Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/06/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Otto wrote: >>>Unfortunately photo magazines (for multiple reasons?) do not run any tests on durability of cameras<< Ditto for most equipment review magazines. An award winning car-of-the-year may end up staying in workshop more frequent than on the road. One of the reasons is the prohibiting cost and complexity in performing reliability tests. It involves investment in environmental chambers, shock/vibration machines, sand/dust machines, salt spray machine etc....only manufacturer can afford them. Sending them to independent laboratory for testing isn't cheap either. Field testing takes far to long to clock the required time/rolls for any conclusive results. There are some luggers prefer field tests results, however, it is usually done for high cost products (OK, OK, Leica ain't cheap...) built specially for a few customers, such as military products and super computers. Lab based simulated tests have the advantage of repeatability and can be taken as reference by many users. >>> However at present it seems to be the only >way to get rid of pure guesswork and hearsay when it comes to the >question: "how long can I expect this camera to function under what >conditions"?<< I agree. From the way you use your gears, don't ever take any data from a camera that sits in the studio most of the time or you will wonder why you always get a lousy camera ;-). Cheers, Eng-Suan engsuan@tp.ac.sg (65)780-5532 >