Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/06/09

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: Leica-Users List Digest V1 #502
From: Otto Braasch <otto.braasch@bnla.baynet.de>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 20:37:09 +0300

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