That's a sensible approach in a post-film camera manufacturing era. The same applies to lenses. If you find a good one at a bargain price, getting a body to fit is no problem. I use three different 35mm systems, plus odds and ends, based on the bargain price I acquired the glass.Besides, I never look for specific brands, I look for under-evaluated opportunities.
The particular model in this study has very little electronics. Really, just a button cell, a light meter on/off switch, a couple of CdS cells, a few resistors, a meter (modular) the resistor (?) ring for shutter speed and another for film speed and various electrical contacts here and there. These last few items seem prone to soft failures due to oxidation.
It doesn't matter. You have to understand what it is not about more or less electronics, but type and age.
Electronics from seventies are failing. This is it.
It doesn't matter. You have to understand what it is not about more or less electronics, but type and age.
Electronics from seventies are failing. This is it.
Too much myth is spread around here about electronics failure. Camera electronics are very reliable, even for 70s cameras. Just as you can CLA mechanical parts, you can service the electrics and electronics for the most part, unless you have something like a dead IC, which is an extremely rare thing to happen.
It's getting worse. 2009-2012 when I bought most of my stuff, you had to be unlucky to get a dog. Now the quality is all in Japan, and at the pricey end.when you buy from flea bay, its a crap shoot what you will get.
I hear you OP...never understood the "Buy Another" either.
Buy what.?.....another 30-50 year old camera that needs work.
When Canon made the F-1
or Nikon the F2
or Pentax the MX
etc etc etc
They NEVER considered the problems people would encounter 30-40-50 years down the road.
A Canon A-1 bought from Ebay certainly might "function" but there is no way it will be Working to spec if it has never been serviced ...and most never were.
I would pay to have a pro-grade (Nikon, Canon, Leica Pentax, Rolleiflex) camera that I used regularly serviced, but doubt if I would for the consumer S.L.R. cameras of the seventies and eighties whose designers and engineers when selecting the materials to make them out of and the engineering tolerances they would be manufactured to when starting the project never actually envisaged them to have a service life forty or more years. The fact is that the majority of these cameras have never had any maintenance, are worn out, and have reached the end of their service life.
I would pay to have a pro-grade (Nikon, Canon, Leica Pentax, Rolleiflex) camera that I used regularly serviced, but doubt if I would for the consumer S.L.R. cameras of the seventies and eighties
Both are true in my experience.That hasn't been my experience of it at all. Many of these cameras have hardly been used,
Both are true in my experience.
The best condition cameras at the lowest price I've bought have been entry level SLRs of the early 2000s. These typically overlapped digital cameras and sat in a drawer virtually from day one. If they were used at all it was lightly, and as amateur kit would have been mollycoddled in well padded cases. Plenty come with their original boxes and all the paperwork and are to all intents brand new. Clearly, they are not built for professional use but will give some years of service, and enjoyed the trickle down technology of their professional brethren.
Service costs make these cameras disposable, and I bought mine at disposable camera prices. Likewise my Yashica FR, a camera I like very much and for which I possess six lenses, has a broken frame counter. This was a known flaw in an otherwise well built camera. I could have it repaired, but a replacement part would come from a doner body and is a poor design and likely to fail again. For my purposes a frame counter is almost irrelevant - I often forget to reset manual counters. There's no doubt when the film comes to an end.
On the other hand if you have a favoured mechanical camera on which you do most or all of your photography, a CLA or repair is essential if its to continue working at volume. For a second string camera that comes out a few times a year and exposes as expected, maybe not. Some collectors want their cameras working as they left the factory even if those cameras never see another film.
That isn't how cameras were designed to be used.I use every camera I buy at least once
Neither is that.I get great pleasure from resurrecting these cameras
That isn't how cameras were designed to be used.
Neither is that.
Cameras are designed for taking pictures. People may derive pleasure from fixing them and collecting them, but that was never why they were created. If you have one or two cameras and take lots of photographs with them, they need to work properly. If they're used once, an accommodation can be reached with their flaws without affecting your photographic output.
I thought it was clear but I'm happy to repeat it. In a era when film cameras are not the tool of choice for most photography, and their financial value is generally low, maintaining a lot of cameras for their photographic reliability isn't necessary. Depending on the circumstances and the camera in question, just buy another one may or may not be sound advice.so I have no idea what your point actually is?
I thought it was clear but I'm happy to repeat it. In a era when film cameras are not the tool of choice for most photography, and their financial value is generally low, maintaining a lot of cameras for their photographic reliability isn't necessary. Depending on the circumstances and the camera in question, just buy another one may or may not be sound advice.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?