From a 1979 special number of Chasseur d'Images. Total number of cameras surveyed: about 15,000
Model A B C D N*k*n f 9 78 0,7 0,37 pentax kx 10 32 0,7 1,30 N*k*n el2 6 24 1,8 0,63 leica all 20 129 2,4 1,10 C*n*n f1 13 42 2,6 0,47 pentax sp5/1000 24 111 2,9 0,53 N*k*n ft 42 120 3,0 0,20 C*nt*x rts 17 16 4,2 0,20 N*k*n f2 13 32 4,4 1,27 K*n*c* tn3 20 50 4,5 0,17 Etc... Almost 100 models or groups of models. A: Number of cameras returned per 100 cameras. Note: Older cameras have more chance to have been returned more frequently (than newer cameras). So this number does not tell us a lot about toughness. But readers gave the number of months they have had the camera (column B) and the number of photographs taken with their camera. A somewhat meaningfull measure of toughness is then possible (column C). B: Average age of camera (months). C: Number of returns (for service) per 100,000 clicks (rounded to .1) Average for all cameras is 16,6 (not 11 as I reported earlier) D: Share (%) of all cameras own by readers. If you multiply this % by approx. 15,000, you get, for example, that 56 Nikon F and 195 Pentax KX have been considered in the survey. Models with less than 25 cameras surveyed are grouped (i.e. all leica, all topcon, all mamiya etc.) Global results (average number of returns per 100,000) for a few brands: N*k*n 7 Pentax 9,6 Ol*mp*s 15,8 K*n*c* 15,8 F*j*c* 15,8 AVERAGE 16,6 M*n*lt* 17,5 Pr*kt*c* 28,7 There are many comments in the text (for example, most common types of repairs are mentionned for many models). Also average cost of repair and average delay (not interesting as it relates to one country and back then). >I seriously doubt the survey's methodology. If not >knowing numbers which they wouldn't know (number of total cameras in >use of that particular type compared to defect ones), it's >meaningless. The methodology itself seems OK. If we believe that these 15000 cameras behaved in a "typical" way... but it's not a question of believing... Is 15,000 enough? Is the margin of error too high? Andre >Or did they use different methodology? Please dig out the >article, so we can be sure :) > >Frantisek > >P.S.: thanks! > >Thursday, July 11, 2002, 5:43:55 AM, andre wrote: >a> The KX was found to be as tough as N*k*n F in a huge survey made by >a> Chasseur d'Image in... 1979 if I remember. I have the issue >a> somewhere and will post the results if I can find it. > >a> N*k*n F had 0,69 breakdown every 100,000 shots >a> Pentax KX had 0,70 > >a> I just found a file with the first ones: > >a> N*k*n f ,69 >a> pentax kx ,70 >a> N*k*n el2 1,8 >a> L**c* all 2,4 >a> C*n*n f1 2,6 >a> pentax sp5&1000 2,9 >a> N*k*n ft 3,0 >a> C*nt*x rts 4,2 >a> N*k*n f2 4,4 >a> K*n*c* tn3 4,5 > >a> Average of all cameras reported (by thousands of readers) is around 11. > >a> Andre -- - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
