Why do (digital) cameras become obsolete?

[lex_jenkins]

<p>It's primarily due to factors Walt observed here:</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2204294">Walt Flanagan</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Jul 27, 2009; 11:15 a.m.</p>

 

<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>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Some photographers demanded film with the highest possible resolution and lowest grain at any given ISO. It wasn't unusual for critically demanding film photographers to switch films every few years. So they'll continue to demand the same performance from digital cameras, which can be improved only by upgrading the entire camera, since it's not feasible to replace only the sensor and related processing hardware and software.</p>

<p>If you didn't demand the highest resolution, lowest grain film a decade or more ago, you might not be inclined to upgrade dSLRs every year or so.</p>

<p>Secondary considerations depend on contemporary trends. For example, the popularity of HDR type processing has created a demand for dSLRs with 2-stop exposure bracketing. Some dSLRs offer only 1-stop increments, requiring the photographer to take more photos than needed and delete the extraneous shots. Given a choice between Brand A and Brand B, all else being equal, the devoted HDR photographer might chose the brand or model that offers that specific feature.</p>

<p>If you don't do HDR photography and don't need 2-stop bracketing, you might not feel any need to upgrade.</p>

<p>Another contemporary trend is video capability in dSLRs. While a contentious issue, there are photographers who want this feature. They'll be willing to upgrade or cross-grade for that specific feature.</p>

<p>Again, you might not feel any pressure to upgrade or cross-grade if you have no need for that feature.</p>

<p>And on and on... demands for better AF performance for action, sports and wildlife photographers... demands for better high ISO performance for the available light enthusiast... demands for a better viewfinder for folks with failing eyesight (I can relate to that, which is why I'm not anxious to switch solely on the basis of higher resolution, better high ISO performance, etc., if it also means compromising on the viewfinder).</p>

[User_276104]

<p>Digital cameras are static - there may be some firmware upgrades but nothing can change their basic performance.</p>

<p>I had a friend that was drooling over the Nikon D70 when it was introduced in 2004. My main argument concerning digital at the time was that he'd be buying a $1,000+ roll of film that could never be rewound mid-roll and swapped for another. </p>

<p>Now, 5 years later, I think it's best to live in the past a bit and wait for that $1,000 roll of film to cost $350 used, or that $5,000 roll to make it down to sub-$1,000.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Marketing. I think the ability to create a technology long before it comes out. But I think they plan the market to string along buyers. Cynical I suppose.</p>

<p>What I usually rail about is why the <em>camera </em> becomes obsolete. If this were truly a green world, wouldn't you think someone would component-ize the camera so you could unlock the digital back and slide in a new one with the brains and shutter to go with it, leaving the old shell in tact? I know some photographers (especially PJs) beat their cameras to death, but for the rest of us, why not make use of the finder and recording mechanism? Oh, CFs fell victim to a new CF II card? Slide out the holder when you upgrade the new digital back while you're at it. Finder is bad? Slide off the finder an replace it with a new one. Then spend you bux on building a tank of a shell on which to add components and architecture.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>I think the term obsolete is obsolete. There Pixel wars are over although Nikon and Canon and now Sony are still at it. As long as you got 8+ megapixels and all the lenses on the market fit, then your camera is not obsolete. It migh be last years model and might not get the looks that a new corvette gets, but it is still functional. The term obsolete just brings the prices down so in a way it's good. </p>

[bob_bill]

<p>Computers in the 90's quickly became obsolete with rapid improvements to a relatively new technology but, 19 years later, are providing the needed features for less and the improvements and obsolencence have slowed. Is the same thing happening with the perhaps 10 yr old dslr technology and are we starting to see diminishing meaningful improvements now? </p>

[rossb]

<p>It is just a negative term that people use. Actually digital camera's do not become obsolete. They just get a little older each day and eventually they fail to function like everything else. The camera would become obsolete if for some reason they became no longer useful. Possibly the jpeg or nef files became no longer were useful in the modern world.</p>

[sfcole]

<p>Actually, digital cameras DO become obsolete because they have had--and still continue to have--areas in which they need to improve. And the more complex they become, the more functions need improvement. There are always ways to improve the ergonomics, speed, battery life, weather resistance, digital artifacts, focusing, and other areas. Example, while using a friend's D700 in a studio, it refused to lock on AF. Very frustrating. What about sensor latitude? I'd like to see a sensor with the latitude of tri-x. When that happens, everything else will be obsolete.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Somebody needs to make money and they can't make it unless people keep buying new stuff ;-)<br>

Sooner or later the pace of development in digital cameras will slow down.</p>

[sfcole]

<p>Oskar,<br>

I doubt it. Here's an example: they just started putting video into DSLRs. That leads to a whole new area of innovation and improvement. Each new feature added, and each new technology leads to improvements and refinements. Look at all the new systems, each with its own possibilities for improvements and innovation: wireless flash. Vibration reduction. Metering.</p>

<p>BTW--why can't somebody invent a camera that can be aimed towards the light and used as an incident meter? Or a flash meter?</p>

<p>Scott</p>

[rossb]

<blockquote>

<p>BTW--why can't somebody invent a camera that can be aimed towards the light and used as an incident meter? Or a flash meter?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you take a styrofoam coffee cup and your camera and walk over to the subject. Put the coffee cup over the lens and turn around and face where the picture will be taken from you can then take an incident meter reading (meauring the light falling onto the subject). It is a good idea to drink the coffee first for obvious reasons.</p>

<p> </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I think the real issue with digital camera may not be obsolescence but the loss of functionality. The film process had cameras, developing and printing / enlarging. all of these processes depended on the fim and chemistry - while film and chemistry can change the camera can always adapt to the new film unless the size changed. the real risk of digital is that the process is now camera, storage,PC and software and printing. I think there are two long term areas of risk - the storage media in the camera and the software and hardware needed to produce the image. The Canon New F1 was in production for almost 13 years and supported for another 10 by the factory.<br>

The storage card is a big risk area as I suspect that the current SD and CF cards will not last for 25 years ( by analogy the 5.25 and 3.5 inch PC disks have gone). Both physical dimensions and formats change rapidly in the digital industry.<br>

The PC interface and image processing software present additional risks. For example Adobe CS3 does not support RAW files from some new digital cameras and that is recent software - how long before old formats get discarded? The PC interface is also a risk - I suspct that my Nikon 9000 scanner will become obsolete when Firewire interfaces die. While it may be tempting to think that USB will persist previous standards are essentially dead. At one time RS232 was the interface standard - try getting it today.</p>

<p>I think it is the interdependent ecosystem of digital photography that will lead to the loss of functionality in old cameras. The film process was modular, analogue and physical - these attributes essentially gave it long term durability. I can read a book or read an inscription written in the Middle Ages (assuming it is in English or I can read Latin). However, computer software written in the 1970s and 1980s is likely to be unusable on a machine bought today - why do we expect photos to be different.<br>

Remember the DVD was launched in the US about 12 years ago (first test market March 1997) and it is starting to become very difficult to buy a VHS player new already - the VHS standard has essentially died in the production lifetime of a film body like the New F1!</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Ditto, the white styrofoam coffee cup trick ross mentioned. Learned that one years ago. Some minor exposure compensation might be appropriate depending on the TTL meter, but it's a handy makeshift incident meter for unusually difficult situations.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>I would really like an incident meter on the back of a camera. </p>

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

<p>They don't. Some believe that the newest gadget will improve their photography. Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. I find the person looking through the viewfinder is pretty important as well as the subject being photographed.<br /> I still use my oldest digital camera and it works just fine.<br /> Even use film cameras. I've got one of my old Rolleicords ready to exercise at my next gig this Saturday. There will be grins when I start to use it!<br /> Smile!</p>

[keith selmes]

<p>My first digital camera had rather limited controls and sensor, and used 4 batteries, used them fast too. I had always to carry at least 4 spare AA batteries. That camera is definitely obsolete.<br>

On the other hand, a 5D does most of what I want. I might like to change a few things given the choice, but there's no strong need to get a better one, whatever that might be.<br>

Digicams were becoming outdated/outclassed very rapidly because its new, developing, technology, and it hadn't reached the standard that people wanted, but I don't think its true now, they're good enough to keep now.</p>

[edgreene]

<p>Nick: <em><strong>"Why do (digital) cameras become obsolete?"</strong></em><br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

Some don 't Nick. My ancient (new in 2003-2004) 5Mpx Panasonic DMC-FZ20 for example. For one thing, it is more than up to the challenge of A4 printing. Another reason is it can go where many SLRs of any type cannot: venues where "pro" looking gear is banned.<br>

The best thing about the FZ20? Its constant aperture f/2.8 throughout its 36-432mm EFL zoom range. Another? The Leica lens is as good today as it was brand new. Another? The FZ20s (and its Panasonic FZ "family") ability to make astonshing macro shots. <br>

Another? With my Olympus T-CON 1.7 teleconverter mounted, the FZ20 is <em>still f/2.8 out at 732mm plus</em>.<br>

*No the T-CON teleconverter (<em><strong>nor does the NIKON 1.7</strong></em>) does not: add a (<strong>any</strong>) f/stop. </p>

<p>For most indoor shots, the FZ20 smokes many newer DSLR and most "Bridge" cameras.<br>

As a stand-alone spotting scope, the FZ20 excels as it does at capturing long distance landscape shots (you know, the shots no prime or even 70-200 f/2.8 zoom lens can get when you're way over here; and the scene you want is way over there>>>>>>; as in isolating a single bloom when you're in a Botanica and the shot you want is behind the ropes). </p>

<p>What with its "primitive" Panasonic IS Omega system and less than 22 oz weight, my FZ20 goes out the door with me more often than not while those magnificent EOS "L"<br /> lenses and film SLRs stay home on the porch.</p>

<p>While many shooters find their bridge and DSLR digital cameras less capble (read "obsolete") than the new breeds, many digital cameras are retired way too soon. </p>

[jbauer]

<p>"No longer in use" is night and day different from "no longer useful". I shoot primarily with an older Canon EOS 1D body that is not generally "in use" much these days so people may deem it 'obsolete' based only on that definition of the word. <br>

When in reality the camera is still extremely USEFUL and really not 'obsolete' at all by that definition of the word. </p>

[dan_b.4]

<p>Unfortunately, some morons out there in the corporate world have the notion that the more megapixels a camera has the better the photos it will take. I recently sent some digital images to a prospective client who liked them well enough to get together in a face-to-face business meeting. I lost the job because there was no dissuading him from his insistence on a "minimum" of 10 megapixels, while I have a Canon D60 with "only" 6.3 MP. To that guy's mind, anything below 10 is not useful.</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>I've decided to be the one who determines whether or not my camera is in need of being "upgraded". At present I have a couple of 30D bodies that 'still' perform beautifully and on top of that, there is still a lot to learn about the camera. While the succeeding bodies have all been interesting and have had several new and improved features, none of them has been much of an enticement to buy a new camera. Of course, being a camera gearhead, I've often considered getting something new just because I like new stuff, but I've not had a need for it. Now, if the soon-to-be-announced 60D has the features that I want, such as real weathersealing, AF similar to a 1-series body with lots of cross-sensors laid out in a logical manner, practical features of that sort, then I'll buy one. For now my 'old' 30Ds will do just fine. I guess I'm more concerned about the storage media and their longevity more than anything else.</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>As an aside, another interesting facet of all of this upgrade fever has been the shift in the perception of what's affordable. I remember 'way back' in 1997 when I was shopping for an EOS 3. There was a special at one of the mail-order stores that had the camera body and two lenses for $1300. That was a <em>lot</em> of money and required that I save for weeks in order to rationally afford it. Nowadays when a camera is less than $2500 it's considered to be affordable and while it's certainlt true that it's vastly more affordable than an $8000-body, that's still a<em> lot</em> of money! I do think it's great that you can now get a 10+mp camera for under $600, but still...</p>

[starvy]

<p>the ordinary folks tend to think that the latest is greatest. when their old one dies they get a new one based on their budget.</p>

[jack_shankle]

<p>My Kodak digital camera is about 3 years old.<br>

Kodak sent a software update to me for this camera.<br>

The update tried to download the entire Microsoft SDK which obviously is not needed.<br>

I will not attempt to download any other software as they have NOT replied to my inquiries<br>

as to why my camera is now obsolete. (Very good business practice - it endears customers).<br>

The camera is still in good condition but I imagine that going to window 7 it will no longer work.<br>

Needless to say I will never buy another Kodak.</p>