Life of D200.

Ok, so I get Photoshop cs3 and a D200. I get a cuple of cards and a reader and

a printer to print 11x14 and shoot raw. so, with film SLR's one can expect

several long years, like may 10+. My F100 is still going strong and pretty

busy as well. So, how long realistly can one hold on to the D200. I am

thinking, hopfully, pretty long. the only real reason, IMOH, is to go to a

much larger sensor (18 or 20 meg) or full frame. So, how long?

I think the shutter has a minimum life expectancy of about 100.000 clicks. Whatever that means...

even if you decide at some point in the future that you'll need a camera with more pixels or a larger sensor, it is quite likely that your D200 will still be kicking. Maybe as abackup camera or something you'll lug along on those excursions when you realize you won't need 18 or 24mp files.

 

You are going to run out of decent & affordable places to process your 35mm film long before your F100 stops working or before Kodak and Fuji and Ilford stop making said film.

 

A coupole of years ago Greg Gorman told me that the thing you have to consider when buying a high end Digital camera is look at how long you think it would take for you to shoot and process the film that you could buy for the price of that digital camera. He was talking about cameras in the $5K-30K range. During my highest volume film years (mid 1990s - 2001) I was spending on average $15-20K per year on film stock and processing. of course most of this was being charged back (and marked up) to clients. Now adays I'm the lab and Icharge for those services.

Not very long, like the film slrs. almost all first generation pro dslrs have a problem today.

>>>Not very long, like the film slrs. almost all first generation pro dslrs have a problem today.

 

All I can say to this is....what?

Dennis ...

 

the D200 is advertised to go to 100,000 actuations. the same goes for film cameras (they are advertised for so many actuations).

 

however, let it be known that you will get to those digital actuations well before you would with a film body. why? because we shoot WAY MORE images with digital than we did with film.

 

we were always more cautious and meticulous with respect to determining the correct exposure, composition, and so forth with film. in the digital era, it's not uncommon for folks to fire off shots and then worry about those images in post-processing.

 

personally, i'm glad i "grew up" in the film world, as i've carried over those habits of attention to detail (i.e. - forethought). yes, i shoot a few more frames now than i did before, but nothing excessive.

 

i have a friend that teaches photography and the one thing that irks him are the chimpers - he has actually added a new lesson in his curriculum titled, "ridding yourself of chimping" :)

 

regards, michael

"Not very long, like the film slrs. almost all first generation pro dslrs have a problem today."

 

 

 

.........Please fill us in as to which ones have problems.

Well, with people shooting 2,500 shots PER WEDDING with digital cameras, they will hit the failure point in just FORTY WEDDINGS, which, for some wedding photographers is one year or less of work. Don't get me wrong, 100,000 is a lot, but not if you're a fool and fire off shots like there is no tomorrow.

"I am thinking, hopfully, pretty long. the only real reason, IMOH, is to go to a much larger sensor (18 or 20 meg) or full frame. So, how long?"

 

If you measure the life of the D200 by the 18-20 MP 35FF DSLR that will come out in the future, then probably next year. If you factor in price, and say all those features for the same price as you paid for the D200, probably 3-4 years from now. If you measure the life of the D200 by its shutter, then it depends on how much you use it; but shutters can be replaced for a reasonable cost (less than $400).

 

However, the real measure (IMO) of the lifetime of the D200 will be when you can't get parts to repair it -- probably 12-15 years from now the only people who will be still using them will be collectors who salvage parts from other D200 cameras to keep theirs operational. In this regard the D200 will probably have a longer lifetime than the D2x because more of them will have been produced, so there will be more spare parts to draw from.

Just because you need to replace the shutter doesn't mean the camera is history. It costs about $250-300. As for photographers shooting 2500 pics at one wedding I been to a few and they didn't shoot near that many at least not on one body. If someone is shooting that many then they shouldn't be looking at prosumer cameras. Especially if they are shooting 40 weddings a year. The reality is that you will probably replace the shutter quicker in a digital simply because you will shoot 5x the amount of photos. That's a small price to pay for the enjoyment of not having to act like every shot is precious. I would be willing to bet if you were to test 2 people of equal ability, give one a film camera and one a digital, in 5 years the digital shooter would have 10x the number of photos in his portfolio and would be a better photographer to boot. Not to mention would have saved more than the cost of replacing the shutter not paying for film and development.

In short you will more than likely have moved on to something else long before your D200 has stopped functioning.

Thanks all. I guess I was wondering from the point of view return on investment. I know computeres turn over in 18 months and become obsoete over night. I probably would not upgrade, just for the sake of upgrade. Photoshop cs3 will be replace, but that does not mean I have to upgrade. For an investment of $3k, I would like to think the combo will last more than just three years.But, I think I got my answer in all of these responses. Thanks Again.

 

<p> Nikon will have a full frame 20meg sensor next year? wow!

What Brian said...