How long does an DSLR body last?

<p>I would spend $250 to have a D90 fixed. I was very impressed with that model when it first came out and was on my short list of APS sensor cameras to buy this year (I got the Fuji X-A1 instead - the $450 price for the X-A1 and 16-50 zoom was an incredible value).</p>

<p>I wouldn't spend $250 to fix my D2H, and probably couldn't fix it for that money anyway. In 2011 Nikon USA quoted a price of $420 to repair my D2H, after Nikon USA refused to repair my D2H which had developed faults that matched the service advisory symptoms described for that model. It's unfortunate because the camera is otherwise in very good condition. Nothing else has worn out or broken. Physically it's held up as well as any professional level camera should. But it locks up with "Err" messages several times during any session now, so I mostly use it at home only for photographing items for sale, or occasional snapshots of the cats and my neighbors' dogs playing. Great action camera for daylight but too unreliable now. And while it can autofocus well in ridiculously dim lighting, it's much too noisy at high ISOs to be useful for most dim available light situations. Not really worth repairing a 4 meagerpickle dSLR.</p>

<p>I might consider having a D2X repaired, if I owned one. It would be compatible with many of my D2H accessories - batteries, power adapter, remote adapter, etc. But I'd probably only use it at home or very nearby, since I try to avoid lugging heavy gear around.</p>

<p>I have a 14 year old Fuji S-1Pro that employs Nikkor glass and still produces fine pictures and doesn't seem to eat batteries. 3.4 MP is enough for me. My Nikon Coolpix 990 same age, same pixel count works beautifully and with slide/negative adapter, produces good digitized copies. My oldest film camera is 1932 Leica II with 1930 Elmar (11 o'clock version in flawless condition). I've take this one on vacation and not to worry about memory cards, batteries and chargers. My other camera is all original Nikon F from 1959, essentially "bullet proof" with rare f2, 50mm "tick mark" optic. Sometimes old is IMHO better but lacking in the "bells and whistles" which doesn't bother me one bit/ </p>

<p>I've worn out a few bodies to the point they could not be repaired. Most recently (about 8 years ago) a D1. I used to wear out Fs to the point the shutter could not be kept in calibration. I used the Fs professionally on location and they took a beating. It was not just the actuations, it was the physical beatings. They would get blown over on a tripod or the camera bag would fall out of a landing helicopter, etc. Since then I have not worn out a camera. I think the issue becomes the economics of repairing vs. upgrading -- like has been pointed out. The technology typically wears out before the equipment does. I have a D7000 that has about 20,000 actuations on it and I could expect about nine times that ... I've had it since they first came out, so I would expect it could last another ten years, easy. But, it won't. I'm already thinking about the D7200 and at least one D800s as replacements.</p>

<p>I wouldn't know but I do expect most of them to last for a long time. Of course there are some of them which die early. I would expect at least 10 years if not twice that as an average. <br>

My coolpix 5000 is more than 10 years old and still perform like new.</p>

<p>The problem with a digital camera not being usable after 70 years is sort of related to the fact that they haven't been made that long.<br>

When that time does come, the limiting factor in use will most likely be the availability of media and batteries rather than their mechanical or electronic parts failing. <br>

Sort of like the problem with finding film for film cameras after another 50 years, too.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"rather than their mechanical or electronic parts failing."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>70 years is a long time. Cameras will need CLA for its mechanics, disintegrated foam and rubber parts replaced, and who know how those tiny surface-mount parts and solder connections will stand up over time. Electrolytic capacitors will also be in questionable condition. <br>

<br>

I think surviving digital cameras will eventually become novelty items used delicately for special projects, or as display pieces, but never again the workhorse duty they were once assigned. </p>

<p>"How long does a DSLR body last" isn't the right question. If you spend $250 on the D90, will it be worth more than $250 afterwards? If yes, it is financially better to spend the money, even if you then immediately sell it for a D7100.<br>

But there is another question. Does the D90 fulfil what you need (need not want) photographically, or would a D71000 have capabilities the D90 does not have?</p>

<p>If you are a typical consumer, you will get rid of the camera long before it needs to be replaced.</p>

<p>That's true but I for one is not a typical consumer. I would use the camera until it breaks or rather when I can't get battery for them. I can stock pile memory card but not battery.</p>

<p>I would think DSLRs should last about as long as later model film cameras. However, with digital cameras most probably shoot far more exposures than they did with film which would cause parts to wear out faster. With my D300s, I surely hope it lasts a good 8-10 years before it really needs replaced, not to say I might not do it sooner if I get a good deal on a newer model. I've had it going on five years now. </p>

<p>I had a D70 apart from the BGLOD recall which I had to return it a few times to them. I had PCB, aperture arm, aperture control unit replacements as well as a AF fine tune. My card unit failed after 7 or 8yrs. I reattached the ribbon cable and it worked for sometime until I tried it again and broke the ribbon clip, got a $50US refurbished card unit and DIY and been fine since.... 10yrs plus still kicking. Not the ideal camera for photography pursuits but for casual pictures of people it is fine. For my own stuff I am shooting slide film now. I guess for controlled shooting on a tripod the D70 is still OK for A4 and A3 prints.</p>

<p>Well you have decided to fix it so I suppose it is a moot point but for what it is worth, I would spring for the D7100 if I were you. <br>

A couple of years ago you posted a question here about whether to get a camcorder or a new camera. The D7100 would answer that question in a whole new way. Its video is light years ahead of the D90. </p>

<p>Resolution, dynamic range, viewing screen, low-light capability all in a whole new league. Since you alluded to the fact that the upgrade is affordable, now may be the time. </p>

<p>Good memory, Rick! I have a camcorder, and I like it. So I'm not looking to consolidate right now. Maybe I'll be ready to do that the generation after D7100!</p>

<p>Do we know also how long the current sensors last,what lifespan do they have, do they degrade in any way after a longer period. I have two Nikon D800s which I intend to use for the foreseeable future as in my opinion they are for my use quite future proof as far as resolution.</p>

 

<p>For what it's worth, I think I figured out what happened to my D90. The SD card had a piece of plastic missing. I think it broke off inside the reader, and so I couldn't use the reader anymore. So it wasn't the camera's fault. I think some people thought I meant the door -- the door was fine. <br>

Anyway, Nikon fixed the problem for me, and I am rather fond of my little D90. I'll hang on to it for another generation! </p>