Why do (digital) cameras become obsolete?

[nickc1]

<p>OK there can't be any conclusive answer I suppose, but I have just been reading some posts, here and elsewhere, which use the argument 'digital cameras become obsolete quickly' <br>

The thought wandering through my mind is no it is not true - As a camera collector I think my elderly cameras, if in good repair, can all potentially take pictures as good as they could when new - and just the same is true of my digital cameras that I use for enthusiast photography - So where does this idea come from? The idea that digital cameras were not up to the job, and we need to scrabble to upgrade to improving models as soon as they come out to try to attain the quality we want, has not been the case for years - modern digital cameras have never been cheaper or given better quality images, at least equal to, if not beyond, those of film in many cases. (Mind you, I still prefer film for monochrome - that is a preference though, not a quality issue)<br>

I'm stumped I must admit - why still this preconception digital cameras become obsolete so quickly? If a camera took pictures of a certain standard when you bought it, it still should do. The fact that there are better specified camaeras available does not mean that the existing ones are obsolete.</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>Look up the definition of the word.<br>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obsolete</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong></strong> no longer in use or no longer useful <em></em> b <strong>:</strong> of a kind or style no longer current</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While the camera may be useful if it is no longer in use by a majority of people then I think it meets at least part of the definition of being obsolete. If it has been replaced by a newer model then it is definitely no longer current which meets one of the other uses of the word.</p>

<p>Nobody is forcing you to upgrade your camera.<br /> </p>

 

[andylynn]

<p>Obsolete because the new models are so much better. E.g., my Nikon E995 was pretty kickass in 2001, but now it's a 3MP camera that's very noisy above ISO 100 and has a klunky interface. And it cost the same as a D5000 kit does today.</p>

<p>OTOH it does have live view and a primitive version of the flippy LCD. It took Nikon a long time to put those in DSLRs</p>

[nickc1]

<p>Thanks for the input Walt - I agree with the distionary definition - My wonderings though were WHY is it suggested that digital cameras so quickly become 'of a kind: or style no longer current' when they still do the job they set out to do - do our needs all change that quickly?<br>

Regarding being forced to upgrade my camera - my bank balance too often suggests that that no forcing was necessary :-)</p>

[saskphotog]

<p>I agree with you. They become "obsolete" only because the camera makers create a new model with some incremental feature additions that make the "early adaptors" think they must upgrade to the new and best or they will be, somehow, less than a man.</p>

<p>All cameras continue to do what they did that made you buy them in the first place, even if a newer model exists. They are obsolete only in the sense that they are not new. For some people, like those selling images who must keep on top of the technology to satisfy clients, upgrading makes sense. If you are taking pictures of your life for personal pleasure, upgrading to the latest and greatest is seldom necessary. </p>

<p>We have reached a point with computers that it is obvious the vast majority of owners now have more computing power than they need for email and surfing the web, with one of the consequences being that less power is now a feature, like net books for example. I think we are on the cusp of the same situation with photography. Most people do not need 15 to 20 megapixels to take family vacation shots and print at 4x6, and the resulting huge files are actually a pain in many ways. </p>

<p>I think there will be a "settling down" of the megapixel upgrading race soon (well, as soon as people realize they have more camera than they will ever use, and can begin to ignore the marketing hype). Marketers will try to sell things like face detection, and maybe "automatic mother-in-law deletion" from pictures as long as they can trick people into buying them, but the power of modern digital cameras is so impressive that most people will eventually realize they can already do everything they want, and stop buying.</p>

<p>All except the equipment junkies, measurebators, and pixel peepers that is. They will always buy whatever gets sold to them.</p>

[ken_jeanette1]

<p>I think the matter comes down to the nature of a digital camera. With film cameras, the mechanical integrity and lens quality were what constituted the camera. The media (film) could be infinitely upgraded, so the instrument didn't become obsolete, unless you were a gadget guru that "had to have" the latest bells and whistles. A 1930s Leica, (you name your pick) could use the most up to date film at any time. The Digital Camera is made obsolete when the "media" inside newer cameras becomes improved drastically, and you are "stuck" with the older technology, and can't upgrade the part, without replacing the entire instrument.</p>

[waltflanagan]

<blockquote>

<p>My wonderings though were WHY is it suggested that digital cameras so quickly become 'of a kind: or style no longer current' when they still do the job they set out to do - do our needs all change that quickly?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If the manufacturer stops making a model and replaces it with a newer one then it doesn't matter how useful the old one was. The old one is not made anymore, it is impossible for it to be current.<br>

Digital camera companies want to sell you a new camera. That way they make more money. The desire to make money is at the heart of capitalism. The best way to sell a new product is to make something that is better than your old one and that of your competitors. If you don't then you'll go out of business. History is littered with camera companies that have gone out of business.<br>

The sensors and the image processing chip inside a digital camera are semiconductors. That means that digital cameras are basically computers. Digital cameras become obsolete at about the same rate as computers.<br>

My needs for a digital camera don't really change but when I see what the newer camera can do my desire changes. If you're a professional and you make money from selling images and all of your competitors upgrade to the latest model then you may have a hard time staying in business. For those people they may actually need to upgrade.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>because they are a newer one on the market...and because you believe you need a better one for nothing.</p>

[walter_degroot]

<p>although an older camera, either film or digital, can be used to make good pictures.<br>

some of the problems facing peope are personal.<br>

My daughter in law refused to use my knoica c 35 ( no auto focus)<br>

and many others would reject or even put older cameras in the garbage, because everything was not fully auto.<br>

My sister in law gave up on her digicam as she could not transfer photos<br>

until someone pointed out the port was under a cover.<br>

it is often a people problem . not a camera problem.<br>

of course if you have a 110 125 or 127 film camera is is almost entirely useless.<br>

( i know rollie will me making 127 film)<br>

still these cameras are useless as film is not at the corner store.<br>

same with a digicam that requires a hard to find battery or memory card.<br>

this is not a camera problem, but one driven by the market place.<br>

the worst was the 620 film baloney.<br>

only a few die-hards realize this. and use these camera despite the marketplace making it hard to do so.<br>

\</p>

 

[SCL]

<p>Outside of professionals, I think it is a case of herd mentality, because nobody wants to be perceived as shooting with "outdated" cameras. Also a fashion statement for some.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>I had a wedding business and used the same Bronicas for over ten years. None of my clients ever complained about my equipment and I paid for that array of Bronicas many times over. You will notice, in the professional market that many wedding photographers use the four year old Canon 5D. If you have rudimentary business sense it makes no sense to upgrade if you are still making money from the 5D. No wedding client ever raised an equipment issue with me by telling me some other photographer was using new equipment. As a retired R&D director I can make the following observation. When any new technology comes on the market it generally goes through a period of rapid enhancement and improvement. However, as more features are added to produce planned obsolescence the more difficult it becomes to continue such improvements in a way that they are practically useful. Continued increases in megapixels produce less and less practial and useful benefits to the photographer for instance. For my 5D for instance, the enhancement of video capabilty does not entice me nor does increased megapixels. Now if you are like me and are satisfied with the pixel size of your 5D and do not care to do video you are likely to stay with what you have. When I had a D60 I hated the slow response but got showable pictures. I upgraded, twice from that. However, a member of my family still uses the D60 to produce very nice large pictures. So at some point, a point that I cannot predict, there will be less interest in upgrading. This is because, as I learned in another field, it is fairly economical to go from 60 to 80 per cent improvement in product, but it is very expensive and difficult to get the last 10 per cent of utitility out of a product or project. I think we are approaching that last ten per cent with digitial bodies as they exist now. Obviously somewhere along the line there will come a major evolutionary change like the one from film to digital but I think that is well down the road. Like an engineer from United Air Lines used tell me "the best is the enemy of the good". Right now and as with my Bronicas the "good" is good enough for me. I believe with encreasing expense for reducing incremental benefit and the current economy the number of people settling for the good will increase. </p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>If the camera that you are using meets your needs then it is not obsolete for you. As already said, a basic difference between film cameras and digital cameras is that the digital camera is also the recording medium. You don't have to get a new film camera to get the benefits of a new film, but you do have to get a new digital camera to get the benefits of a new sensor or processor if you want them. No one is forcing you to get a new digital camera if you're happy with your current one just like no one forces you get get every new film that comes out.</p>

[greg_peterson3]

<p>Digital cameras become obsolete because of the rapid advanced in sensor technology.<br>

Part of the problem is a flaw in the design of "35mm" style DSLRs -- the sensor is an integral part of the camera body.<br>

Medium format systems are better in this regard in that they have interchangeable backs and are therefore easy (though not cheap) to upgrade as sensors are improved.<br>

I have a Mamiya AFD that's about five years old that will soon have a 40 Mpix back - unheard of when the camera was built.<br>

Note that I'm not claiming any general superiority for medium format. (I love my Nikon D3) But I do think that the general design of 35mm style digital cameras contributes to their rapid obsolescence.<br>

-- Greg Peterson<br>

<a href="http://GregPetersonPhoto.com">http://GregPetersonPhoto.com</a></p>

 

[ben_goren]

<p>First, of course, there’re all those who’ve simply got to have the latest and

greatest. For them, the instant something newer comes along, everything else instantly becomes

obsolete.</p>

 

<p>But there’re also legitimate reasons why the old cameras can be considered obsolete. If

a camera today is incapable of doing something — say, shooting clean, sharp images at ISO

25600 — and that’s something you want / need your camera to do…well, if a

camera came out tomorrow that did exactly that and you could afford it, why

<em>wouldn’t</em> you upgrade?</p>

 

<p>Yes, old digital cameras still in working condition produce essentially the same photographs

today as they did when new. And if you find the quality and features of those cameras suitable, then

those cameras are (obviously!) suitable for you. But today’s cameras are much superior in

pretty much any way you care to consider. If any of those improvements will result in you creating

better pictures — however you define “better” — with less effort on your

part, then it’s obvious that you’d be better off using a new camera instead.</p>

 

<p>Now, is the money you’d have to spend on a new camera to get the improvements worth

it? That depends. If you’re one paycheck away from living out of your car, then obviously

not. If you blow more than the cost of a camera in a single night out on the town, then you’ve

already bought the camera and you’re wondering what all the fuss is about. For the rest of us in the middle…well, that’s the hard

decision, ain’t it?</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[wogears]

<p>Planned obsolescence has been a part of industrial design for at least a hundred years. It is important to remember the difference between 'obsolete' and 'non-functional'. My Kodak Retina IIc is obsolete, in that it uses film and has no built-in metering or autofocus, but it functions perfectly. Like software manufacturers, camera makers now want you on an (endless) 'upgrade' path.</p>

<p>To be fair, older cameras were purely mechanical, and so easier to design and over-engineer for long life. Then too, Leitz and Contax and Kodak operated in an unsaturated market. Many people did not have cameras at all, or might have only box Brownies or whatever. In all honesty, I think that 'upgrading' made <em>more</em> sense in the 1970s and 80s, when huge advances took place or became readily available--SBC spot metering, TTL flash, autofocus and exposure, etc. Now, even a fairly simple P&S digital has all of this--why buy another? If you need something specific such as better high-ISO performance, then the reason is valid, otherwise...</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>Film cameras still depend on the film to make an actual image. The difference between digital and film cameras is that the film was "upgradable" and on digital most sensors are not upgradable. Film went through huge changes in the 20th century. While there were millions of excellent images in the 1900's how many people still used those same film emulsions in 1990? Newer films had higher speeds, less grain, more exposure latitude, less reciprocity failure, longer shelf lives, etc. The old films were obsolete.</p>

[evan_goulet]

<p>"I think it is a case of herd mentality, because nobody wants to be perceived as shooting with "outdated" cameras. Also a fashion statement for some."</p>

<p>Like how my grandafther used to get a new Oldsmobile every two years.</p>

[swilson]

<p>

<p>I think we are seeing a slowing of how fast digital cameras become obsolete.</p>

<p>Between 1999 and 2004 I bought 4 digital cameras, each was far better in every way from the one before it. Of late we have bought a 20D in late 2004 for my wife and a 350D in early 2006 for me, we are both still happy with these cameras and a new one would only give a small improvement in performance.</p>

</p>

[peter_ferling]

<p>In regards to corporate business, things have a shelf life, warranty period, and return on investment (ROI), and depreciation. It's is a finite, measureable limit. <br>

Now I still have a 1Ds mark I in the studio, and it's well beyond the ROI, but still fulfills it's purpose. I can simply request a replacement mark III and be fully justified from an accounting standpoint. (This is a rare issue, where the tool is capable of exceeding it's intended value, and a good one). However, if this camera were to fail in the middle of performing an expensive or critical job, then the burden is upon me for not heeding obsolescence and getting a timely replacement. In that regard it makes complete sense to consider items becoming obsolete in a finite span of time.</p>

<p>My only excuse is that I'm waiting for the next monumetal leap in technology and that being the Red Scarlet, and/or canon's response to the Red. So I tent to value obsolescence for reasons of technology and not life span.</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>Used to be able to run crappy film thru my Nikon F2, or really good film. The camera didn't mind, as in the comment above about upgrading film/sensor.<br>

PCs used to come in any arrangement, but in always a beige box, but the MHz wars flamed.<br>

The Rainbow fairies now control PC colors across the spectrum; MHz and MB war is abating but the dual/quad ++ cores are crying for battle.<br>

Look at P&S cameras, the MPxl race is slowing, but the colors are exploding along with eyeball tracking @ 200 yards and 4,000:1 digital zoom on video cams too.<br>

How do I get the consumer to buy a new thing ... gotta give 'em what they think they want & need.<br>

Jim</p>

[ted_raper1]

<p>People determine what is "obsolete" with their dollars, whether it's computers, TVs, or cameras. Of course our older equipment will still work, but when new technology comes out some people just have to have it. My own attitude is that I have certain equipment that works for me - does exactly what I want it to do - and I feel no need to replace it just because there is a newer model. <br>

Having said that, if I were going to make an exception it would probably be for a camera. I do think the newer model cameras are superior to my older ones, and while they may not help me take a "better" photo, they probably will make it EASIER to take the same picture. I currently use a D200, fine camera, but yeah, old technology. I'll likely upgrade in the next year or so to something newer, but I'm keeping my 3 year old computer and my 1 year old flat screen TV until they die.</p>

[dbcooper]

<blockquote>

<p>"...why still this preconception digital cameras become obsolete so quickly?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because they do. IMO, it's not about planned obsolescence, but about image quality and convenience of operation. I do see a slowing of the rate of improvement on the horizon (if not the doorstep) with current sensor format technology in DSLRs. Soon optics, not the sensors, will be the limitation. Folks shooting 24+ mp DSLRs are currently finding this out.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"The fact that there are better specified camaeras available does not mean that the existing ones are obsolete."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While that's true to a point (are you shooting any wet glass plate cameras?), as long as repair parts, batteries, and memory are available, a digital camera can live on. My question would be who would want one?. Ten years ago, I shot Sony Mavicas that took a 3.5" floppy disk inserted in the back for memory. Great at the time for a digital camera, I have no use for one now. Even the cheapest new major brand p&s will out-do its IQ by a mile. Although total useful life span in digital cameras has been far and away shorter than film cameras, I do see digital cameras' useful lifespans growing now that decent IQ is an everyday thing.</p>

<p>OTOH, I shot my dad's (older than I am) Leica IIIf kit for years after he surrendered it to me in the early 70s (because he got a new Polaroid...go figure). It still worked fine when I traded it in (2002). I hope some collector shoots with it, and doesn't just park it on a shelf.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Film slr's can also become obsolete, because their compatible lens go out of production, their metering systems etc become antiquated, and so on. But it happens much more slowly, and I think primarily because:</p>

<p>The film slr's "sensor" is the film. Every advance in film technology gives you the potential for a new "sensor". Unfortunately, film usage (and advances) are in decline.</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>Largely because manufacturers and consumers jumped on the digital wagon too early. That first generation of digital cameras were all crap, no matter who made it or how expensive it was, or how many magazine articles claimed it was better than film. Low resolution, high grain, purple fringing, slow refresh times, slow startup times, slow AF, small memory cards. For the last three or four years all of the cameras are pretty much the same with similar features and quality, vastly superior to the machines of 8 years hence. You could micro-analyze them for subtle model changes as they would desire you to do, but basically the pack is pretty much together. I would suspect that in the next 5 years manufacturers will actually be forced to do something interesting to differentiate from each other, at which point current cameras may not be obsolete, but perhaps there will be something offered you actually want and you won't feel like you are just settling for the current model from your chosen brand because that's all there is.</p>

[raybrizzi]

<p>Well, if they kept changing the effective resolution of film every 3 weeks, film cameras would have gone through the same curve.<br>

My (obsolete) Canon T-400 with its FD lenses and my Bell + Howell FD35 (aka canon tlb) take the same quality pictures, about 15 years apart in design. Ultimately, a film camera is just a shutter, with the lens making all the difference.<br>

Big difference between, say, the Canon EOS Rebel XT and the Xsi, about 3 years apart.</p>