Our Cameras and the Future.. Repair-wise

[film_man]

I see it this way. I have a 1930s Voigtlander TLR that still works. The 1s shutter speed is slow, but the rest works. That means that a mechanical 80 year old camera works. My Hasselblad is a 1998 501CM. So adding 80 to that makes it 2078. Now 2078 would make me 100. If I make it to 100 and am still well enough to take photos and my Hasselblad dies I'll just buy whatever is available then and be thankful I'm still alive to use it!

I'm more worried about my EOS system dying and even more by ending up with a choice of 2 films in a few years, one colour one B&W....

 

[Vaughn]

Embrace pinhole photography.

Some people get stuck on that.

Ouch!

 

[alex66]

I really want to learn how to do camera repair, I prefer older cameras and want to keep what I have going. Given that I have designed and built high end audio gear, I perhaps stupidly think I could get to a good standard. Anyone know of a good book or set of books that go through the ins and outs of the art?

 

[Steve Smith]

No. Just get some broken cameras and try to fix them.


Steve.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

http://www.amazon.com/Camera-Maintenance-Repair-Book-Comprehensive/dp/0936262869


Alex,
The one at the bottom, on classic cameras, might be a good start. Try to borrow one before you buy.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

It's worth knowing that Marty Forscher's famous New York shop, Professional Camera Repair, was in the diamond district, where all the watch guys are located as well. I always was curious about whether they might have shared expertise, staff, or machining skills.

 

[Ric Trexell]

Camera Repair has its drawbacks to consider.

I really want to learn how to do camera repair, I prefer older cameras and want to keep what I have going. Given that I have designed and built high end audio gear, I perhaps stupidly think I could get to a good standard. Anyone know of a good book or set of books that go through the ins and outs of the art?

Alex: In 1976 I went to the only camera repair school at the time other than a few colleges that had some courses on it. I went to National Camera Repair school in Englewood, Colo. Now the only course I know of is the C&C correspondence course and it is rather expensive. It was run by a former teacher at Nat Cam. To do a complete repair of a camera, you will need testing equipment which is not cheap. Focal plane shutters for example have to have the same exposure at the sides as the middle. Inexpensive shutter testers that are used by photographers only check the center exposure to see if the camera is in time. You would need micrometer/depth guages or a collimator to get the lense flange to film plane correct. To do digitals, you need a color checker and you will also need a light standard to check light meters. I'm probably forgeting a few other things too. Then there will be the problem of getting parts. For all the time and expense, you would be ahead to just send the camera out to be repaired.

 

[twalsh341]

Depends on your definition of economically, we could reverse engineer a camera and build parts or the whole thing for it, but all of that takes time and skill. The scenario of sticking an object of this sort of complexity in a machine that can scan it that precisely make an exact duplicate in the same material like "that" isn't here. Combine that with the different models of cameras that would be in demand, by a small market. It would probably still be cheaper to find a machinist, job shop, good model engineer, horologist etc to make the part required.

 

[twalsh341]

These parts are mostly done in ABS an impact resistant plastic, it however doesn't have the wear resistance of a hardened steel gear, a 3D printed part could not stand up to the cycles or wear of an original metal part. I would also think that in most cases the resolution of the 3D print would not be fine enough for some required parts. Something like a focusing helix for example would not have the fine smoothness of fit as a 3D printed part as a solid brass machined part. While there are metal 3D printing capabilities the same resolution issues and material limitations apply.

 

[rcam72]

I was wondering when someone would bring up 3D printing. I saw this and wondered when the home version will be ready. Of course the real cost will be in the replacement cartridges. If black ink goes for $15 for an inkjet I wonder how much a new titanium one would be.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57372095-76/3d-printer-produces-new-jaw-for-woman/

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I was wondering when someone would bring up 3D printing. I saw this and wondered when the home version will be ready. Of course the real cost will be in the replacement cartridges. If black ink goes for $15 for an inkjet I wonder how much a new titanium one would be.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57372095-76/3d-printer-produces-new-jaw-for-woman/

Actually, the real cost will be in parts that will not work.

 

[elekm]

Thomas Tomosy published a couple of books on camera repair. In general, most folding and non-SLR cameras are simple to repair. On my site, I've restored all of the cameras that I've reviewed, except for the new ones, of course.

 

[Sethasaurus]

Depends on your definition of economically, we could reverse engineer a camera and build parts or the whole thing for it, but all of that takes time and skill. The scenario of sticking an object of this sort of complexity in a machine that can scan it that precisely make an exact duplicate in the same material like "that" isn't here. Combine that with the different models of cameras that would be in demand, by a small market. It would probably still be cheaper to find a machinist, job shop, good model engineer, horologist etc to make the part required.

These parts are mostly done in ABS an impact resistant plastic, it however doesn't have the wear resistance of a hardened steel gear, a 3D printed part could not stand up to the cycles or wear of an original metal part. I would also think that in most cases the resolution of the 3D print would not be fine enough for some required parts. Something like a focusing helix for example would not have the fine smoothness of fit as a 3D printed part as a solid brass machined part. While there are metal 3D printing capabilities the same resolution issues and material limitations apply.

The machinists/model engineers/horologists of today are the new 3D designers and fabricators.
You're behind on the tech. Just because you haven't been exposed to it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
You wouldn't want to scan and make a direct copy of a worn gear anyway. You'd want to scan and refine/remake the model in your 3D design software before printing one out.
Check out shapeways.com for examples of their material list and examples of designs.

Of course there are still many competent craftsmen around, utilising old technology (lathes, hand tools, etc) as well as new (e.g laser-cutters).

Also, er, how many focusing helices have you ever had to replace?

(Also, remember the Chinese Proverb - People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it).

 

[mAc12563]

There is no part on a camera that cannot be reproduced. I have spent quite a few years while living in Europe making parts for all kind of devices across a broad range of industries. It is absolutely unnecessary to use 3D modeling or CAD to reproduce a single part needed. Many times I was only given a small fragment of the part to be reproduced and had no problem recreating the part they needed. There are many home shop machinist who have created small scale injection molding machines for creating complex plastic parts. I can't think of a large scale manufacturing process that has not been recreated in someones garage.

3D printed parts are used for mold making of parts that will be cast. For closer tolerances those parts would have to be machined anyways. I would simply post on a machinist or clock making forum to get parts made for a camera I was repairing if parts were not available.

One of my friends has a metal fabrication shop and he would send clients to me to produce "one offs" or small runs of parts that were not cost effective for him. So I am quite familiar with parts fabrication and see no limitation in getting parts in the future.

 

[benjiboy]

Yes, but there are probably more of them than there are camera repairers.


Steve.

Not since the advent of digital clocks and watches.

 

[alex66]

Thank you for the replies I am going to look in to getting those books in the UK. I have started on the just in case camera plans getting as many working OM and Fuji X mount bodies I can for less than £5 each. I guess that if I trip the shutter of the empty cameras every couple of wks it should keep them from locking up or drying out, is this a good idea? the ones with film in won't go more than a couple of days with out being used (using 7-10 rolls of 35mm a wk). I will look into the gear required to repair after I finish getting the stuff to make emulsions.

 

[Steve Smith]

There is no part on a camera that cannot be reproduced. I have spent quite a few years while living in Europe making parts for all kind of devices across a broad range of industries. It is absolutely unnecessary to use 3D modeling or CAD to reproduce a single part needed. Many times I was only given a small fragment of the part to be reproduced and had no problem recreating the part they needed. There are many home shop machinist who have created small scale injection molding machines for creating complex plastic parts. I can't think of a large scale manufacturing process that has not been recreated in someones garage.

Exactly the point I was making earlier.

Not since the advent of digital clocks and watches.

Digital clocks and watches didn't stop people making mechanical clocks any more than it stopped us using film. There must be many more model engineering types making clocks than there are making shutters.


Steve.

 

[benjiboy]

Exactly the point I was making earlier.



Digital clocks and watches didn't stop people making mechanical clocks any more than it stopped us using film. There must be many more model engineering types making clocks than there are making shutters.


Steve.

The advent of digital clocks and watches decimated the Swiss mechanical clock industry, you can buy a quartz watch these days for £10 that is as accurate a timekeeper as a very expensive mechanical certified chronometer, and how many major camera manufacturers are still making film cameras since the digital revolution ?.

 

[Moopheus]

how many major camera manufacturers are still making film cameras since the digital revolution ?.

Nikon, Canon, Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Mamiya, Fuji, Zeiss. Admittedly, at least some of these are actually being built by Cosina, and production is limited. But cameras you can still buy for sale new. Kodak still makes the disposable one-use cameras; in fact, it appears they are selling more film through one-use cameras than single rolls. And of course, a variety of toy cameras.

 

[Argenticien]

I guess that if I trip the shutter of the empty cameras every couple of wks it should keep them from locking up or drying out, is this a good idea?

Generally the advice you'll see is "yes" it's a good idea. I usually cycle through all the shutter speeds on a camera a couple of times, and then leave the shutter set to "B" until next exercise. (Certainly at least don't leave it tensioned.) My own further procedure is on a camera with a known working self-timer, exercise that too. This may be controversial (as others may say never, ever touch old self-timers), but my view is you should exercise self-timers either often or never. Using them extremely rarely is where you get into explosively bad trouble. And I'd agree on not wantonly experimenting with a self-timer in unknown state of repair on a newly acquired camera.

--Dave

 

[Steve Smith]

I guess that if I trip the shutter of the empty cameras every couple of wks it should keep them from locking up or drying out, is this a good idea?

Generally, yes. But if it is jamming up due to lack of use then this is a sign that it needs to be cleaned and re-lubricated as a correctly maintained shutter will not lock up just due to being unused for a while.

If the shutter does not lock up and you are only doing it as a preventative measure, then whilst it does no harm, I doubt that it is doing much of any value either.


Steve.

 

[Sethasaurus]

There is no part on a camera that cannot be reproduced. I have spent quite a few years while living in Europe making parts for all kind of devices across a broad range of industries. It is absolutely unnecessary to use 3D modeling or CAD to reproduce a single part needed. Many times I was only given a small fragment of the part to be reproduced and had no problem recreating the part they needed. There are many home shop machinist who have created small scale injection molding machines for creating complex plastic parts. I can't think of a large scale manufacturing process that has not been recreated in someones garage.

3D printed parts are used for mold making of parts that will be cast. For closer tolerances those parts would have to be machined anyways. I would simply post on a machinist or clock making forum to get parts made for a camera I was repairing if parts were not available.

One of my friends has a metal fabrication shop and he would send clients to me to produce "one offs" or small runs of parts that were not cost effective for him. So I am quite familiar with parts fabrication and see no limitation in getting parts in the future.

It's not absolutely necessary to know or be a machinist either. You use the tools you're comfortable with. Many people would prefer to make the part manually. Others would prefer to use 3D printing.
You're behind on the tech. 3D printing is not as limited as you imagine.

 

[dehk]

Well, i am stock piling camera parts that i see for next to nothing, but nothing you can't make yourself, especially mechanical parts.

 

[mAc12563]

"3D printing is not as limited as you imagine"

That is not an accurate statement. Many 3D printer’s prototype tolerances are .010" (0.25mm) along the X and Y axis and 0.010" (0.25mm) per inch (25.4mm) along the Z axis. You would not be able to produce parts for any device using this process that would you would consider a precision instrument or recreate replacement part with any accuracy.

I am very familiar with using CAD/CAM in production manufacturing so I am not "behind on the tech". You need to understand that 3D printing is for rapid prototyping and not a tool to produce finished precision parts. BTW I was asked by a company to evaluate a 3D printer they were producing for them so I am very familiar with the limitations of the technology.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

There is also a problem with materials and surface finish. 3d printing is not able to turn out a heat treated (or heat treatable) part, either.