Shutter Count Software

[harold_motte]

XVi32 Software / Hex editor, etc..

 

Has anyone had any experience with this as being accurate in providing

 

the actuation count on a Canon 20D ?

 

Thanks,

[smooth_carrots]

<p>Nobody bothered with shutter counts when we shot film, I have never understood the fascination with it.</p>

<p>To answer your question, I have no idea. But then, does it really matter?</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Allow us to enlighten you... :-)</p>

<p>It certainly does if you are buying used equipment. Even though a 20D may not be the most relevent illustration of this, buying a 5D(or 5mk2 or 1D of any version for example) from a pro who has shot a quarter million exposures on it warrants a <em>far</em> different price than buying the same camera from a hobbyist or amateur who has shot 15k on it. I don't know anybody who has ever even claimed to have shot 250,000 exposures on a single film chassis, yet it's routine to see DSLRs with that number and more available for sale. For a significant used purchase, I can hardly think of a more important single piece of data.</p>

<p> </p>

[zml]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know anybody who has ever even claimed to have shot 250,000 exposures on a single film chassis, yet it's routine to see DSLRs with that number and more available for sale.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh boy, really? I used to shoot about 250K exposures per year on each of my Canon F1 bodies, sometimes on one shutter for a year-year and a half, sometimes on two shutters per year. If the shutter failed, it'd be replaced (that's why one has backaup cameras...) Same with EOS 1. 20 rolls (or 2-3 250 shots magazines) per day, day in day out was pretty standard. Paradoxically, I shoot less with digital becasue I know that I have a shot in the can whereas with film I would shoot and shoot for insurance with different bodies and emulsions. As for the importance of shutter count, yeah, I can understand it if buying a second hand recent model camera but if a 3 year old DSLR has just 5000 shutter actuations that means that the camera was mainly stored and storage for all things mechanical can't be good, so you can get a low shutter count and the mirror flying off in 500 shots.</p>

[symple]

<p>I wouldn't worry about it. The shutter count isn't going to affect the value much at this point for that model, and it is just a number. I have had shutters go anywhere between 18k and 270k, you never really know when or what count and that is why you have a back-up body and reliable repair centre. I have used software for higher end bodies when I have sold them, but knew the number was irrelevant to what the potential life of the camera was. I would just use it until it dies, and/or buy another body since they sell for about fifty less than a shutter replacement these days.</p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>Wow Michael - that's a first for me to hear that about the additional exposures shooting film, vs being able to get quick feedback from a digital. The discussion is usually the other way around (you know, the usual "why do people take so many shots with digital cameras - film forces me to slow down and take just one shot" kind of thing). I'm sitting here thinking about the cost of buying and developing that many film frames. Quite a different outcome from the usual film-values conversation.</p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>Shooting 250K shots of film per year tells me that a lot of in camera dupes were made, or the individual was doing scientific, forensic, or sports photography or a very busy school portrait or church directory operation (though most of those were usually done with long roll 120 bodies.)</p>

<p>In the case of the latter a lot of that film was never used. And if one needs to digitize that many frames well that's another issue also. </p>

<p>Having the shutter count of a body is at least one indicator of the use of a camera body. We all look at odometers when we purchase a used car don't we?</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I also wouldn't worry about it. You can probably get a decent idea of the state of the camera by assessing the seller. Also, the so-called shutter life number is based on estimated probability - it is not a hard and fast number. Most camera will be able to shoot more frames than this number, while a few may fail earlier.</p>

<p>In any case, when you buy used gear the trade-off for the lower price includes that fact that you don't have a warranty and you are less certain of how long it will last. Budget some money for possible repairs and you'll be fine - or, if it sets your mind at ease, get a new camera with a warranty instead.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Micheal - LOL I now know one person!</p>

[gregf]

<p ><a name="00Z9AP"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6610644">Smooth Carrots</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Aug 05, 2011; 06:44 p.m.</p>

 

<p>Nobody bothered with shutter counts when we shot film, I have never understood the fascination with it.<br>

To answer your question, I have no idea. But then, does it really matter?</p>

<p>I agree, but I know in my case, I used to shoot 10 rolls of slides on a vacation on my 1V. I can now shoot 360 shots in a day on the same vacation. Now that I don't have to pay for the slides or the processing I have a happier trigger finger. I was at an airshow last year, and shot two entire 32GB cards (21MP @ JPG), about 3500 shots total. Back in the day, that was about three years of shutter movement.</p>

 

[smooth_carrots]

<p>Gregory, I pity you having to sort through 3500 shots on your computer. My worst nightmare.</p>

<p>Besides, you could buy a modern DSLR with a shutter count of less than a thousand and then watch it fall apart in your hands because it has been used for shooting HD video for the last 3 years.</p>

<p>Or you could buy a DSLR with a low shutter count only to discover it had been in a river last month and listen to all the circuits slowly frying away.</p>

<p>Shutter count, shmutter count...</p>

[zml]

<blockquote>

<p>The discussion is usually the other way around (you know, the usual "why do people take so many shots with digital cameras - film forces me to slow down and take just one shot" kind of thing). </p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is really very simple: if one has to bring the pictures one tends to shoot way more with film and less with digital: film and processing costs are nil in comparison to the costs of being on location and/or to potential profits. People who shoot for fun tend to shoot way more with digital because they had to save with film (film+processing costs add up if you are an amateur.)</p>

<p>As for "film forces me to slow down" - most "serious" amateurs are either Ansel Adams wannabes (more concerned with "previsualization" and the "deliberate aspect" of shooting than with the actual act of photography) or street/situational photographers hung up on the "decisive moment" nonsense. Both approaches really slow you down :-)</p>

[brian_cocksedge]

<p>A program called EOSinfo works on the 40D so I presume it will work on the 20D its worth downloading and trying.<br>

Here is the Link<br>

http://astrojargon.net/EOSInfo.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1</p>