The future of SLR repair (2/3): Following manufacturer guidelines or creative DIY solutions?

[Andreas Thaler]

When it comes to repairing film SLRs, opinions are divided:

Some argue that only adherence to manufacturer specifications ensures flawless results.

After all, only the manufacturer has the expertise to properly restore its own products.

Others counter that creative solutions can also achieve the desired outcome.

Moreover, the manufacturer could not have foreseen or accounted for problems that arise decades after production and service have ceased. These include signs of aging such as material fatigue and wear and tear.

If our goal is to repair and service historic SLRs and thus restore them to working order

which of these positions should we follow? And what reasonable compromise should we arrive at?

After all, both positions have their limitations:

Manufacturer specifications can only be followed if they can be implemented in the actual repair situation.

Creative solutions—that is, modifications to the manufacturer’s specifications—can only be successful if they are compatible with the manufacturer’s specifications.

An example to illustrate this:

The shutter of the Minolta (Maxxum, Alpha) 9000 AF has a plastic damper that has chemically degraded over the decades and become sticky. This renders the shutter unreliable or inoperable. A repair according to the manufacturer’s specifications requires replacing the entire shutter unit.





However, new replacement shutters have long been unavailable, and even these are subject to the aging process described above too. Consequently, the 9000 AF could no longer be repaired according to the manufacturer’s specifications.




A creative solution is to disassemble the shutter, remove the old damper, and install a replacement. All of this is done without technical documentation, as these shutters were rarely documented and must therefore be regarded as black boxes. They were replacement units.

Consequently, the original condition can no longer be restored. This is relevant for high-performance shutters, as they must operate with microsecond precision and are subjected to high mechanical stresses. This is all the more true when they are operated in motorized high-speed mode.

If, as discussed in this post, we wish to share repair and service knowledge (because these SLRs are no longer, or only to a limited extent, professionally serviced), how should we proceed?

Strict adherence to manufacturer specifications would mean that the 9000 AF cannot be restored.

A creative DIY solution (in this case, a cut-to-size rubber band as a shock absorber replacement) puts the 9000 AF into an undocumented state.

In other words, it may function permanently according to manufacturer specifications again, but only for a short time, or it may develop new problems as a result.

Why am I asking these questions?

When we curate obsolete SLRs and provide service/repair instructions for them, we need to be clear about what makes sense—whether it’s an electromechanical SLR or a purely mechanical one.

This also entails a responsibility toward users. Because shortcuts that are often taken turn out to be botched jobs that do more harm than good.

That’s why I’d like to discuss this in principle.

---

See also

Minolta (Maxxum/Alpha) 9000 AF: Removal of the mirrorbox/assembly, investigating the aperture issue, replacing the sticky damper in the shutter unit

The other thought is how i want to try stepwise document a 9000 repair. Could be fun to try do it on film with a digital backup. Good idea! I will also work on the 9000 soon: removing the mirror box, removing the sticky damper from the shutter and cleaning the aperture magnet. I will report...

www.photrio.com

 

[lumoStoria]

For me, it's simple: Functionality over authenticity. After all, cameras are tools and as a camera repairer your obligation is to make them work again. You do not work in a museum where authenticity is the first priority. If you do not have the original spare parts think about which DIY solution may help. Yes, the manufacturer did not certify the substitute parts and materials you use but, on the other hand, the manufacturer never thought that their cameras would be in use 40+ years after their production. Maybe, the DIY solution works in the long run, maybe it fails. In the latter case, learn from it and try something new. As long as you repair your own cameras, it's completely up to you. Only if you repair cameras as a business, you have to transparent towards the customer if you use such solution. If the alternative is to have a broken camera, use whatever helps to make it work again.

 

[Andreas Thaler]

Maybe, the DIY solution works in the long run, maybe it fails. In the latter case, learn from it and try something new. As long as you repair your own cameras, it's completely up to you. Only if you repair cameras as a business, you have to transparent towards the customer if you use such solution. If the alternative is to have a broken camera, use whatever helps to make it work again.

I’m looking at this from a broader perspective.

When it comes to helping others repair their SLRs—because no one else is doing it, or because professional services aren’t available or aren’t sufficient—we need to ask ourselves what kind of knowledge we’re imparting.

I’m taking the liberty of having this discussion here on PHOTRIO, which is unquestionably the leading platform for discussions about film and everything related to it.

Specifically: If I write a repair guide for eg. the Nikon FA, I need to clarify what I’m basing it on.

On the manufacturer’s documentation as the primary source, supported by secondary sources (always SPT Journal for SLRs), or on my personal opinions.

I favor the former, because as a DIY amateur, I can’t know any better than the manufacturer or Master Larry Lyells (SPT). Unless, of course, I discover new methods myself, as previously discussed. But I must disclose that. Those who then choose to repair on their own will do so.

In short, I’m concerned with standards for how we can document and pass on old technology.

Chris Sherlock, Rick Oleson, and Richard Haw do this from the same non-profit perspective, each in their own area of expertise.

As far as I can tell, they all work strictly on a manufacturer-specific basis. However, I am not familiar with the specifics of the work done by the first two gentlemen, as that is not my area of expertise.

 

[lumoStoria]

Regarding this topic, we have to distinguish between procedures and spare parts.

For most of the necessary repairs, the manufacturer or the renowned professional repairers of back then have developed and documented procedures on how to perform them. Of course, if we know of these procedures we should follow them. As far as I know, there might be some gaps, like the infamous "Canon Cough/Squeak" for which the manufacturer (to my knowledge) did not give any procedure simply because it occurs only after a couple of years. For these, we can follow the procedures of later repairers which we trust (not the ones with the syringe ).

For spare parts, it is a different picture. If all the spare parts would still be available today (to anyone and for an affordable price) it would be a no-brainer to use these spare parts. There would be hardly any need for a DIY solution that would often take longer to figure out (and might be less reliable) than the use of an original spare part. However, in the real world, NOS spare parts are scarce, expensive, or cannot be found at all on the market. In this case, you could either cannibalize a donor camera (that might have been worth to repair, too). However, these spare parts are already used and might fail much earlier than a new part would. Or you think about a DIY solution and make your own "spare part". This might not conform to the manufacturer's standards (but most of these standards for individual parts are anyway unknown to us) but it can help to bring back the camera to life. I will always be willing to go this way.

An example from my workbench. I had a Canon A-1 with a stuck shutter. After disassembling the shutter mechanism almost completely I found the problem: There was a small metal shaft with a plastic sleeve. The plastic sleeve was probably used to dampen the impact of a gear on the shaft at the end of the curtain movement. Unfortunately, part of the plastic just crumbled away over the years. Due to this, the gear "jumped" over the shaft and the shutter mechanism got out of sync and jammed.

What to do? For this shaft with its plastic sleeve, there is not even a spare part since it is integral part of the shutter frame. In the old days, this would be a no-brainer. You would just replace the complete shutter unit. But to find a NOS shutter unit for an A-1 is almost impossible and if you take one from a donor camera who guarantees that its plastic sleeve isn't already crumbled away, too, or will be in the near future. In this situation, I just removed the plastic sleeve and replaced it by the silicon sleeve of a loudspeaker cable that had about the right inner and outer diameter. Is this a repair the manufacturer or Larry Lyells would approve: Certainly not. But it worked for me and the camera is in good working order again. Would I do it again in a similar situation: Definitely.

Maybe, it is only my mindset to do it this way. I was born and raised in an economically struggeling planned economy where almost anything was scarce and the first rule of survival was "Improvise!". Might have been a good school for today's camera repair .

 

[Andreas Thaler]

With electromechanical SLR cameras, it’s not so much defective parts as problems with electrical contacts that cause issues. At least in my experience so far.

In both cases, fixing the problem requires disassembly to a greater or lesser extent, which probably deters DIYers because it looks complicated. But I don’t think taking apart a fully mechanical Nikon F2 is any easier. Add the electromechanical Photomic AS viewfinder to the mix, and you’ve got plenty of complications.

I think sourcing parts from discarded SLRs of the same type is the solution that comes closest to the original condition. Creative DIY solutions are effective if they’ve been tested and documented. For this reason, too, it would be helpful to see as many project reports on service and repair as possible.

Large-scale projects like kamerastore.com, which inspect, restore, label with condition details, and sell cameras, can help secure the future of these models.

For private collectors, it’s worth collecting cameras for spare parts. Up to the Nikon F3 as a benchmark, it should even be possible to replace the electronics; starting with the Nikon F4, this is possible with some limitations. With the Nikon F5, DIY is no longer an option, as it requires the manufacturer’s hardware and software.

 

[TheHans]

Heck, I'd be happy just to be able to rebuild the TTL metering systems on my Exakta and Bronica. But the electronics are so old I can't even find datasheets for some of them to be able to identify alternates. Particularly the photodiodes.