Dumb Question: What is a CLA?

[peter_kim2]

Hi all...I'm thinking about buying a used Minolta Autocord to get

into MF, I dont know anything about it. But I noticed everyone

saying something about getting old cameras CLAed...What in the world

is CLA? I assume it means something like cleaning it? $100-$200

seems kind of expensive to clean a camera that I plan to buy for

under $100...Even if I get one that is in supposedly good and

functional condition do I need a CLA?

 

Pete

[NetR]

Hi

 

Clean

Lubricate

Adjust

 

A good overhaul to ensure it is working properly, apertures correct, speeds within tolerance, frame spacing correct etc.

 

If the camera is in good order and your first film (where you try out the speeds and apertures and ensure the focus is OK etc) is OK, then fine, carry on using it. Otherwise, its an old camera, it may not have been lubricated for 20-30 years.

 

Even if it is cheap, it will still need maintenance,and if the speeds are off or unreliable, you will waste $100 of film and processing pretty quickly. It is well worth getting maintenance done.

 

Regards Ross

[lex_jenkins]

I've only had a few cameras CLA'd - with some luck and hard earned lessons in examining used gear I've managed to avoid buying much that needed a CLA. Oh, my old Rollei TLR could probably *use* a CLA for best performance and longest life; but it doesn't need it right now.

 

If you're lucky enough to get an older camera that works well now, sure, most of the time you can get away without a CLA. The problem is that some problems might be caught by a CLA now to avoid expensive future repairs. Something that only needs a CLA today might need a complete replacement down the road - will the part be available or affordable?

[david_goldfarb]

When buying vintage equipment, I usually budget for a CLA, and if it's not necessary, I consider the savings a windfall.

[crackers_.]

Only two reasons to get one. Hazy glass - will notably flare and cut contrast. Shutter drags miserably/stops buzzing at one second. Even at that, you could avoid the bottom few speeds.

[terrestrikon]

It's a good question. People should ask this kind of question more often. You're not the only one who doesn't -- didn't -- know what CLA means, not by a long shot.

 

G.

[pete_andrews]

I don't know why that 'L' is included. No modern camera or shutter should need any lubrication at all. In fact, the migration of grease or oil into shutters and aperture mechanisms is the cause of the majority of their failures.<br>Get the 'L' out of there!

[bob_chong]

"CLA" is latin for "too lazy to search the archives."

[bob_salomon]

" No modern camera or shutter should need any lubrication at all"

 

A Minolta Autocord is anything but a "modern" camera. It is quite old.

 

And all cameras use lubricants it trasport mechanisms. They don't use lubricants on shutter blades. But other parts of the shutter are lubricated.

[david_goldfarb]

Some of those older leaf shutters might use a dry graphite lubricant on the blades.

 

The iris pins on manual diaphragms with lots of blades also seem to have some kind of grease on them.

[lex_jenkins]

Most mechanisms can be designed to be self-lubricating through the use of appropriate materials - brass on steel, for example. But economic factors usually result in the selection of materials that are cheapest, not best, for a given mechanism. Hence, aluminum helicals that need grease to prevent seizure (rather than damping, which is the main reason grease is used in helicals made from finer materials); spring loaded ball bearings in detents that will fly out during disassembly because captive detent mechanisms are more expensive.

 

Even Leica switched from brass (or bronze?) gearing to steel. Some folks still prefer the feel of the older models. Steel-to-steel gearing without lubes? Nah...wouldn't work for long.

 

The trick has always been finding appropriate lubes. Most craftsmen still pine for whale oil and keep some secreted away. And many have probably experimented with synthetics like PTFE and moly in an effort to get by with less carrier that might migrate while still providing adequate lubrication.

 

My favorite is the DIY method recommended by so many home "experts" - flood the lens or camera in Ronsonol, followed up by a liberal application of WD-40. (For the credulous or humor-impaired, that DIY method is *not* recommended by any real camera tech, tho' it will increase their business.)

[pete_andrews]

My point was not that lubricants aren't used in cameras, but that it shouldn't be necessary to add to the existing lubrication in any well-made camera. Most are greased or oiled for life, although the use of liquid oil is extremely rare in any part of a quality camera.<p>I still say that in normal maintenance, the addition of any lubricant to a shutter or aperture mechanism is totally unnecessary, and positively detrimental, because it's migrated oil in the shutter or aperture mechanism that's the cause of the majority of camera problems.<p>The one exception to this rule would be the rebuilding of a camera for use in a hostile environment, say extremes of heat or cold, where the factory lubrication might break down or become too viscous.