Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/06/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to
properly handle MIME multipart messages.
- --=_782AD84E.C4A5C9C0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
I don't want to be a wet blanket, but I'm on my third R-8.
MRPF=1
The first body had three identified problems, all observed during
the first roll.
1) Exposure counter failure, reset to zero in the middle of the roll.
2) With a Metz40Z2 (w/3501) installed, and using a 28mm lens,
(no ROM code), manually setting the Metz zoom to 28mm, the
camera would automatically reset the Metz zoom to 85mm when
the shutter release was depressed to the first step.
3) Very inconsistent exposure
The second body had one problem, and was obvious within the
first three exposures, the winding mechanism clutch(s) were
dragging so bad that it sounded like it was going to tear the film
in half.
So much for "module level and system level QC" within Solms.
I must say that the first two bodies were fabricated during the first
batch. My current body is definitely a newer fabrication. I don't
think that one can place two much credence in fabrication
sequence based on serial numbers. I think that Solms is (as
they have done for years) randomly select the component that
shows the pre-fabrication engraved serial number (i.e.;
baseplate, top cover or whatever) as they build the camera
bodies.
Thank goodness, number 3 is working like the jewel that was
expected in the first place.
Regards,
Dave Stedman
- --=_782AD84E.C4A5C9C0
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Received: From [149.59.14.23] purg.atl.com
By corp.atl.com (GroupWise SMTP/MIME daemon 4.11)
Wed, 11 Jun 97 09:35:18 PDT
Received: from mail1.halcyon.com (mail1.halcyon.com [206.63.63.40])
by atl.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA27305
for <dstedm@corp.atl.com>; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 09:36:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.nwnexus.com by mail1.halcyon.com (5.65v3.2/1.1.10.5/10Nov96-0444PM)
id AA14614; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 09:36:28 -0700
Received: from mejac.palo-alto.ca.us by smtp1.nwnexus.com with SMTP id AA15327
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <dstedm@halcyon.com>); Wed, 11 Jun 1997 09:35:22 -0700
Received: by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us id AA23411; Wed, 11 Jun 97 06:33:56 -0700
Received: by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us id AA23405; Wed, 11 Jun 97 06:33:52 -0700
Received: by gatekeeper2.un.org; id JAA00377; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 09:40:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail-in.un.org(157.150.191.1) by gatekeeper2.un.org via smap (3.2)
id xma000339; Wed, 11 Jun 97 09:39:55 -0400
Received: from ccMail by mail-in.un.org (SMTPLINK V2.11.01)
id 9705118660.AA866047113; Wed, 11 Jun 97 09:38:33 EST
Message-Id: <9705118660.AA866047113@mail-in.un.org>
Sender: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 07:38:33 -0700
From: ccMail SMTPLINK <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
To: Postmaster@gatekeeper2.un.org, leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: ccMail SMTPLINK Undeliverable Message
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
User Surachai V. at UNESCAP4 is not defined
Original text follows
----------------------------------------------
Received: from gatekeeper5.un.org by mail-in.un.org (SMTPLINK V2.11.01)
; Wed, 11 Jun 97 09:38:27 EST
Return-Path: <owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Received: by gatekeeper5.un.org; id AA125605587; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 09:26:27 -0400
Received: from mejac.palo-alto.ca.us(192.147.236.1) by gatekeeper5.un.org via smap (V3.1)
id xma010137; Wed, 11 Jun 97 09:15:30 -0400
Received: by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us id AA20579; Wed, 11 Jun 97 03:55:35 -0700
Received: by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us id AA20573; Wed, 11 Jun 97 03:55:17 -0700
Received: from default (saturn.bnla.baynet.de [194.95.218.131]) by uranus.planet (8.7.5/8.7.3/FF-Nr3) with SMTP id MAA28800; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 12:56:06 +0200
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 12:53:27 +0300
X-Mailer: Virtual Access by Ashmount Research Ltd, http://www.ashmount.com
Message-Id: <VA.00000033.0100f9e2@default>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Cc: leica-users-digest@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: Leica-Users List Digest V1 #503
From: Otto Braasch <otto.braasch@bnla.baynet.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <9706100701.AA09430@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sender: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Eng-Suan wrote:
>>>
You are correct to quote the MRBF of 322.6 rolls for your 4 bodies. What
I meant was if you take ANY RTS III randomly and use it *under the same
coditions* as you used for your 4 bodies, then the MRBF will be some
what more conservative. My calculation suggests it is at least 222
rolls. (based on one-sided Chi-square distribution at 95% confidence
level.)
If I have the data for R8 I could use what the reliability engineer
called time-truncated (without failure) to estimate the MRBF. But for
the two sets of data to have any meaningful comparison, the cameras must
worked under the same condition (the way you handled them and the
environment they were subjected to.)
And so far we are assuming the failure rates of the cameras are
constant, that is to say the MRBF of first 2 years is the same as that
of the subsequent 2 years. It is theoretically acceptable to consider
electronic circuits and equipment to have constant failure rate, but
rarely so for mechanical parts. You have been using RTS III for 3.25
years but the R8's are less that a year in the market....the
discrepancies are there.
<<<
Eng-Suan,
Thank you very much for commenting on the MRBF approach.
The objective I had in mind when posting the figures was to encourage
other users to come up with their data - if they have any. Once users of
Leica-R models post their figures, there might be some chance for a ROUGH
comparison of body endurance between different R-models and other camera
brands. Unfortunately photo magazines (for multiple reasons?) do not run
any tests on durability of cameras, which, when done professionally under
the same conditions, could supply users reasonable information.
I am fully aware of the many variables that will prevent a professional
comparison when data are collected by different people under various
conditions at different times. 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"?
Wonder, when we will see new MRBF figures here?
Regards,
Otto
- --=_782AD84E.C4A5C9C0--