Lots of people are quite excited about the new MZ-S, extolling
its virtues of size, handling, features, and apparent build
quality. Recently I've read a few articles about camera
durability. It seems that the number of cycles the shutter is
designed for is a good indicator of a camera's longevity,
assuming the body holds together.
Early Pentax had shutters that were good for about 50,000
cycles, later models, like the Spotmatic, bumped that up to
about 100,000 cycles. "Pro" cameras seem to be in the 150,000
cycle range. Where does the MZ-S fall?
I don't know what the projections are about the Mz-S, and don't care.
The concept of mean time between failure is useful for corporations who need to calculate their liability under warranty policies (or calibrate those policies to minimize liability) but is pretty useless on an individual basis. You may have the Spotmatic that goes to 50,000, I may have one that goes to 250,000. The 150,00 mtbf rule would apply, but you'd be pissed and I'd be happy.
Right now, my LX is in Colorado to get the shutter replaced. I don't know how it fared against the MTBF projections for Lx's. It broke. I'm getting it fixed. No big deal.
These days, the issue is further minimized because the odds are that any film camera you buy today will outlast film as a medium for storing digital images.
The rather quaint notion that you buy something once and never buy a similar device for the rest of you life arose out of 19th century and prior technology where things just plain didn't change fast enough to warrant being replaced in one lifetime. That logic was obsolete in the 20th century, and is mythologic in the 21st century. Things are more disposable than ever.
I don't worry about the Mz-S lasting. It will probably outlast my use of film, and if it doesn't, I'll send it in to get fixed, like I just did with my LX.
- MCC
- - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino
Kalamazoo, MI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- - - - - - - - - -
Photos:
- - - - - - - - - -
