Lifespan of digital cameras

[dturk]

We purchased our Fuji S2 in January 2003. Recently, I've been

having some focusing issues (focus not consistent, whether auto or

manual). While I'm pretty sure this is a lens issue (it usually

happens with one particular lens), this has raised the issue of how

much longer I can expect the camera to perform normally. Can it be

said that digital cameras have the same lifespan as comparable SLR

35mm cameras? Is anyone keeping data on this? I've tried looking

for info on the Digital Camera Review (http://www.dpreview.com/) but

not too much info. tia much.

 

david

[Greg M]

That's a hard one to answer. It's only been the last 1-2 years that resolution has risen to a level with digicams where people can be happy enough with results to keep a camera for any length of time. Add to that the fact most people seem to think you HAVE to upgrade everytime a new model is introduced, so few are kept and shot long enough to develop wear problems. My girlfriend's 4 MP Canon Digital Elph fits her shooting style to a tea, and she's not one prone to switching anything in a hurry. I can see her keeping it until it craters on her- how long that is going to take is the question.

 

My guess is very few digicams are constructed to last a long number of years. I figure I will be using both my 10D and Digital Rebel digital SLR's for the next 3-4 years.

[godfrey]

Mechanically, cameras with the build and component quality of the Canon 10D should last

as well as any film camera. This class of camera is no more complex mechanically (actually

less complex in various ways) than the film cameras they are modeled after ... as long as

the people assembling the electronics have done a good job, and they are handled with

some respect for what will cause damage/deterioration, they should work for a very long

time.

 

Less expensively built, complex cameras like most of the small sensor digicams have some

fairly small, fragile mechanical bits (like the servo-driven collapsing lenses, focusing and

zooming systems), miniscule four way controller switches, etc. Much like similarly

sophisticated small film cameras, there's a lot to go wrong, they're built to a competitive

price, and they tend to get abused easily. Whether they will last better is a question mark.

Usually, what I've seen break on the film cameras are things which are shared with the

digital cameras: primarily those small, fragile, servo driven lens assemblies.

 

Whether a given camera is going to be USEFUL to hang onto for as long is a different

question. We're in a period when big strides in performance and the continuing drop of

prices makes moving to a subsequent model that performs better for less worth it fairly

frequently. When I bought my 10D, I envisioned a lifespan of 2-4 years before the price/

performance benefits of an upgrade would make it sensible to move on to the next body.

 

Godfrey

[dean_g]

Unless my printing format needs to change - currently I do max 13X19 prints and those are well big enough for hanging or exhibition - I can't see an improvement in image quality that would drive me to upgrade my 10D, on that basis alone. I'm not a professional though, and I understand the professional photog's need to stay current with the technology. But for me as an amateur 'art' photographer, I anticipate the 10D lasting for quite some time. I don't expect the same service from my Ricoh GX digicam, mainly due to the aforementioned fragile nature of the lens assembly (which has already required warranty service in the first 6 months - hopefully solved), plus other issues like collecting hot pixels etc, which I've encountered on other digicams.

[larrybc]

<p><i>Can it be said that digital cameras have the same lifespan as comparable SLR 35mm cameras? Is anyone keeping data on this?</i></p>

<p>I would assume so, since they seem to use the same AF and metering systems (except for Off-the-Film exposure metering) in both film and SLR bodies. You just need to figure out which film body a digital SLR is based on to get an idea of its longevity.</p>

<p>Another issue specific to DSLRs is the fact that people seem to shoot far, far more pics with DSLRs because it costs them nothing to do so. So I think you'll find DSLRs with many more shutter activations than an equivalent film camera, causing the shutter/mirror assembly to wear more quickly.</p>

<p>In this respect, non DSLR digicams might last longer simply due to fewer moving parts.</p>

<p>Larry</p>

[lukep]

This last point is very good and further convinces me that digital SLRs will not last as long as their film cousins (pound for pound or dollar for dollar).

An FM3A will last 50 years if it's kept away from nuclear test explosions but I doubt a D70 would. And this leads me back to the other fundamental point - no possibility of hardware upgrade of a digicam, so whether they can last 10 years or 50 years, it's irrelevant if they're gonna be obsolete in 2!

Why do none of them do this?

I think it would be superb to be able to buy a sturdy Nikon D2H or whatever, knowing that in 5 years when the next 20 MP sensor comes out I can subsititute it for the obsolete one.

OK, there would be more to change than just the sensor - but why not a self-contained component that slots in and out like a battery?

[godfrey]

Having worked in the computer hardware manufacturing business for a long time, I'll tell

you that building hardware upgrades beyond a certain point, even for relatively big boxes

like desktop computers, just isn't cost effective.

 

When my company did this with computers, a) the break-even price of the upgrades was

simply too high and b) only a very small percentage of the user base was even interested,

although the notion of upgradable hardware sold a lot of them on the marketing side. It

was an exercise in negative profitability.

 

On a miniaturized, highly integrated device like a camera, trying to design with the notion

of standardized "slottable" components would likely constain the design almost to the

point of impossibility and would certainly add to the cost substantially.

 

Godfrey

[mark cohran]

Wow! Isn't it amazing how all those "obsolete" digital cameras just simply stop working and producing great photos when the next model hits the market?

[dean_g]

"whether they can last 10 years or 50 years, it's irrelevant if they're gonna be obsolete in 2!"

 

If the images produced are satisfactory to the owner, and the camera continues to produce those images, how would the camera be obsolete? Outside of a marketing strategy, that is.

[gregory_c]

I am a wedding photographer, I have a 15+ year old Hasselblad that takes as good of pics as my newer one. I want to purchase a DSLR,

am considering a Mark II, but in 3 years, something much better will be out. A mark II will be almost obsolete in 15 yrs. so thats why I will purchase a 20D, few years later, pass it on, & buy the current model.

[bobatkins]

Digital cameras will become obsolete faster because when they break after 5-10 years, the parts won't be available to fix them, and nobody is going to be able to fabricate new electronics.

 

I think there's some legal requirement to make parts for some limited amount of time after production stops, but once that runs out and the sensor on your D30 bites the dust, it's just a paperweight.

[kevin7]

you're wasting your camera's lifespan partaking in this drivel. (and i am too now)

[frankie_frank1]

Pro level mechanical cameras always have replacement parts so that

pros can repair their equipments and continue using them.

Manufacturers know that the pros are willing to pay the replacement

parts. Manufacturers are happy to supply replacement parts.

 

Pro level digital ........ will not have .........................

.........................................................

Manufacturers .................. are not willing ..................

...... ............. are not happy ........................

 

Because the pros, like you, don't want to spend the money to repair your yesteryear digital cameras. It is all market-driven economy.

[k_michael]

My Fuji S2 has been back top the shop three times for repair. Next April, I'm on my own. So far, the camera has had $2600 worth of repair work done.

 

I asked a salesman what camera is the most durable. He said the Nikon D1X is probably the most rugged.

[alan_keith]

As mentioned already, the lifespan of digital cameras is not going to be the same as that of comparable film bodies.

We have entered a new era, and until we reach the limits of what digital can actually accomplish there will be the same progressive upgrade mentality that occurred when CD players were the new technology 20 years ago.

Price/Feature relationships will continue to change for the better, but quality and durability will fall until the market stabilizes at a point where excellent DSLR bodies and point'n'shoots will be priced the same as similar film cameras are now, in relative monetary terms.

Until then, "Don't fix--Upgrade" is the rule.

Once a killer camera has lasted at the top of the technology and sales listings for at least 3 years you may see spare parts and service techs available for it, and maybe then there will be a trickle-down for lesser models.

The digital camera market is simply moving too fast right now for the parts and service departments to keep up, so they don't even try.

It's not cost-effective for them, because everyone is upgrading as fast as they can.

That's why I waited for 2 years to get the one I wanted, but I still keep tabs on the next model above mine.

[geoff_munro]

hey

if it works fine use it. it doesn't throw it away. UNLESS you spent megabucks on it rethink for repair. VERY SIMPLE

[dturk]

Believe me, I am all too aware that I take many more shots with the digital camera than I would with a film camera--maybe 4 times as many shots. I'm thinking more about the failure rate of the image sensor, rather than the camera's parts failure. K Michael's response about his S2 tells me I may have been extremely lucky so far; the only time I've had to send the camera in was for its complimentary first-year cleaning.

[phule]

David, there are already a couple of threads here on the "failure" rate of sensors. It's a non-issue. The sensor will be the last thing to "fail." The mechanical parts will all wear out long before then.

[Greg M]

A number of months ago I was here in Dallas at the "authorized" Nikon repair facility. They were re-sealing an FM for me, a model that has been out of production for almost 25 years. While I was there someone called regarding a repair question on a D1 series camera. He told them to send it to Nikon in California because he didn't repair them. He told me it costs so much to go to Nikon, learn a digital camera and obtain the necessary equipment to repair one. By the time he's done all that the model he's just learned has been discontinued and he has to start the process all over again, so he's just not going to go there.

 

I guess eventually when all makers stops making repair parts for film models that today are still current enough the day of the independent repair facility will be gone except for those manual models like Nikon F's and Canon F1's and other like bodies that old school techs can still repair. Heck, you can still find people that can repair Nikon F2 meter heads that are over 20 years old. As long as film scanners are available you're in business.

[grahams]

IMHO - Modern digital cameras (and some film cameras) are electrical appliances, not optical instruments, and as such, should not be expected to have a long life. Ten years max.

[archie_alcantara1]

Obsolete - kinda funny term, guess we have different way of defining when a digital camera becomes obsolete. To me, obsolete means a particular piece of equipment does not satisfy my needs anymore. Yes, manufacturers are coming out with new once seems like every six months...but the camera I bought a year ago still serves its purpose, thus no need to purchase another one. Seems to me that the newer camera might indeed have more megapixels, faster processing power.....but to me these are just bells and whistles. My camera will become obsolete when a full frame processor is released at a price affordable to me....or as the original question....when my camera ceases to function and to get it repaired is more than purchasing a new one.

[chiswick_john]

Treat DSLR's as you would PC's - replace every 2-3-4 etc years when the next significant increase in power/performance is available. The question you should be addressing is how long will your camera digital files be supported by software manufacturers and how you are going to manage and store your digital data into the future. I'm not saying this is a negative aspect of digital but it is the reality of digital.

[jon_sak]

I can say with certainty less than 10 years. I use canon Dv and hi8 cameras for university work. I currently use a xl1 gl2 and I used to use the canon l1 quite freqently. The l1 came out in 1992 and was a 1/2 inch ccd hi8 camera with interchangeable lense (like todays xl2). Recently it went dead and I figured I would just get it fixed. I was dead wrong, I went to 3 different repair guys that I have used for years (they will even send something outside the country if need be) and not one could get it fixed. Even if I was willing to pay anything to get it fixed not one of them could find the parts ANYWHERE. This camera came out in 1992 and was used by NASA and the airforce and you can't get if fixed in 2004. So I say, be ready to upgrade becuase this digital equipment will die eventually and even if it was well cared for the parts and skilled technitions won't exist in the future.

[michael_darnton1]

I've had the same type of lifespan in digitals that I've had with other electronics--CD players, and the like, and the same type of quirky partial failures. Which isn't encouraging at all. Mine seem to have a lifespan of about two years before little electronic things start going crazy. My E-10 works fine, unless I use the back panel, which drops the battery life to about 20 minutes or less. My old Fuji now works only when it's plugged into the wall--that type of irritating, electrical stuff. I'd like to continue to use the E-10, but I doubt it will be financially logical to get it fixed.

 

Up to this point I haven't minded, because the technology has been short of what I've actually required, but I'm hoping my new 8mp camera will have a more decent lifespan. I'm not betting on it, though.

[andrew robertson]

A DSLR will continue to shoot pictures until it wears out. There's no reason the AF

circuitry (which is solid state) should wear out early. It's the same as any modern

(computerized) film camera, but with a different type of sensor.

 

If manual focusing isn't even consistent, you have a problem. It's probably not related to

the sensor or the lens, but to the focusing screen / mirror / finder.