I would say Hasselblad has most mechanical and other problems.

Even if Hasselblad has the lowest failingrate of them all, there are
probably more Hasselblad systems having problems than all the other
toghther. As most are choosing Hasselblad as being their MF-system and there
are a huge amount of Hasselblads out there. Since around the 50:ies think of
all those 500 C and C/M:s out there.

That is, in absolute values there are more faulty Hasselblades and certainly
you will hear it perhaps here in this NG, as it is big news when a Hassy at
last fails.

On the other hand we (And I) buy Hasselblad because of the low PERCENTAGE
having mechanical or other problems.

Isn't that fun! When you hear/read that a MF has problems it's most likely a
Hassle-blade!

I love IT!

Bosse/Sweden

Hi Lourens! - yes, I agree with many of your points;

Rolleiflex SLR
the "most expensive SLR ever.." was from Rollei's own advertising, and I
did rate it as the second most reliable leaf shutter SLR, only behind the
all mechanical hassy 50x c/m (not 500c) series, again because it was also
a high $$ camera where reliability had not been sacrificed to costs etc.

Hasselblad 500 EL/ELM
again, I rated above the 500c and kowa bodies, mainly due to issues with
battery failures and related problems in my own 500 EL/M experience and
many others (I get hundreds of hits on my 500 el/elm battery problem
pages) and lockup of body (and attached lenses) during such failures etc.

re: Electronics
it may be that modern electronics on the chip make for higher reliability;
but when it comes time to replace, you are totally dependent on ASIC chips
being available, which makes repairs often costly; usually the entire
board or motorized shutter is replaced. This is a serious problem now for
many 20 year old cameras (e.g, nikon FE flex circuits), so the older and
simpler discrete electronics (the EC vs ECTL II) may be repairable in
future when the proprietary circuit using models are on the shelf. Some
issues with LCD lifetimes may also be lurking in the future, and the
availability of selenium light sensors is an issue now for many TLRs etc.

you make a very good point on the avoidance of the early models until the
bugs are worked out; this is where I feel the latest AF models are today
in MF, so I'd also prefer to wait for a later model. ;-)

your followup posting is also useful, as I've noted, a kowa kit may be
better simply because it is more likely to be used by a serious amateur in
light use, or a weekend wedding warrior rather than a full time pro, so
far fewer cycles of use and abuse on the second tier amateur oriented gear
As you noted this is hard to factor into ratings, since lots of hassy gear
may have seen much more use and abuse -On average - than a kowa kit.

but I think this is an interesting generalized approach, and may expand it
into yet another page - I will try to find my copy of Ed Romney's camera
repairer's ratings of the MF kits, which is pretty much what I would have
guessed from these rules and insights. I think it may be easier to rate
these kits by groups (645 vs 6x6 vs 6x7) since that is often a starting
point for buyers, rather than try to figure if bronica ETR is more
reliable than koni-omegaflex etc ;-)

a somewhat similar idea might be "repairability" namely, how hard it is to
get repairs by competent repairers. In this case, some kits like Kowa have
only a relative handful of repairers, reflecting the demand and user base
and gear age; while others like hassy have a large availability of repair
sources, but issues like repair parts availability is beginning to become
problematic. For the current electronic setups, the future availability of
proprietary chips and motors for repairs may be a major issue. The example
of the hasselblad 2000 earliest series bodies, where shutter replacements
are problematic, is one good example where the lack of parts may sideline
or cut the perceived utility/value of an otherwise great camera model.

The other issue I struggled with is "shadows", i.e., a camera model which
is obscure because it is in the shadow of a much more often recommended
model. For example, the Bronica S2 is a fine body, esp. the later serial
number bodies, but the steel geared S2A is even better, so the S2 often
gets overlooked and may be a relative bargain, esp. as a backup body. The
Bronica EC lacks the autoexposure of the ECTL and ECTL-II models, so is
often overlooked, but has the mirror lockup and electronic shutter and
metering prism contacts missing in the all mechanical S2/S2A lineup. My
guess is the EC is more reliable than the ECTL/ECTL-II, due to the lack of
the discrete or chip based autoexposure electronics.

While you may be right that electronic cameras are more reliable, measured
on a feature weighted basis, they are often lower volume sales (due to
higher costs typically) and more often modified (due to rapid electronics
changes and streamlined fixes). Compare that to cameras like the Pentax 67
or others which have gone decades with the same basic debugged designs.

The other problem I have with electronic cameras is they usually either
work, or they don't work at all. I have a number of all mechanical cameras
which have "glitches" such as a non-working frame counter on a nikkormat,
which doesn't impact the use of the camera to take pictures, or a meter
circuit taking an unavailable mercury battery (use a handheld meter). But
if the metering circuit in most all electronic cameras goes out, that's
the ball game - it won't work at all.

A related point is that someone mechanically handy may be able to do many
simple camera repairs to most mechanical cameras in the field (on a long
trip in India say), or at a local watch repairer or camera tech, while the
more modern super electronic cameras can often not even be fixed by the
local distributor, but get sent back to the factory for complex repairs.
This has the paradoxical effect that even pros with the latest and most
reliable electronic camera bodies may feel the need to have a backup body
(such as the 6001 you cited) in order to cover such problem situations and
repair and CLA requirements. Oddly, it is the pros who have the backup
cameras for the most pricey kits, yes?  And the amateurs who go out
shooting with the lesser cost kit without backups in too many cases, yes?
;-) ;-)

My final point is that pro cameras are as reliable as they need to be, and
aren't likely to be optimized for reliability past the current plateau.
The mfgers don't want costly in-warranty repairs, but after that, repairs
are a profit center ;-) Pro cameras are expected to have shutters replaced
and worn elements replaced or repaired during periodic, typically annual
CLAs. This is one reason why many hard used hassy and rollei pro cameras
have such high user reputations. see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/mtbf.html

By contrast, one of my used Kowa bodies had last been CLA'd over 20 years
ago. No doubt it has seen less use than the typical pro body, but there
may be more repairs needed and problems in such amateur used bodies which
haven't seen the anticipated levels of maintenance and lubrication and
tuneups in their use life. Again, I don't see any way to factor this out
except to say it is remarkable that so many kits are still working well
after decades of hard pro use and a lack of anticipated maintenance.

Another problematic issue is that like fixing software introduces more
bugs, repairing cameras introduces more problems. Lots of irrate postings
by folks who didn't get the original problem fixed, or if they did, they
got the camera back with more and worse problems after the repairs! ;-)
This is why it isn't just important to send the camera to a repairer but
to a repairer who actually knows how to repair and tune up that specific
camera model. I think the internet is going to help here, since we are
sharing info on who repairs what, and there is enough mail order volume to
make it possible for specialty repairers of Norita or Kowa cameras, for
example, to setup and stock parts and donor bodies to service and support
such "orphan" camera systems past the mfgers support cutoffs...

Finally, my bet is that the digital revolution will bring more electronics
to Med Fmt, and more rapid obsolescence and model changes (and bugs etc.).
Repair parts and resources will be problematic; Kodak can't repair my 5
year old digicam, and even if they could, it would be cheaper to buy a
working version of the same camera on ebay than fix it. The same is true
of many modest cost used MF SLRs and RF kits (e.g., norita, bronica,
koniomega etc.). They are cheaper to buy than to fix ;-)

grins bobm

Then again some simple cameras don't have designed in weak points to meet a
price point. The rollei TLR's and the pro fuji rangefinders come to mind.

Not necessarily. A simple camera may require more skills. The bells and
whistles are more common in easy to use P&S cameras that aren't designed
with relialibity in mind.

But maybe it would be more proper to claim simple = easy to repair.

-- Lassi

Very true; a friend of mine had shutter-problems after only 1,5 years,
with his Pentax 67-II. Does that mean it's an unreliable camera?

Turns out the modern 67 has a click-counter, and his example had made
80.000 exposures in those 1,5 years. (yep, 8000 rolls....) And of course
he also had several other Pentax 67 bodies...

Now you know that, it probably doesn't sound so unreliable anymore.
Very few people will require their equipment to work so hard.

btw my friend is a very fine and successful photographer, see
http://www.leinders.com  He now uses a Contax 645 system, the Pentax kit
was sold; he made this decision with the shutter-problems and a digital
future in mind. (but he still shoots film at the moment)
;-)
Lourens