Nope - electronics are more reliable. The current electronic consumer grade SLRs are incredibly reliable - there was a test in Chasseurs d´Images (F) magazine a couple of years ago. Mechanics are repairable, though. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-----Alkuperäinen viesti----- Lähettäjä: Steve Desjardins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Päivä: 02. elokuuta 2002 20:05 Aihe: Re: Re[2]: Subject: LX repair update >I'm not sure that camera companies want their high-end cameras to fail >so that users will buy new ones. I'm not even sure that they make much >money from their high-end bodies anyway. I suspect that they hope to >make money from lenses and accessories and have those expensive bodies >contribute mainly to reputation, and most companies rely on people >wanting the new bells and whistles to sell a new high-end camera. (It's >probably really different for the consumer models and the P&S's) The >MZ-S vs. LX lifetimes is an interesting question. The big difference >will probably be due to the technology differences and not quality >control, however. I assume that the MZ-S is far more electronic-based >than the more mechanical LX (I've never really seen an LX, so I'm >assuming it's mainly mechanical given it's vintage). The electronic >approach is probably more fragile. > > > >Steven Desjardins >Department of Chemistry >Washington and Lee University >Lexington, VA 24450 >(540) 458-8873 >FAX: (540) 458-8878 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/02/02 01:05PM >>> >Pål, > >You bring up some excellent points that are worthy of consideration. >The age of the LX bodies perhaps is the primary cause for problems. >The one fact remains that they are all OLD cameras and will continue >to have old camera problems. Perhaps far less than some other old >cameras, but problems nonetheless. > >Let's hope that on the 35mm front, the MZ-S proves to be a reliable >body. I suspect that it doesn't make economic sense for a company to >build a very expensive body that will last and last. No new sales >that way. So my guess is that the MZ-S will not hold up as well or >long as the LX. > > >Bruce > > > >Friday, August 2, 2002, 9:49:57 AM, you wrote: > >PJ> William wrote: > >>> Mu buddy with the F3 figures the camera was close to free, based >>> on the number of exposure cycles it has given him, with >>> absolutely no input costs other than the initial purchase price. > > >PJ> Has it occured to you that your friend might have been lucky? The >F3 is notoriously for a broken switch. Many Nikon owners prefer the F4 >over the F3 for reliability issues. > > >>> What really annoys me is that they are so unreliable though I >>> don't treat them badly. I live in a dry climate, I don't pound >>> on them, and I don't run a lot of film through them, but I run >>> enough to keep them exercised. They just don't seem as reliable >>> as they should be. > > >PJ> Well, the LX is indeed extremely reliable. That doesn't mean that >some haven't been less than lucky with theirs. Most LX is 10-20 years >old and while most other cameras that vintage end in the >PJ> waste when they breake down, the LX get repaired. Thats why you >hear about LX problems because people care. >PJ> My LX worked for 19 years when it broke down (a broken switch - >luckily both the meter and manual exposure still worked). After repair >and CLA I expect to work faultless for another 19 years. >PJ> It's now 21 years and is the camera I trust the most. And, BTW, my >camera has been used in very wet climate and has been soaked in water >several times. It has survived the abuse of 10 field >PJ> seasons working as a geologist with no protection sharing backpack >space with rock samples. It also has been dropped several times on rock >surfaces. > > > >>> It seems they still don't have the parts in stock to do the >>> repair, they were shipped parts that did not fit my camera. Some >>> modifications were done during the production life, and my >>> camera is one of the ones that was pre modification. > >PJ> In other words you have one of the most complex slr's ever made >that is damn old as well. Get someone to fix it properly and it should >last forever. > >PJ> The fact is that the LX has a better reliability record than the >Pentax 67. It also don't need lubrications as most other cameras (CLA on >an LX is really not necessary since very little to clean >PJ> and lubricate). The most reliable Pentax body is the 645. >PJ> People seem to forget that even the newest LX that can be found on >the international market is at least 12 years old. The wast majority of >LX bodies in existence are from 19-22 years old. In >PJ> addition the LX is an extremely complex camera. The so called >"common" problems of the LX don't matrialize until the camera approaches >10 years of age (which is far longer than planned obsolence >PJ> for most products). All of these problems are age related and are >common for other contamporary cameras as well. During the LX sales >years, basically the 80's, hardly anyone had heard about >PJ> problems with the LX. >PJ> It is a bit weird that when a 20 year old LX needs service its >because it is a unreliable camera whereas when a 20 year 67 or MX needs >service as well, then it is something that has to be >PJ> expected of old cameras. > >PJ> Pål > > >PJ> Pål - 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 .
