Digital cameras last less than a year ...

[michael_p2]

Couldn't resist posting this. A new article says the average life of a

digital camera is now <A

href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/13/ngadg13.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/02/13/ixportal.html">as

little as nine months.</A> That's about how long I had to wait to get

my Contax IIa overhauled by Henry Scherer. The camera is now back and

good for another 50 years.<div></div>

[michael_p2]

Yes, the attached photo was taken with a digital camera (Kodak DX7630). It replaced my first - a Kyocera Finecam - that lasted all of 18 months.

[marbing]

Well, it is the 'technological' lifespan rather than the 'physical' lifespan. I know the first digital that I bought back in the 1990's is still working but nobody wants to look at 640x480 sub-megapixel images anymore and so..although it works...it is obsolete.

 

However, planned obsolescence has to be a major feature of the digital industry. Unless they can induce people to keep buying new and 'upgraded' cameras at regular intervals..they will go out of business. Nobody in the digital camera industry wants to see a camera that people will be happy using for 50 years and in the year 2050...nobody will wax nostalgic over a Sony Mavica...first there will be no computers that have floppy drives (are there any now?) and the image resolution will be considered unviewable. (As an aside, when the 640x480 digitals appears, everybody who bought one SWORE that the images were identical to 35mm film cameras)

[rick_waldroup3]

The problem I have with them is not the turnover rate, but the durability of the cameras. I had a Digital Rebel once, the shutter was out after 9 months. I have a Nikon D2H- had exposure problems after 3 months, Nikon fixed it and it now has some focusing issues. I shot Nikon F2's and F3's- the same bodies- for well over 20 years and put them through a LOT of abuse and they kept right on working. This is not an anti-digital rant. I have known other photographers that shoot high-end DSLR's that have had issues with them of one kind or another. I love my D2H, I just wish they made DSLR's a little more durable.

[charles_stobbs3]

Maybe when the pace of innovation slows down the manufacturers will start to think of durability as a selling feature. Toyota has ads boasting of cars with several hundred thousand miles on the odometer and still running well.

[aeaster]

Most of the photos in my portfolio were made with a Ciro-flex Model A, low serial number made in 1939 or 1940. That makes it 66 years old. No electronics, no battery, no auto-anything. No built-in obsolescence either. As long as Ilford makes 120 film it will remain in use.

 

"The average life of a digital camera is now as little as nine months." Maybe the solution is to quit making a fetish out of every bit of new technology they throw at us. It's all just marketing hype anyway.

[constance_cook]

Mike:

 

Another consideration is the number of shots people take with a digital camera "because it's free." They put years of wear in 9 months just firing away. It's nothing for people on this site to say they've put 50,00 shots through in 6 months. Not many people would have done that with film cameras.

 

Conni

[sunilpunjabi]

POPPYCOCK!

Can I say that? :-) I have a Canon s45 that I still use to this day, takes great 4mpx pictures that I can print up to 8x10 with out problems. I also have a Canon 20D, for the last 18 months and I have not even come close pushing it to its limits.

 

I would say most people replace their digital cameras in 9 months with the misguided notion that a new, bigger sensor, more features, etc will make them better photographers

 

Sunil

[markplawchan]

...actually, since I have at least 15 "classic" film cameras and 1 digital, (a PowerShot SD400), my personal feeling is that (using a digital) is a lot like having sex with your cousin---it's a lot of fun and feels real good, until someone you know see's you....

[wendell_kelly]

Plastic cameras were not intended, by design, to last more than a couple of years.

 

Battery compartment doors break off, latches no longer latch, lens mechanical drive components (gears if you were lucky) wear very quickly, circuit board contacts break off, the pins on cable connectors bend and snap off.

 

Enjoy your digital camera while it is still in one piece.

[rdkirk]

>>Plastic cameras were not intended, by design, to last more than a couple of years.

Battery compartment doors break off, latches no longer latch, lens mechanical drive components (gears if you were lucky) wear very quickly, circuit board contacts break off, the pins on cable connectors bend and snap off.<<

 

That's been true of most 35mm cameras below the top tier since the late 70s.

[marbing]

Sunil is corrcet. If people would be content with the digital camera that they currently own, then they can simply get about the business of taking pictures rather than entering the race for the latest technical 'feature'. But that would be a great disaster for the digital camera manufacturers who only get revenue from the recurring sale of upgraded camera bodies.

 

And for Conni: I am always amused by the claims of how many pictures people say they make with their new digital cameras...sure each exposure may be without a processing cost (until they print it) but the volume of shots seems to only be possible if the person doesn't sleep for 6 months. For example 50,000 shots over a 6 month period is one shot every 5 minutes...24x7. Even if we assume that they only shoot for 8 hours a day for 6 months...that is still one shot every 1 min 45 sec. It seems like a person's enthusiasm for a new toy tends to increase the hyperbole...one person referred to them as 'digital fish stories' "I have made 20'x40' blow ups from my 2 Megapixel digital!"

[douglas_green1]

My Olympus E-10, which I bought after it had already been out a year, and paid less than half of it's original new price, has, so far, lasted me 4 solid years. It's slow, but the 4 MP resolution, and easy interface to standard external strobes and studio lights, makes it an excellent camera for product shots that don't require ultra high res.

[Rob_the_waste]

My wife bought me a 3.2 MP Konica Minolta digital last year at X-Mas, and she gives me a hard time whenever I take out one of the "classics." I can't help it. I'm addicted. The digital has its advantages, such as virtually instant processing, and the ability to delete shots that you know are lousy, but there's a satisfaction of getting a razor sharp shot with rich colours that you just don't quite get with a digital. Last year, I took a couple of shots of the Tobermory harbour. One with the K-M, and one with a Yashica A. I thought the digial shot was great. Then I got the film back...

[tri-x1]

Of course we all are preaching to the choir here but I still can't bring myself to spend more than a grand to get a gigital camera that CLAIMS to rival film- knowing in a year I'll be told the new model really rivals film--and a year later. . . .Today's consumer society is based on planned obsolescence. If people don't replace items every couple of years the companies can't produce dazzling profit reports that make them stock market darlings.

"Ever seen the kids movie "Robots"?

[jamesdak]

I guess I'd better chime in here. I ran a little test two weeks ago. I captured and image with my Minolta Maxxum 7 using Velvia 100 and then captured the same image with my Panasonic DMC FZ10 digital. I scanned the Velvia slide at the highest resolution and with 16x multipass enabled on my Dual Scan IV dedicated film scanner. I then compared the images and sadly the digital shot show higher resolution and is much smoother since there is now grain. Velvia has better color though. So, last Friday I broke down and bought a Minolta 7D DSLR. I never thought the day would come to be honest. I currently own and shoot regularly the following: Minolta SR-7, SRT-101, SRT-101b, XE-7, XD-7 (favorite), two Maxxum 7, Hi-matic 7s rangefinder (shutter just froze up) and two Hi-matic 7sII. So, as you can see I am not a digital crazed photographer. But, with the added problem of now decent local labs and with the quality of images I can print at home on my Epson R1800 inkjet it just makes sense to me. But all that said, I will still break out the classic gear quite often becomes nothing feels and sounds quite like my XD-7 when I'm using it!

[wendell_kelly]

<<<<>>Plastic cameras were not intended, by design, to last more than a couple of years. Battery compartment doors break off, latches no longer latch, lens mechanical drive components (gears if you were lucky) wear very quickly, circuit board contacts break off, the pins on cable connectors bend and snap off.<<

 

That's been true of most 35mm cameras below the top tier since the late 70s.>>>>

 

Yes I agree entirely. Plenty of short-lived-by-design wonders in the recent film world as well.

[reprint]

Jim, by the way you can also reproduce the type of colour you see with Velvia using photoshop. There are several threads on photo.net on how to do it. With digital postprocessing you can choose the palette to suit your palate. As for lifespan, you buy any cheap product, you get a shorter lifespan and less knocks tolerated. Another group of consumers fall prey to social pressures ie always having to have the best. This is true for just about everything including cars, tv and so on. Technology advancement mostly pixels is driving lifespan also but probably not as much as the other two. There is talk of a limit to the useful no. of pixels and once the useful features of top end film cameras are added to most price points, it will be interesting to see how technology can affect useful lifetimes of cameras. The top end dslrs are all metal and weather sealed already and being highly durable might become a future classic camera (dont beat up on me, i said might). I still like to take out my film bodies and shoot. Its a very different feeling.

[patrick j dempsey]

About 5 years ago there was a buzz about a new way of coating film to make it 4x faster and more dense. I dont think this film was ever even put into production. If it had been, the arguments over whether digital surpasses film would have to wait another 5 years. If film companies wanted to they could deliver us film that shot at 800 speed and had the detail of 100 speed film. Imagine medium format quality images out of a 35mm! And then imagine that same film in a medium format camera. The image quality would be absolutely amazing. However, there is no market is producing film that would undercut disposable digital sales. Film as a medium isnt dying out, its being murdered. Its as plain as that.

 

In a few years, (when it is too late im sure), people are going to realize that thier digital memories all got static shock or a little humid, or a crazyed ex boyfriend trashed the computer. Then whats left? Nada. People dont treat photos well. They end up at the bottom of dresser drawers or in a box where the cat sleeps sometimes. They end up in windowsills and on kitchen counters. They get wet, that get stepped on, they get exposed to heat and sunlight and crazed ex boyfriends. And at the end of the day you can brush the dust off, unfold the dog-ears and still see the smile of long-dead great great grandma Genie smiling back at you. You can spend thousands and thousands of dollars on new DSLR equiptment and printers and come up with elaborate storage and coping schemes, but in the end, the reason you take these photos, so that you can share them with your descendants for a long time to come... in the end digital is just shooting yourself in the foot. Even some of the worst-stored negatives and prints can outlast the cameras that made them. For memories I want to last, I shoot B&W film, and have real prints on real waterproof photographic paper made. I dont know who might be looking at them in 50 or 100 years... but someone will be at least able to.

[tri-x1]

The home computer may have been the start of the "gotta have the newest, fastest model" business philosophy. It took about twenty years for people to realize that fastest isn't important for most day-to-day activities because any machine built in the past five years can handle those chores a well as the latest machines can. That's when computer prices started to plunge. I'm gonna wait for digital cameras to hit that plateau.

[aadewar]

Jim, if you compare most scanned Velvia to a digital file on a screen, the digital camera will

likely win every time-most consumer scanners are unable to capture slide detail very well,

and Velvia in particular. Besides, you're comparing first generation image to a second

generation.

 

If you want to compare Velvia to digital, put the Velvia on a light table and look through a

loupe-or get a drum scan that can get more of the detail out. Or, scan a film that is easier

to scan-Reala, black and white, etc. I get great scans from Provia, and they make a much

better 8x10 than I get with my digicam.

 

You know, with no film sales to keep people going, and cell phone cameras getting better

(and free), the camera makers have no choice but try to sell upgrades. Of course, with very

advance in scanner technology, film keeps raising the bar!

[jamesdak]

Aaron, to a degree I concur with you. But, as a process I can control digital is a solution. Getting quality prints made from my Velvia slides has always been a challenge. Even back in the old days of Cibachromes and Ilfordchromes. Another comparision I did that surprised me was to take a professionally printed cibachrome made around 12-13 years ago and compare it to a print I made from the same slide myself with my Epson R1800 inkjet. Now I am not by any means a photoshop expert but I was able to produce a sharper image with much more detail that the original cibachrome has. The cibachrome print has been good enough though to win several best in show in regional photo shows over the years.

[michael_p2]

My first digital expired after 18 months despite being well cared for. I expect the new one to last three or four years at best. And I still prefer the pictures from the Contax IIa. You can see a side by side comparison <A href="http://sydneyphoto.blogspot.com/2006/01/view-of-sydney-from-taronga-sirius.html:">here</A>:

[michael_p2]

That link doesn't work. Try <A href="http://sydneyphoto.blogspot.com/2006/01/view-of-sydney-from-taronga-sirius.html">here</A> to see pictures by the Contax IIa and a Kodak DX7630.

[daniel_taylor]

"However, planned obsolescence has to be a major feature of the digital industry. Unless they can induce people to keep buying new and 'upgraded' cameras at regular intervals..they will go out of business."

 

Just like they went out of business when they sold film cameras at a slower pace? Oops.

 

"Planned obsolescence" is mindless, conspiracy theory nonsense. Camera manufacturers do not "plan" any such thing. The upgrade cycles are driven by IC manufacturing and Moore's law. Naturally when chip improvements let them go from 6 MP to 8 or 10 MP, they're going to retire the old model and advertise the new. Sure, they're happy to get people upgrading, even though those people sell their old models into the used market which subtracts from new user sales. But if chip manufacturing hit a limit, they would simply slow model releases and scale back production to meet demand.

 

If you have to have the latest model at all times, that's your problem, not theirs.

 

As for durability, I'm guessing my 10D is good for just as many pictures as a film SLR. In both cases the limiting factor is the shutter life, and the only reason that would result in fewer years for my 10D is that I shoot more with my 10D.

 

Unless you're buying a really cheap digital, they're all pretty durable, many with brushed aluminum cases and fewer moving parts than an equivalent film body. Digital P&S doesn't even have a traditional shutter, which is the most prone point of failure in any highly used camera.