Thought experiment: What if electronically controled cameras are actually no less reliable

MattKing said:

And considering how long 620 film was made after the last camera was made, those are really long term obsolescence plans!

Click to expand...

To be fair to Kodak, 620 cameras aren't a good example of planned obsolescence, because Kodak didn't plan to discontinue the film to force people to buy new cameras (and of course they made the film for a very long time). Rather the opposite, they are an example of oligopolistic lock-in, where Kodak sold the cameras with a proprietary format to sell its film. Planned obsolescence doesn't actually work that well in a market with competition between suppliers, because customers can go elsewhere - one needs some kind of oligopoly, compatibility, or style grip on the market. The electronic-camera world does not have many good examples of planned obsolescence I can think of (deliberately designing for a short lifetime). Inkjet printers are a better example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

Alan Edward Klein said:

I have a 30+-year-old Nikon N6006 SLR, electronic. A couple of years ago I checked the electronic shutter and was happy to find it's absolutely still accurate, more than any mechanical camera (lens) I have. I couldn't;t really check it faster than 1/125th of a second. But look at the results I got for the other settings. Really quite accurate.
View attachment 298564

Click to expand...

Very interesting. I have it from good sources that Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad can't really come close to 1/500 sec. Most run 1/350 to 1/400 at that setting.

Arthurwg said:

Very interesting. I have it from good sources that Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad can't really come close to 1/500 sec. Most run 1/350 to 1/400 at that setting.

Click to expand...

I never seen such sloppiness in the 1/500 second of a Hasselblad lens. If there had been that kind of slop I would have seen it at some time over the years. It is just not there and I have never heard any other Hasselblad owners ever mention the problem. This myth may well come from those same people own cannot afford Hasselblads and make up false narrative on the internet such as only dentist own Hasselblad and that Hasselblad has a mirror slap problem. As with any camera, one must properly maintain it.

Arthurwg said:

Very interesting. I have it from good sources that Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad can't really come close to 1/500 sec. Most run 1/350 to 1/400 at that setting.

Click to expand...

The apparent inaccuracies may be due to testing techniques of between-the-lens shutters. Testing is sometimes done at the maximum aperture opening while it should also be done at smaller apertures. It takes time for the shutter blades to open and close. Some shutter testers measure from the beginning of the shutter opening to the end. The blades are still opening and closing for part of this time, and passing less light to the film. The speed scale on a good lens compensates for this while some shutter testers do not. The best shutter tester may be an oscilloscope which presents a graph of light transmitted by the shutter vs time. This also detects shutter bounce and can be set up to check flash sync delay. Even a primitive oscilloscope can be used with the horizontal sweep coming from a variable sine wave generator. during a career in electronic repair, I considered a calibrated oscilloscope to be the most versatile of all test equipments, although often not the most convenient.

Arthurwg said:

Very interesting. I have it from good sources that Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad can't really come close to 1/500 sec. Most run 1/350 to 1/400 at that setting.

Click to expand...

That's quite good performance for a leaf shutter of any brand. Most are typically even slower at marked 1/500.

NB23 said:

We easily fall in Love with our mechanical cameras.
Nobody falls in Love, or at least shouldn’t, with a digital/electronic camera.

Click to expand...

Damn, I didn't get that memo and have since fallen in love with my Mamiya 645 1000s, Ricoh KR-10, Nikon FG, Pentax ME Super and PC35AF -- and somehow have managed not quite to fall in love with my Ricoh KR-5.

Aaron

Thomas_Higgin said:

at the consumer level, mechanical cameras dance all over electronic cameras. A mechanical camera that’s been sitting around for years is less likely to have major problems simply because they lack the intricate and fragile circuitry of an electronic camera.

Click to expand...

Having bought or acquired several cameras over the last couple of years, my experience has been opposite. I find mechanical cameras that have not been used for many years can have shutter timing problems -- I imagine the problem is dried-out gummed-up lubrication. The electronic cameras, OTOH, generally either don't work at all or work pretty close to perfectly. On the electronic side, I've had surprisingly few duds.
Aaron

maevery said:

What do you think about this thought experiment? Do you think electronic cameras are scapegoated for problems even mechanical cameras suffered from? Or do you believe that because electronic cameras all have some level of irreplaceable chips, they will inherently never be as reliable as a mechanical system.

Click to expand...

the human body isan electricity system so every camera is electric controlled

Sirius Glass said:

I never seen such sloppiness in the 1/500 second of a Hasselblad lens. If there had been that kind of slop I would have seen it at some time over the years. It is just not there and I have never heard any other Hasselblad owners ever mention the problem. This myth may well come from those same people own cannot afford Hasselblads and make up false narrative on the internet such as only dentist own Hasselblad and that Hasselblad has a mirror slap problem. As with any camera, one must properly maintain it.

Click to expand...

You have a hasselblad and you must have had the lens TLA right? Didn't they tell you what's the accuracy of the shutter speeds after a CLA?

Chan Tran said:

You have a Hasselblad and you must have had the lens CLA right? Didn't they tell you what's the accuracy of the shutter speeds after a CLA?

Click to expand...

I never asked for the information. It is their job to do their work correctly and my job to produce great photographs. Their work has never resulted in my photograph being off enough to be noticed.

Vaughn said:

Electronic or not, I dislike plastic.

Click to expand...

It makes great film holders and film bases. My glass plates keep chipping when I try to thread them into the take-up spool.

reddesert said:

It makes great film holders and film bases. My glass plates keep chipping when I try to thread them into the take-up spool.

Click to expand...

But my wood LF holders (5x7, 8x10 ad 11x14) are superior in some ways and in some ways not to newer plastic ones.

I checked out 35mm cameras to students for 24 years -- that is the experience that informed my opinion about plastic and cameras. I do love my Diana camera...but for 75 cents I do not expect it to withstand constant hard use.

Thomas_Higgin said:

at the consumer level, mechanical cameras dance all over electronic cameras. A mechanical camera that’s been sitting around for years is less likely to have major problems simply because they lack the intricate and fragile circuitry of an electronic camera. We’re just saying that at the professional level, the reliability of electronic cameras becomes less of an issue.

Click to expand...

No. The mechanical camera is even more affected by humidity/rust/environment over time. And lack of lubrication. Both are in essence mechanical cameras, but the former relies even more in mechanics.

Ivo Stunga said:

TLDR:
Any skilled machinist can take the broken part out, put it together by soldering, welding or casting. It's there - on the table, it's function is clear and is not obscured or serialized to one unique device. Expensive repair as a service? Probably. Doable in a small modern workshop? Absolutely. Especially in the world of laser scanning that can map the replaceable part very precisely + 3D printing gets better by the day.

Click to expand...

This is just make-believe, a myth. Reality is different. You claim that since we can "observe" a machined piece, we can reproduce it. This doesn't say anything about the material used, nor the precision required. You think that machined parts that often get damaged, like the advance gears for a Pentax 6x7 camera, are easy or cheap to machine again with the required strength and precision? Those parts that break or bend in a mechanical camera, are often under critical stress, or require critical precision.

Have you peeked inside a mechanism like the mechanisms inside a Canon New F-1? Have you taken a look at the mirror-polished gears that are there, or the laser welding used to keep the curtain spindles soldered to their corresponding gears? Do you think to replicate such parts, with the same reliability, would be a simple job for a small machine shop?

As for 3D printing, you seem to think 3D printing is some magical thing. It isn't. You can't replace a precision cam or gear on a camera with a 3d printed piece made by the FDM process. Unless it's a big piece that doesn't matter if it's fragile. SLA (stereolithography) can make pieces of better precision but not rigid enough. You need a machine shop with a lathe. And then the machine shop not necessarily will be able to make a piece with a reliable, strong enough alloy.

As for soldering... Do you think soldering an alloy precision piece, like a gear, that will be subject to strain and pressures,, is something that is sane or even feasible.

Ivo Stunga said:

It's there - on the table, it's function is clear and is not obscured or serialized to one unique device.

Click to expand...

I will tell you which kind of parts have their function not obscured by anything and can be precisely identified and replaced: Electronic parts. I can look at a capacitor and know what will its value and voltage should be, by looking at its code. Same for transistors, they have a printed code there on top. Integrated chip failed? This is rare, however If you're thinking you can take the time and expense of having a machine shop make a custom piece, then surely by the same time/effort i can get an electronic wizard to replace even a complete IC by another custom IC made by PLA (programmable logic arrays), microcontrollers, or a combination of them plus analog circuits.

OR, even easier... get a donor camera. Which is what you will often need in the end, no matter if the camera is "electronic" or "mechanical".

flavio81 said:

This is just make-believe, a myth. Reality is different. You claim that since we can "observe" a machined piece, we can reproduce it. This doesn't say anything about the material used, nor the precision required.

Click to expand...

Agreed, it is a little make-believe. That's why I mentioned that the limiting factor is size. A bracket is replicable, a frame or a fitting, but a tiny gear or similar intricate part can't - it can be taken, though - available in other bodies.

flavio81 said:

Do you think to replicate such parts, with the same reliability, would be a simple job for a small machine shop?

Click to expand...

Simple? Who said simple. I said it's feasible and can be done up to a size limitation. Will something that big even brake inside a mechanical camera? Good question.

flavio81 said:

As for 3D printing, you seem to think 3D printing is some magical thing. It isn't.

Click to expand...

It's not. But it can serve it's place for casting larger parts with limited precision.

flavio81 said:

As for soldering... Do you think soldering an alloy precision piece, like a gear, that will be subject to strain and pressures,, is something that is sane or even feasible

Click to expand...

Of course not. I was thinking that broken part can be put together by soldering and recast in metal - you wouldn't do this with tiny things, you'll take those from a donor camera in reality.

flavio81 said:

I will tell you which kind of parts have their function not obscured by anything and can be precisely identified and replaced: Electronic parts

Click to expand...

And I have explained what leading manufacturers are doing to undo this. Yes, older cameras are "open", but tech tends to close down with time, - schematics and diagnostics tools tend not to be made available, parts even more so. Will this awful trend seep into the world of digital cameras? It's the same tech, that possibility is out there. Time and our voting with wallet will tell that story.

flavio81 said:

Have you peeked inside a mechanism like the mechanisms inside a Canon New F-1?

Click to expand...

I service my Olympus OM-1n myself, have body as spare and am waiting the day in horror when I'll have to replace a gear or a spring that no longer return's an indexing gear to it's position... Or having to disassemble the metering system of pulleys, strings and gears - don't want to approach that part of the camera like at all
But I can find an exploded view of how it's put together, in what order what comes apart and comes back together. Taking a soviet FED-2 rangefinder apart - a task less horrible, not as intricate a machine and cheap enough to fiddle around clockwork mechanisms for no food reason.

Have you tried finding a short on a modern PCB? Say a shorted SMD capacitor, a blown fuse with currents insufficient to heat stuff up in a world where electronics gadget manufacturers are keeping it all to themselves - parts, knowledge and tools including?

I surely am somewhat on a thought experiment, trying to apply my experience in repairing iPhones to the world of cameras in hopes that same practice's doesn't trickle down to each and every industry - a path we're surely are on and heading downhill.

My dentist uses a 3D machine to create a dental crown after taking pictures with a special sensor and computer then forming it on the computer screen. It saves sending out an imprint to an outside lab. The imprint isn't even necessary anymore. The advantage for him is it's faster and cheaper and he can do it in one visit. For the patient, the advantage is one visit. But I'm not sure it's the best material.