The Truth About Shutter Life?

[elekm]

I would think that a power winder might be easier on the shutter, because it winds at a consistent speed.

However, I suppose if the winder were too powerful, it might simply wind until it hits a stop, which could cause unnecessary wear in the film advance.

Regarding digital SLRs and shutter actuations, this is one reason I would never buy a used digital camera and certainly not a used entry level model without first investigating who owned it and how often it was used.

 

[Dave Parker]

I doubt the speed of the shutter actuation would have much bearing on the longevity of the shutter itself, I know several SI photographers who used the F5 and the Canon 1V and these guys might shoot several thousands of images every week during football season and most of them get years of use out of their camera, unless your shooting full time 7 days a week, the shutter systems in the current model pro cameras will last quite a number of years.

Dave

 

[Xmas]

A winder may be easier then a motor, e.g. the Oly wonder can manage near to 5 fps, the winder II about 2 fps.

I think the Oly winder would not make any difference, to the wind on system, beyond it would reduce the wear on the lever, and put it into the gearing in the baseplate.

Noel

 

[JBrunner]

A winder may be easier then a motor, e.g. the Oly wonder can manage near to 5 fps, the winder II about 2 fps.

I think the Oly winder would not make any difference, to the wind on system, beyond it would reduce the wear on the lever, and put it into the gearing in the baseplate.

Noel

Yes, I hear those Norsk are fast!

 

[John Koehrer]

When I worked in the repair trade the folks in the shop I worked at felt that a winder/motor was easier on the film transport than manual wind for a couple of reasons. The first was consistancy--the film was always wound with the same amount of tension/torque. Second was the winder didn't use a physical stop but was conrolled by switching power on/off.

The cycle of operation of a SLR goes something like this:
1)Mirror/shutter are tensioned by advance lever.
2)Shutter button is pressed which releases mirror> travels upward & strikes shutter release lever allowing shutter to travel across film gate.
That is really a simplifcation of what happens since there's usually a slug of spinning & traveling bits within for timing etc.
For giggles the release delay on most common SLR's is around 100ms rangefinders it's on the order of 10ms

 

[Prospero]

I recall that when the EOS 3 was introduced, Canon claimed that its new shutter design would last for an extremely long time - over 100,000 exposures. A French magazine tested three cameras - Minolta, Nikon and Canon - to failure and you can find a description of the results below.

http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_batt.htm

 

[Daniel_OB]

Snegron

150000 shots are easy to reach for pro photog with motor drive, in say 6 months of working. However they use the camera for years, and then sell it.

That "official" limit number of shuts are by camera design requirement. It includes all kind of safety factors (manufacturing reliability, accuracy in manufacturing, calculations inaccuracy, dynamic loads safety factors, material properties consistency factor,...) that designer incorporate into design, they can reach 5 or even and more, depend of company's standard.

www.Leica-R.com

 

[PhotoJim]

That Canon shutter test is just a sample of one - it's certainly impressive but by itself doesn't mean much. Still, with a film camera, 100,000-plus exposure shutters are pretty impressive and will last for a long time, timewise.

As for warranty issues on cameras that were used a lot, warranties don't cover failure, they cover manufacturing defects. I have always scratched my head at people that expect a warranty replacement when they drop something and break it. That's user error and shouldn't be covered. If someone wore out a shutter on a camera in the warranty period but the shutter met its anticipated lifespan (say a 50,000-exposure shutter failed after 60,000 firings but in only nine months), that's not a defective product - it was simply worn out. Car companies don't replace brake shoes and pads when they wear out, even if the car is under warranty, unless the wear was premature. The example above is not premature wear.

Since these warranty claims make goods more expensive for those of us who don't drop or excessively use gear, I'd be more than okay with camera companies having this as policy.

 

[elekm]

Sidetracking for a moment, digital cameras altered our thinking about acceptable pricing.

For example, most people wouldn't pay $500 for a film point and shoot yet have no problem laying down that much and more for the digital version that requires a great deal of compromise from the user.

And while we fret about spending $900 on a classic, that was the price for an entry level digital camera about a year ago (down now to about $600-$700, I think). $7,500 for a full-frame digital? You certainly wouldn't spend that much on a film SLR. Even a Leica isn't that costly ... well, maybe two Leicas.

However, our willingness to pay hasn't altered our expectations of useful longevitity. If I suddenly lost my ability to think rationally and plunked down $7,500 for a digi-SLR, I would expect that thing to last FOREVER.

 

[Bromo33333]

As for warranty issues on cameras that were used a lot, warranties don't cover failure, they cover manufacturing defects. I have always scratched my head at people that expect a warranty replacement when they drop something and break it. That's user error and shouldn't be covered.

If you buy a new Leica with the "Passport Warranty," it covers just about anything that could happen to the camera, except, I think, theft.

 

[naturephoto1]

If you buy a new Leica with the "Passport Warranty," it covers just about anything that could happen to the camera, except, I think, theft.

Unless things have changed "Passport Protection" (Leica USA) is for 3 years for any failure or breakage. That is true even if you are at fault. Just send the pieces back to Leica USA and they will rebuild or replace the equipment.

Rich

 

[PhotoJim]

That's one of the reasons why I can't afford a Leica.

Those who don't wreck their Leicas are subsidizing those who do - it's risk transfer. It creates moral hazard, actually... the majority subsidize the minority who take less care knowing that the warranty will cover them.

It's a pretty special product though - a lot of the buyers probably don't care.

 

[naturephoto1]

That's one of the reasons why I can't afford a Leica.

Those who don't wreck their Leicas are subsidizing those who do - it's risk transfer. It creates moral hazard, actually... the majority subsidize the minority who take less care knowing that the warranty will cover them.

It's a pretty special product though - a lot of the buyers probably don't care.

Hi Jim,

That may be true. However, I believe that Leica USA does this in part to get their new owners to take chances and make photos that they may otherwise not chance taking (getting better images in the effort).

Rich

 

[Bromo33333]

That's one of the reasons why I can't afford a Leica.

sunnavagun, that's why *I* can't either!

Those who don't wreck their Leicas are subsidizing those who do - it's risk transfer. It creates moral hazard, actually... the majority subsidize the minority who take less care knowing that the warranty will cover them.

It's a pretty special product though - a lot of the buyers probably don't care.

A lot of buyers care about the prettiness of their Leicas so much, that they don't ever unwrap them! (seriously).

But considering a near mint Leica MP costs about $2600, and new is about $3400, you can figure that warranty accounts for under $800 ... ? :confused: