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 >>> P�l, 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> P�l PJ> P�l PJ> - PJ> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, PJ> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to PJ> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - 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 . - 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 .
