jeremy_craig Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Has any testing been done to verify the expected lifespan of a DSLR?Aside from shutter openings/closing, there's the CMOS chip and the LCD screen. What else would have a finite lifespan? I've read Lots of posts about the merits of DSLRs to extent..."I'm free to shoot away without using film and paying development/printing costs on throwaway pics...". But, how many more photos will be taken and how shortened is lifespan made of a DSLR?. Ie. if you take 5x more photos than you would with a film camera (hey, not wasting any "film"), and if a prosumer (eg. Elan7) film camera is good for 100,000 shutterclicks(?), and if film camera lasts 10 years, can we expect DSLR to last 2 years? Food for thought perhaps, for those who haven't considered that just snapping away won't cost them anything, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 The electronics won't "wear out" any more than the electronics on current film cameras will. Shutter life is another matter. Shutters are mechanical and they do wear out. I think the shutter on the EOS-3 is rated for 100,000 cycles. On lower end "consumer" bodies I think the shuuter life is less, maybe something like 30,000 cycles? Of course these are usually conservative ratings and shutters may last much longer, but if you use them enough they will wear out. Replacement costs are typically in the $200-$300 range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_l1 Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 YEs, shutter life is one limiting factor. Consumer bodies(inlcuding D30 & D60, 10D has a new type of shutter I think) have shutter life of around 50,000 cycles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy_craig Posted March 4, 2003 Author Share Posted March 4, 2003 Bob, My impression is that there are a lot of "electronics" in DSLRs not present in film SLRs, which begged my question as to lifespan on those issues as well (eg. new digic(?) processor chip, CMOS sensor, CF Card writing mechanism?, LCD screen). I'd like to see someone put together a rigorous testing of these things to quantify (sorta like Consumer Reports would do on say exterior deck stains, or color-fastness of all-color laundry bleach:-). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_l1 Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Well, computers have electronic parts and they last pretty long :-) I remember reading that LCD screens has lifespan of around 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flipper1 Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Jeremy..... My D30 was bought in November 2000 and had a hard life up until I bought my 1D (which demoted it to back up body) and according to my records the D30 has gone through over 78,000 actuations with never a glitch! In fact the only thing "wrong" with it is a slightly loose hot shoe which still performs as it should, but the 550 wobbles slightly when fitted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy_craig Posted March 4, 2003 Author Share Posted March 4, 2003 Thanks Zac, That is promising and good info. But, curious as to how you might equate those 78,000 shots (is a picture taken the same as an actuation?) to if you had been working with a film camera -- imagine DSLRs didn't exist, could you guess how many film shots you would have taken (1/2, 1/3, 1/5th as many)? Whatever the fraction would be, I guess that fraction should be applied to film-camera average lifespan to determine DSLR lifespan, no? All I'm getting at is that there is probably an implied faster rate of depreciation on DSLRs (not due to just the technology), but to faster rates at which folks are taking pics. And, I think that nobody has really addressed this. DSLRs really have not been around that long, so I guess only time will tell, I just hope there's not a rude awakening a year or two from now when lots of 1D/D30/D60 users find their cameras have gone on the fritz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin_jones Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Its a fair bet that the camera will last well beyond technical obsolescence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flipper1 Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Yes...1 pic took is an actuation of the shutter, I would estimate that before I went Digi I would take a minimum of three shots to avoid the subject blinking and create a "banker" then take a closer look at the composition and see if I could get the image even more "tight, bright, upright and shite" as is our publications style! So would estimate that I used to take about 30-36 shots per job (to get 4 good images) where as on Digi I reckon that I probably use a similar amount of shots (I take only one now to get a banker with eyes open as I can see the image instantly) but probably try more adventurous compositions or effects than I would have with emulsion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_phan Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 I remember when LCD screens (the old black and grey kind) first appeared on camera top-plates of autofocus cameras. The manual-focus, manual-everything curmudgeons warned that those little screens would break, black out, fade, freeze up, and die after a short period of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NK Guy Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Flash memory has a finite lifespan. You can only write each cell about 100,000 times before it fails, from what I've read. In the traditional use of flash memory - setting parameters on devices like cameras - this isn't a big deal because you don't change things repeatedly. But on storage media you do. Some cards have algorithms for spreading out the write cycles across the entire chip so as to avoid too much wear in one area, but I don't think they all do this. Luckily the flash memory of every D-SLR I've seen is removable and thus independent of the camera body itself. I think the main problem is going to be getting supplies and media in the future. You can still buy 35mm film today that'll fit your 50 year old camera. Try buying 5.25" floppies for your 15 year old computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Modern electronics don't fail much. I'm guessing the chips in your PC are an order of magnitude larger and more complex than those in a DSLR and PCs just keep on running and running. When was the last time you heard of a CPU failure? LCDs just don't wear out as fast as was once feared. There are lots of LCDs still doing just fine after 15-20 years. Memory can fail after enough use, whether flash memory or microdrives, but you have to hammer on it for a long time. Microdrives are rated for 300,000 load/unload cycles and I think they often hit 1,000,000 cycles in actual testing. It's very likely the shutter will fail (several times!) before you wear out any mass storage device. The downside of electronic failure is if it does happen (and of course it will, if only in a very few cases) is that fixing it isn't cheap as it usually involves replacing the whole electronic assembly. Not like the days when all you needed was a new spring or washer! Remember that the main problems with existing EOS bodies are things like the mechanical control dial failing or the battery door not closing properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mick_j Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 I have a Sony Digital Camera. I can't get a replacement battery, so when this one dies, so does the camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy_craig Posted March 4, 2003 Author Share Posted March 4, 2003 Hmmm. Using computers as an example. I work in an office, and its probably weekly that the "computer guy" has to come and fix something (hard drives included). And, contrary to I think Bob's point, yes computers have larger componentry.. I would think miniaturization of componentry would be more likely to lead to failures. eg. Laptops seem to break down more often than the desktop counterparts. On the other hand, how many people are working on the same computer 5 years later, given the cycling of faster CPUs needed with more memory for new applications... I'm not getting at the technology obsolesence issue, getting at real experience with computers working for long periods of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citizensmith1664875108 Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 I'm tech support at a large hazardous waste landfill excavation. Among the bits and pieces out here are 4 digital cameras (an A10, two A20s and a G1) and 3 computers (1 desktop, two laptops) all used in harsh conditions. The camera's have taken almost 20,000 photos between them over two years. All that has happened is I've lost a scanner and keyboard to dust, and one camera repaired after some dick left it out in the snow. So sure, this stuff can wear out, but it'll take a whole lot of crap first. Most of the computer issues I deal with are software related rather than hardware and I've got a load more computers outside the hazardous waste area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markci Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 I agree with Bob: electronics don't generally wear out, so "how shortened is lifespan made of a DSLR" is a loaded question. Loaded with a premise that's most likely false. The lifespan won't be shorter. The exaple of 78,000 shots above represents about $30,000 in (slide) film and processing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 Somewhere I read about a phenomenon called "pixel death" wherein pixels on the chip gradually stop recording. Supposedly the software interpolates the dead pixels, but it seems like after a time you'd end up with a lower pixel count and more interpolation (kind of how Fuji claims to double the resolution of the S1 and S2). Anyone know more about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 Re <i>The electronics won't "wear out" </i><BR><BR>With along time; electrolylic capacitors dry out; and cause increased ripple in electrical circuits. This maybe a decade at room temperature; and only a year or two; if kept in a super hot trunk of a car. Dead pixels and noise increase with time. All my older scanners show this problem; my guess is that camera sensors MIGHT have this problem too. <BR><BR>Close die dimensions with high voltages get tiny hairs that grow and tend to short out portions of the die. IC's that are heat sunk sometimes are over tightened to their heat sinks; this causes the plastic case of the IC to get a small crack; allowing moisture to get inside; this hurts the life of the IC................<BR><BR>These comments are from being an electrical engineer in the computer industry; and doing post mortem analysis of field failures.; and a ham radio operator too <BR><BR><b>At one computer company (one of the seven dwarfs) WE once found that the units that ran too hot actually lasted WAY longer. This was in direct opposition to all the published BS on MTBF and 6 sigma etc cranked out by the "experts"...... WE found that the hotter units kept the moisture problems in control....When we lowered the heat buildup of the unit; field failures actually INCREASED.........Practical experience may be 90 degrees away from the models by the GURUS!</b>... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oliver_s. Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 <i>f you take 5x more photos than you would with a film camera [...], and if a prosumer (eg. Elan7) film camera is good for 100,000 shutterclicks(?), and if film camera lasts 10 years, can we expect DSLR to last 2 years?</i><br>AFAIK the Elan series' shutters have an MTBF of 50,000 actuations. (Canon EOS 3000/Rebel G, 10,000; Nikon FE/FM series, 75,000; Nikon N80, 50,000.) Leaving failing batteries, dried lubricants, etc., aside, it doesn't matter whether you hit the limit in 6 months or 20 years. I.e., there's a fundamental flaw in your syllogism. Furthermore, there's absolutely no rule that you take so-and-so-much more pictures with a digital than with a film-based system. If you see the result on the display at once, you needn't take another pic just to have "the" shot... Also, professionals don't exactly wear out DSLRS!<p>If it helps you: my father used to work in software development for industrial applications; telephone exchange systems for local and long-range phone service providers, specifically. Whenever he had to repair a glitch in a working exchange station (which would usually leave a few thousand people without a phone connection), he always found out that his colleagues had delivered bugware or that a dumb operator had screwed up. It was never a hardware problem, be it in icy European winters or in Florida summers.<p>As phone exchange systems are pretty active 24/7, this may help us to relax. In all likelihood, a digicam will still function in 10 years. (Please keep the obsolence issue in Pandora's Box!)<p>Oh yes, there was the occasional biological bug in the exchange sytem, and even a rat once. But I don't think these will creep into DSLRs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oliver_s. Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 I stand corrected on the latter: click <a href="http://www.botzilla.com/photo/G1gear.html">here</a> and scroll down to the end. Also, there's the famous <a href="http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/dustmite.htm">"lens cleaning biotechnology"</a>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_gill Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 The lifespan of digital cameras is determined more by our susceptibility to the marketing hype than technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oliver_s. Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Over in the archived forum, a recent (as of 03/04) discussion of flash card writing speeds has brought up the issue of electronics longevity. Perhaps it's of interest to this thread, so I'm providing a <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004flR">link</a> to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brendan_dowling Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 As others have said, the rechargable batteries will wear out and the shutter will wear out. If you change lenses a lot, the lens mount will wear. The shutter button and other buttons will wear and may fail and need to be replaced. Connectors will wear. I have a feeling that the camera will be obsolete and you will want to replace it long before any of the electronics stop working. Keep in mind, that there are many old computers that still work (e.g., Commodore 64's, Apple //e's) and the only things that stop working are mechanical things like disk drives or things that overheat like power supplies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy_craig Posted March 6, 2003 Author Share Posted March 6, 2003 There must be a point of diminishing returns, no? Wherein the human eye cannot distinguish the resolution differences from a XXmp from a YYmp camera? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now