How are your old camers holding out?

[JDP]

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?

 

[BrianShaw]

With only one exception, my primary cameras all date from early 1980's... and they are holding on just fine due to proper maintenance and careful use.

Like you, I have one from the 1930's that is quite usable but I don't count on for anything serious. Also have one from 1940 that I would not hesitate to use for serious work if news reporting with LF ever makes a comeback.

 

[Two23]

I don't have any film cameras newer than a 1954 Leica IIIf. My oldest film camera is a Watson & Son half plate tailboard. Most of my film cameras were made in the 1920s and 1930s. All are in top working condition and I still use them. My most used is a 1942 Leica IIIc which performs flawlessly. Also have a perfect 1914 Kodak Special No.2, 1904 Kodak Brownie No. 2, and Kodak Panoram from around 1909. I have lense going back to the 1840s. All work perfectly.


Kent in SD

 

[Sirius Glass]

My Graflex and Speed Graphic are holding up well, thank you. So are my Hasselblads and Nikons.

 

[railwayman3]

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?

My Pentax 35mm gear and Yashica 120 gear (20-30 years old) seems to be holding up well, with care and occasional service, and I'm not too concerned for the future given that they are mechanical cameras and that spares, even if unavailable new, could probably be cannibalised from another old camera.

One of my Minox 35mm gave up the ghost earlier this year, with the shutter problems well known in these cameras. May or may not bother with repair, as I have other cameras and the repair prices quoted on the official Minox website are stupid ££££.

My Russian FED will probably work for ever, built like a tank (and probably in the same factory), just don't drop it on your toe !

 

[summicron1]

cameras age differently. Exaktas were expensive, but have not aged well. The shutter curtains seem to dry out/rot more quickly than others.

Leicas seem to do a lot better. Graphics and so on are built to last forever.

A lot of it depends on storage and maintenance, though, so it is hard to generalize. I've used my Exaktas for fun, but my desert island camera would be whichever Leica I happened to grab off the shelf, none of which is newer than 1980 and one of which is from 1931.

As long as they are well-stored and there are folks/parts for maintenance, I suspect there will be plenty of film cameras still kicking around in 100 years.

The real question is whether any of the electronic stuff made today will last half as long -- if it holds up mechanically, the software that makes up the infrastructure on which it depends most certainly will not.

 

[R.Gould]

All bar 2 of my cameras date from the late 40's to mid 50's, and no problems with any of them, I have a Rolleicord from 61 and a baby bessa from 1938, all working with no problems,good maintenance and if they go wrong then a swift repair, so I will be using them for a good few years yet

 

[Bill Burk]

The functionality of any one of my film cameras can be verified before taking it out to use it.

It's one of the things that makes me confident in film.

 

[DWThomas]

Well, in my 70s, I'm not too worried about "the next 100 years." But most of my cameras still work. The late 40s vintage Flexaret (which had a hung shutter when I bought it for $5 at a flea market) again needs a shutter CLA, but works on the higher speeds. The '63 vintage Konica FP, all mechanical, no auto-nuthin, had troubles with its Copal Square shutter in the early 1980s and I moved on to Canon FD stuff.

I guess my fall-back would be the B&J Press or other LF gear. Let's face it, many early cameras were more about cabinet making than sophisticated technology! I've personally done a couple of repairs on the Argus c3 I bought at the end of 1957, I still shoot it at least once a year (for Argus Day) and it delivers. It's not my first choice for serious work but it does surprisingly well.

I also have two early fifties vintage folders that were CLA'd when I bought them a few years back and they seem to be doing well. My last major vacation excursion I shot film with a Yashica Mat 124G TLR, I believe that is early eighties vintage and seems to be doing well. I am pretty careful with my gear and try not to abuse it, so I expect most of it will outlast me.

Interestingly, a whopping 4 megap!xel P&S I bought in early 2004 became unusable early this year (not dead, but some sort of internal sensor smeary stuff). A number of my mechanical cameras have outlasted it by a factor of 4 or 5 -- or more! :munch:

 

[Peltigera]

My 1950s 35 mm folders are all doing fine.

A mechanical shutter is very like a mechanical watch. The action to fire the shutter is like the action to move the second hand on one place. A life-time of use of a shutter is equivalent to an hour or so life of a watch. My shutters have centuries of life in them before they will experience any serious wear.

 

[Truzi]

I think many cameras are under-rated simply because they are old, or were consumer models. Back then (30+ years ago), cheap items were not necessarily designed for short life-spans. More often, they were expected to be replaced only because the owner had more money, or wanted something better. It was not a disposable economy.

I've a number of old cameras from deceased family members, and shoot them all on occasion (if film is available). I've not had shutter speeds tested or anything, but for my purposes there are no problems.

For the cameras I use "often," they are doing well:
My main camera is my Grandfather's Sears KS-2. The foam light-seals degraded, but I replaced them, and it is fine. It is from the early 1980s.
I've a Bronica GS-1 I picked up on ebay. It is in great shape and also doing fine.

I do have a cousin's Zeiss Ikon Contessa 35 (folder) that is okay mechanically, though poor storage in a kerosene heated farm house lead to fungus on the lens and very musty leather. It's very rough, but I have gotten decent pictures from it. Cleaned up, I would trust it - the camera is built like a tank.

Even my Grandmother's Minolta Autopack 600-X works well, though I don't reload 126 cartridges too often.

 

[vpwphoto]

I've exposed enough film professionally, and then moderately to wear out a Hasselblad's lens shutter or two.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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?

Extremely well, and I use lenses in shutters over 100 years old.
Very little gear gets worn out, neglect and botched repairs count for most of the failures.
If recently overhauled, meaning in the past decade, I'd not hesitate to use any of my gear on a job, that is if anyone was still paying for pictures on film.

With very few exceptions, all of my gear - if well cared for and maintained - will be useable in 2115.

 

[Ian Grant]

I wore out my first SLR a Zenit E, I had my first magazine cover & other newspaper images with it when I was 16/17.

These days I use 100+ year old cameras and lenses with no problems, I use a 1913 165m CZJ Tessr in a Dial set Compur and it's so smooth and accurate as are many more of my older lenses.

My first decent SLR a Spotmatic F is still going strong I sold it about 30 years ago, and my old SIa is still in regular use. I use a Leica IIIa occasionally and my early 1950's M3 is still an excellent performer.

Age isn't the issue.

Ian

 

[Hatchetman]

I'll be dead in 50 years for sure. I bet all the cameras will still work. well, maybe not the EOS 3 with the electronic stuff.

 

[Kirks518]

I have cameras/bodies dating in range from the 1910's to the 1990's. I have about 150 all together. Percentage-wise, I would say that there is a higher failure rate in the 'newer' bodies (1980 and newer) then the older stuff. I really think when it comes to cameras, the old adage 'They don't make them like they used to' really applies.

I too have an Ikonta (ver 1, 1934), that I do use, and have very good results with. My Voigtlander Prominent looks and performs like it was just bought, but those Prominents were built like tanks to high standards, so no surprise there.

The problems I see most frequently with the older cameras, are deteriorated bellows, sticky shutters, and the leatherette coming off/falling apart. For the most part, very minor or cosmetic issues. Nothing that would hold one back from creating great photos.

With the cameras of newer vintage, I see complete failures of everything from broken (plastic) gears, shutter failures, inconsistent shutter timing, film advance mechanisms broken, battery corrosion (I really have a dislike for battery-operated cameras), and a whole host of other issues that render them not even worth fixing (even for 'nostalgia's sake').

What I consider to be the biggest difference between the old and the new, is that cameras marketed for the masses decades ago were built as well as the more modern (1970's+) pro-level equipment. I think I would have more confidence in my 1957 Graflex Graphic 35 then I would in a 1978 AE-1.

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.

 

[BradS]

My oldest is either the 1950's vintage Graflex Crown Graphic or the post WW2 vintage Franka Rolfix. If I had to guess, I'd say the Rolfix is probably slightly older. I would not (do not) hesitate to ues either of them as they are both very reliable....but, the longevity of the shuttters on both and the lack of replacement parts mean that when they fail, they are likely garbage.

I have a bunch of Pentax consumer grade 35mm SLR gear from the mid 1970's that has been well maintained and not abused. I suspect it will continue to function pretty much as designed for at least another 30 years or so. The 35mm SLRs from the late mid 1980's and 1990's have proven themselves far less reliable (in my personal experience).

 

[scheimfluger_77]

Pentax spotmatic purchased new in 1971. not terribly old but the only issue with these guys is the foam in the mirror box. Mamiya C330f and two lenses purchased new about 1974, again not terribly old but the bellows focusing and leaf shutter lenses are likely to last a sweet, sweet long time. I also have a Crown graphic w/127 Kodak Ektar of unknown vintage that shows no signs of quitting soon. IMHO the combination of a box with bellows and an LF lens at the front are likely to outlive all but the most robust of 35mm and med. format cameras. And if your leaf shutter lens fails, there's always the pinhole conversion :w00t:

 

[BradleyK]

My F2s are still going strong (several are 40+ years old) after years of heavy use; the F3P and F3HPs continue to perform as Nikon intended. I fully expect all to continue to be functional for many years to come. As far as the F5s and F6 go...time will tell (I don't have quite the same confidence in more complex electronic gadgets...). Likewise the Hasselblads are over 30 continue to perform; and the Leicas...well they are Leicas.
lol

 

[Xmas]

my youngest is a FM2n '97-98 or so still ok the oldest Contax II or Fed I '36 ditto.

 

[HowardDvorin]

A Roliflex from the mid 1940's

A Voightlander Bessa from the 50's

A Bronica S-2 from the 60's

and my favorite a Canon EOS 630 from the 80's

All working just fine.

Howard Dvorin

 

[Theo Sulphate]

All of the cameras in my signature below are fully functional - and I do use them all ... eventually. 30 years is nothing for an all-mechanical well built film camera, especially if it has been designed for professional use (e.g. Nikon F).

Many cameras and lenses from the mid-1980's onwards will eventually have their electronics fail and become non-repairable; they are essentially disposable. That is the mindset in digital photography today: replacing equipment every 4-8 years.

Check out some of the cameras shown in this earlier thread:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Noblex 150--Needs new lagging on the drum, and general overhaul when it goes to the shop.
5x7" Press Graflex--just popped the spring and need to see what's up with that, but worked until recently.

The others all work and get used--Canon New F-1, EOS 1N-RS, Nikonos V, Yashica T4s, Voigtlander Perkeo II, Linhof Tech V 23s, Linhof Tech V 4x5", Sinar P (4x5 & 8x10), 8x10" Pocket View, 7x17" Korona (but about due for a bellows replacement), 11x14" American Optical, and maybe 20 or 30 lenses

 

[Jeff L]

My Rolleiflex from 1937 performs like new and is totally reliable. My Olympus and Yashica from the mid 70's perform perfectly.
The Rollei keeps going strong. I expect with proper service it be going strong, and hopefully Ferrania and Ilford will have film for it.

 

[Arklatexian]

How are your old cameras holding out?

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?

I don't consider a 30 year old camera as "that old". I have two Leica Ms that were manufactured in the 1950s. I never worry that something is going to break when I use either one. I work the shutters on my Hasselblad 500cm regularly to keep them ready to use when needed. My newest 35mm is an Olympus OM2a that works beautifully and it certainly is not "new". My Rolleicord has had a CLA so I consider it "new".......Regards