Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/06/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In article <9706090701.AA27146@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>, Eng-Suan wrote: > And Otto, I have missed out your data on the RTS III, can you post to me > again? If I remembered correctly, what you have given earlier was the > observed MRBF based on 4 bodies, it was not THE MRBF, we can only > estimate a confident-interval (range) of MRBF values based on your data. > > Well, only if you trust statistics....... > > Cheers, > > Eng-Suan Eng-Suan, These are my figures out of LUG digest #493: *** Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 10:13:57 +0200 Subject: R8 Failure Rates Hi, Having used R3s to R5s in the 80ties, I moved to Contax RTS III in 1991-1992. Since the R8 finally got autobracketing and easier film loading, I might return to Leica-R when the external motor/winder finally becomes available. One requirement however would be a low failure rate - better than that of the present RTS III. RTS III figures for 3 + 1/4 years (1994-1996 + 1/4 of 1997): Bodies in use year over: 4 Rolls exposed, total: 6,130 Rolls exposed per camera, average: 1,532.5 Failures sent to shop for repair: 19 MRBF, average: 322.6 (MRBF = mean rolls between failure). Therefore I would appreciate very much, if owners of the new R8 could keep track of their MRBF figures and post them here. Such data too might stimulate discussions on the reliability of professional (Leica) cameras. *** I did call the figure "MRBF, average" and I hope it passes critical eyes. The 4 bodies were turned around in use, trying to accomplish an even load. However no exact figures on how many rolls which body actually did were recorded. Nor did I record any max or min rolls before a failure occurred. Regards, Otto