Whatever happened to Japanese quality?

<p>

<p>I take photographs with Japanese cameras, I have done since the early 1980s when I gave my mum back her Kodak retinette 1A and bought myself a Cannon AE1. I traded my Canon gear for Nikon a decade later and I took a Nikon F4 and a pair of F90s all over the world with me. The dust of the Gobi Desert, the Himalayas, the jungles of Borneo, the Australian outback and 100 other places has worked its way into the seams and crevices of these cameras, the shutter of at least one of them has cycled more than half a million times yet they are going strong and last time I had them serviced the technician told me they should last for years yet.</p>

<p>Of course, in this digital age, they don't get as much use as they did, and a year ago I traded a Nikon D1X for a Nikon D3. I have to be honest it wasn't a minute too soon. I must admit I'm not always as gentle as I could be with my cameras, they are working tools and a photograph is more important then the camera that takes it so part of the reason that I continue to favour the Nikon brand is because of its reputation for ruggedness. My D1X was roughly 4 years old, so imagine my dismay at the fact that most of the rubber shielding on the camera body has peeled off, or when a technician servicing the camera told me that after only 250,000 cycles the shutter was showing signs of imminent failure.</p>

<p>Then there's that Sony TV I had that died after only four years, or the Sony burnable CDs I used to use which seemed to have a failure rate of about 1 in 150. Honda cars built in Canada seem to be more solidly constructed than Honda cars built in Japan. I could go on but you get the picture.</p>

<p>Japan is still in a prolonged recession, a lot of Japanese manufacturing has been moved offshore but even so. Is this a trend? Should I be saving my money to buy Lieca cameras to replace my D3 when bits start to fall off it a couple of years from now?</p>

<p>My Leica is having bits and pieces fall off, and it's only 45 years old. The shutter needs repair too. It's hard to say how a <strong>Lieca </strong>would do, because something spelled that way is probably a cheap knockoff.</p>

<p>250,000 clicks is a lot for a camera only 3 years old or less. I presume you knew that when you bought the camera, and it was priced accordingly. It can be replaced for about $500, so start stuffing your piggy bank.</p>

<p>Well the proverbial F, F2 and F3 shutters were only rated for 150,000 frames, so you have done well. :)</p>

 

<p>Consumers do not demand high quality and long product life anymore, and the manufacturers have lowered their manufacturing and design standards to meet our lowered expectations. All we want is the next great "Wow!", and we want it now. Our desire for that wow happens much sooner than the typical product lasts anyway, so those products don't need to be built to last.</p>

<p>As solid of a machine it is, I doubt my Pentax DLSR will last as long as my 30-some odd year old Pentax K1000 (which is still quite servicable).</p>

<p>I still have in daily use an RCA television I bought for myself as a high school graduation gift in June 1987. It operates as well today as the day I brought it home. How many 23+ year old flat screen TV's will still be in operation in the future? Or 23 year old DLSR's? I have a feeling my K1000 will still be functioning... if there is still film to put through it.</p>

<p>Hey Edward, if you know where I can get a D3 for $500 don't be holding that info back!</p>

<p>Yeah my spelling of camera names needs work. I've just realised that in one plave on my first post I've spelt Canon with two Ns. Groan...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Planned obsolescence. </p>

 

<p>Digital cameras only have too last until a couple of generations and they are obsolete. Why make it too durable and price yourself out of the market. This is evolving technology.</p>

<p>Also Steve is right in that we demand less durability today for more wow factor. But that's not a new thing, just more common. GM Beat out Ford to become #1 with splashy colored cars versus ford's indestructible but boring model T.</p>

<p>Third factor - you shutter handles 1/250 flash synchro versus 1/60 on a older film camera. That means the shutter moves 4 times faster. 4 times faster = 16 times the wear. Of course the design if different and built to handle it but somewhere something has got to give.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>About those rubber grips: if you handle the gear the way you say you do, and do so in places like the Gobi, it shouldn't feel too horrible to spend the $60 or so on replacement rubber. It only takes a few minutes to replace it (you can do it yourself), and you're good as new. I don't expect my rubber truck tires to last 100k miles, either.</p>

<p>Film cameras were built to last for years and years because the people who bought them expected to use them for years and years. DSLR buyers don't expect to use them for more than a few years so there's no need to build them to last as long as film cameras. It's better for the manufacturer to give up some longevity to keep the price down. It's also better for the customer. He/she is paying less and still getting a camera that will last as long as it has to.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"the shutter of at least one of them has cycled more than half a million times yet they are going strong"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>500,000 actuations on a film camera? That's over 20,000 rolls of film! If you shoot one roll a day, every single day of the year, it'd take almost 55 years, and that's only from one camera!</p>

<p>Sure there isn't a bit of exaggeration?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"and a year ago I traded a Nikon D1X for a Nikon D3.....My D1X was roughly 4 years old, so imagine my dismay at the fact that most of the rubber shielding on the camera body has peeled off, </em>or when a technician servicing the camera told me that after only 250,000 cycles the shutter was showing signs of imminent failure.<em>"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That doesn't sound right; the D1x came out in Feb. 2001 - almost 10 years ago. I would also imagine that a camera making 250,000 shots would have paid for itself for any working pro.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"or the Sony burnable CDs I used to use which seemed to have a failure rate of about 1 in 150. Honda cars built in Canada seem to be more solidly constructed than Honda cars built in Japan."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Too many variables to draw meaningful conclusions here.</p>

<p>Dial back 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, .... Same complaints. Cameras have clearly got a lot worse over every decade since 1885, at least.<br>

They sure don't make them like they used to. That's why I still shoot a stop-down (not even preset) Contax D from the late 40s. Unlike that Leica/Lieca it doesn't have anything falling off it at all. Just goes to show how durable products were in the old Soviet Occupied Zone. ;)</p>

 

<p>Two decades ago products have been manufactured with pride, with the satisfaction of the customer in mind.<br>

Today products are manufactured and calculated with the shareholder revenue in mind. The pride, service and craftsmanship are gone, the customer is looked upon as a lousy and disturbing particle as soon as he paid for the commodity.<br>

Appreciation and valuation in society changed. Everybody wanted everything cheaper, so the manufacturing migrated to China, as well as the jobs. Japanese cameras are manufactured in China (the famous Rollei 35S had been manufactured in Singapore). The raw material today is made from recycled yoghurt cups and one way bottles imported from Germany.<br>

If you want high quality products you've got to search for them. There are still some family owned businesses around the world. For cameras there is Ebony in Japan, in the US SK Grimes, in France Arca Swiss, in Germany Linhof, in Japan Horseman, in Switzerland Alpa. These companies deliver premium quality, premium service and long lasting products for premium investments.<br>

I'm glad they still exist!<br>

I never wanted anything cheap, that's why I am still in the position to appreciate my 'heavy metal instruments' every single day. And I care for them. All cameras and lenses are sent to specialists once a year for CLA.<br>

If anybody complains about low quality, he should ask himself if he really paid enough money in exchange for 'enough' quality.<br>

Don't you guys in the US always say: You get what you pay for?<br>

;-)</p>

I tend to disagree with most of the above. I make about 4 major travels in 5 years time since 1980 to destinations like

India, Himalaya's, Africa (safari), etc. In general no camera-friendly environments. I've seen much more cameras fail in

the first years of travel than nowadays. The situation is more or less comparable, mainly relatively new SLR bodies,

entry and advanced amateur models. Based on this experience i even have the impression that recent cameras are

more reliable than 20 or 30 years ago.

<p><em>"Two decades ago [1991!] products have been manufactured with pride, with the satisfaction of the customer in mind.</em></p>

<p><em>"Today products are manufactured and calculated with the shareholder revenue in mind. The pride, service and craftsmanship are gone, the customer is looked upon as a lousy and disturbing particle as soon as he paid for the commodity.</em></p>

<p><em>"Appreciation and valuation in society changed. Everybody wanted everything cheaper. . . The raw material today is made from recycled yoghurt cups and one way bottles imported from Germany. . .</em></p>

<p><em>"I never wanted anything cheap, that's why I am still in the position to appreciate my 'heavy metal instruments' every single day. And I care for them. All cameras and lenses are sent to specialists once a year for CLA.</em></p>

<p><em>"If anybody complains about low quality, he should ask himself if he really paid enough money...</em></p>

<p><em>"Don't you guys in the US always say: You get what you pay for?"</em></p>

<p>--------------------</p>

<p>Right.</p>

<p>So...how much did we pay for <em>this</em> sweeping economic analysis and historical interpretation?</p>

<p>;-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Right. So...how much did we pay for this sweeping economic analysis and historical interpretation?<br />;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nada.<br /> And I guess you will outsmart the bad US economy with brilliant ideas.</p>

<p>In 2000 Kodak had 1 MP DSLR for a ton of money.<br /> In 2002 Canon sold the D60 for $2,000 ! Today it's worthless.<br /> In 2003 the 10D was twice the camera the D60 was, and its price down to just $1500. Today the 10D can be had in perfect condition for $100. But why?<br /> In early 2010 the 7D sold for $1700. It's more than 10 times the camera the 10D was for a few just a few more bucks.</p>

<p>So yes! Bring back the years 2000 to 2002 and those horrible, noisy, slow DSLRs! Buy me a closet full of hairsuits too.</p>

<p>Michael Chang, I'd be the first to admit that Maths aint my strong suit but I make that less than two rolls a day for 20 years (37 to 39 frames per roll), I bought my F4 in 1991 and I've been known to shoot 10-15 rolls in a day.</p>

<p>My D1X (bought 2003 IIRC) paid for itself but is dying. My F4 has also paid for itself but is going strong. That's my point.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's more than 10 times the camera the 10D was for a few just a few more bucks.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you be more specific and give us details? What is '10 times the camera'? 10 times resolution, 10 times cheating the consumer, 10 times the size?<br>

BTW, digital cameras are still 'noisy' as per today. As long as there will be noise ninja, noiseware and all the other apps, digital is still in kids shoes.</p>

<p>Ken, I would love to find some of those old cheap early digital cameras you're talking about to bring me up to date from my EOS film camera collection*. I have no idea why people pay so much for a 3 MP camera, but they usually go for more than once-great film cameras with a very few exceptions.<br>

There seems to be more "collector" interest in old film Nikons, but even there, the 'obsolete' digital cameras are expensive to buy, not cheap by <em>my</em> cheap standards (of course all is relative, when you throw the Leica worshippers into the equation, but we're not talking about pathology here).<br>

I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to have representative sample of EOS digital cameras from the past, but everybody can't be wanting them? And how many IR camera conversions can there be to justify the current eBay prices?</p>

<p>______<br>

*There, I've finally admitted that I am a collector. Isn't the first of the 12 steps or whatever?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As long as there will be noise ninja, noiseware and all the other apps, digital is still in kids shoes</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And as long as there is <em>grain</em> on high-speed films, film photography is still in its booties too?<br>

I speak as a long-term user of GAF 500 slide film. I also still shoot a lot of film, and I don't see as much improvement in über-ISO 800 film as all that. Plus as long as you have to spot prints from negatives to hide the dust motes on the film, in the enlarger, etc. I guess film will not triumph in the end. Anyhow,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>90% of everything is crap<br>

[attributed to Abe Maslow (as is nearly every other pithy saying)]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is not a new saying. It's rumored to have been found on the walls in vulgar Latin at Pompeii. (Fere omnes feces sunt?)</p>

<p><em>Hey Edward, if you know where I can get a D3 for $500 don't be holding that info back!</em></p>

<p>You can get a new shutter installed in your D3 for about $500 at Authorized Nikon Service in Morton Grove, Illinois. </p>

<p>We live in a society where things are not built to last. I am afraid you need to get used to what is served on the plate.</p>

<p>Is that the same repair service I used over thirty years ago when my old unbreakable Nikons broke?</p>

<p>It was EPoI then, of course, but I thought it was Morton Grove, I know it was Illinois somewhere north of the Dirksen Steppes.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>A couple months ago I had to pull out my old D2H (which I hadn't used in years) to use as a backup camera at a college football game. I normally use a D300 with power grip. Except for the 4MP of the D2h, it's built like a tank and fires like a machine gun. This camera is built to last. I have never owned a film camera of this high mechanical quality. </p>

<p>Edward Ingold are you having a laugh? Read what you wrote before you go critiscising my comprehension skills.</p>

<p><em>250,000 clicks is a lot for a camera only 3 years old or less. I presume you knew that when you bought the camera, and it was priced accordingly. It can be replaced for about $500, so start stuffing your piggy bank.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

;)</p>