally my Yashica Lynx 14e has a dead meter and a dim viewfinder but it is otherwise wonderful (after a good cleanup and replacement of the substance that was once foam). I believe it's about the same age as me, 44 years old. I keep meaning to get it CLAd, but the cost of my own upkeep and repairs are interfering.

benjiboy · Dec 24, 2014

Sirius Glass said:
I am not old enough to be called "sir".

I didn't think I was Steve

How are your old camers holding out?

removed-user-1

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency