robertdfeinman
Robert Feinman
I usually agonize over purchases for a long time (or at least I did when I was much younger and had very little money). I pick the product that does "exactly" what I want it to do and then I expect it to last "forever".
I have two cameras the I got in the 1950's (used) which still work fine - a Rollei and a miniature Speed Graphic. I don't use either anymore, but if I did want to use them for some special purpose I would expect them to be operational. At most a bit of a cleaning of the shutter would be about what I would expect might be needed.
This expectation of mine also holds true for audio equipment. I don't have anything that is that old, but there haven't been any real developments is standard stereo since CD's were invented and needed an input that could handle a slightly higher voltage than the normal aux.
I seem to be living in a fantasy world these days. My cameras are still doing fine, mostly, I suspect, because I haven't bought any highly automated ones. Rangefinders are the perfect example of this old fashioned way of thinking. The lenses have two simple moving parts and the camera the shutter and wind mechanism.
Lately my simple philosophy has been shattered by the number of electronics devices that have failed. Receivers, CD players, etc. fail after a few years of average use. In every case the cost of repair makes this option uneconomic. Also in every case the replacement item that I purchased is missing some feature that I liked on the original. A typical example is the lack of an FM signal strength meter on the receiver which I used to orient my antenna when picking up stations from different directions.
The rise of computerized cameras seems to have changed the public perception. Not only do these cameras become "obsolete" in just a couple of years, but I keep hearing reports about how quickly they fail. Rather than get upset most people just toss them and get a newer model.
I have a feeling that many on this site also belong to the "forever" school and thus expect camera values to hold up. Perhaps we are just a dying breed and should stop looking for quality construction and just join the throwaway society.
I have two cameras the I got in the 1950's (used) which still work fine - a Rollei and a miniature Speed Graphic. I don't use either anymore, but if I did want to use them for some special purpose I would expect them to be operational. At most a bit of a cleaning of the shutter would be about what I would expect might be needed.
This expectation of mine also holds true for audio equipment. I don't have anything that is that old, but there haven't been any real developments is standard stereo since CD's were invented and needed an input that could handle a slightly higher voltage than the normal aux.
I seem to be living in a fantasy world these days. My cameras are still doing fine, mostly, I suspect, because I haven't bought any highly automated ones. Rangefinders are the perfect example of this old fashioned way of thinking. The lenses have two simple moving parts and the camera the shutter and wind mechanism.
Lately my simple philosophy has been shattered by the number of electronics devices that have failed. Receivers, CD players, etc. fail after a few years of average use. In every case the cost of repair makes this option uneconomic. Also in every case the replacement item that I purchased is missing some feature that I liked on the original. A typical example is the lack of an FM signal strength meter on the receiver which I used to orient my antenna when picking up stations from different directions.
The rise of computerized cameras seems to have changed the public perception. Not only do these cameras become "obsolete" in just a couple of years, but I keep hearing reports about how quickly they fail. Rather than get upset most people just toss them and get a newer model.
I have a feeling that many on this site also belong to the "forever" school and thus expect camera values to hold up. Perhaps we are just a dying breed and should stop looking for quality construction and just join the throwaway society.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Cars are the same too; my 'modern' car with a computer to control all functions will be out of service before my neighbor's old car which is purely mechanical fails.
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
Don't get carried away with those older cars. Their safety features are very dated and in many cases dangerous. One myth which waw explained to me was that older & heavier cars upon impact do not collapse but transfer the impact to the passengers creating severe whiplash. New models absorbed the impact. This from very personal experience.
Things do wear out. Stereo systems, I have found, can last up to 15 years. By then the technology is so far advanced that a new system is cheaper & much better than the repair. CD's are another issue. They appear indestructable. Technology there seems to have reached a pinnacle. Theoretically, they may last forever.
Now lets return to cameras. Mechanically, there are some masterpieces out there. Are the early meter systems comparable to the first digital systems? Those meters seemed to burn out or become inaccurate while current crop of digitals are heavy, lenses slow, and ISO's (until maybe D300 & D3 2007) in the higher ranges "noisy." Upon first introduction mechanical items tend to be inefficient only with years and further scientific advancement to they reach great proficiency.
Things do wear out. Stereo systems, I have found, can last up to 15 years. By then the technology is so far advanced that a new system is cheaper & much better than the repair. CD's are another issue. They appear indestructable. Technology there seems to have reached a pinnacle. Theoretically, they may last forever.
Now lets return to cameras. Mechanically, there are some masterpieces out there. Are the early meter systems comparable to the first digital systems? Those meters seemed to burn out or become inaccurate while current crop of digitals are heavy, lenses slow, and ISO's (until maybe D300 & D3 2007) in the higher ranges "noisy." Upon first introduction mechanical items tend to be inefficient only with years and further scientific advancement to they reach great proficiency.
TomBob
Member
i had the same problem with my RZ67 the otehr month, i took it to your darkroom tecnician at the uni - who is certified in camera repair, and i opend the case and he told me to go elsewhere, simply due to electrical contacts everywhere controlling the camera, and lets face it the Mamyia RZ is not amazingly computerised by modern standerds. luckily we fixed it between us relativly easily, without touching those contacts.
every other camera i won is fully mechanical with the possible exception of the lightmeter. never had any trouble from any of them.
every other camera i won is fully mechanical with the possible exception of the lightmeter. never had any trouble from any of them.
ErnestoJL
Well-known
I like things that were made to last, maybe not forever but for long...
The actual technology forces us to replace every non functional thing we have, just to keep this trend going on, and on, and on...
What if we stop this crazy race and start thinking of developing in other more important areas?
Cheers
Ernesto
The actual technology forces us to replace every non functional thing we have, just to keep this trend going on, and on, and on...
What if we stop this crazy race and start thinking of developing in other more important areas?
Cheers
Ernesto
bennyng
Benny Ng
From my limited experience, most of my electronic equipment (pocket cameras, harddisk, computer, etc) usually last till just after the warranty expired. Strange.
Cheers,
Cheers,
ywenz
Veteran
Hard disk is a mechanical device, hence it fails.
Electronics lasts longer theoretically.
Huh? All cars are mechanical devices. Almost all fail due to parts breaking down, not circuit board frying..
Now, unless we're talking about Mercedes and Jaguars... electronics in those things fail as often as the moving parts..
Last edited:
Luddite Frank
Well-known
Interesting thread...
I think that "how long" something should "last" should be proportional to how "much" of your hard-earned money one has to pay for it...
In my own case, my parents were "children of the (American) Depression", lower-middle class, and grew-up learning the importance of thrift... new things were few & far between, and when they were purchased, they were well-cared for and expected to last.
As a result, I grew-up in a household that did not buy new automobiles (nor did we replace them every three to five years), when a household appliance (or car) broke-down, it was repaired and returned to service (repeat as necessary) until it was indeed worn-out ( beyond repair ).
If the article in question never did its job very well in the first-place, that was taken into consideration, and it placed nearer the top of the "buy a new one" list.
"Up-grade to take advantage of better technology" is a fair argument. Folks like Ansel Adams certainly embraced that idea.
But "planned obsolecence", epsecially for "big ticket items" such as cars, major household appliances, etc, can be a real onus.
Sticking with cars (my other major passion),
I still drive used vehicles (chosen carefully), and perform most of my own maintenance/repair. I also have a few "antique" cars... the oldest driver is an un-restored 1941 De Soto, still going at 67 years and 103,000 miles.
I'm not going to try to argue that it's "safer, faster, more fuel efficient, etc" than a new car... it is none of those. It IS reasonably safe & efficient when operated within its original design limitations.
It IS more simple in terms of design and operating systems, and does not require any sophisticated diagnostic equipment or tools to keep it going. It can be maintained by anyone with a basic level of hands-on skills and mechanical aptitude.
It is largely agreed by those of us hard-core gear-heads, that the Achilles' Heel of modern cars ( post-1980 ) will indeed be the electrical systems and on-board computer controls... many of these devices are proprietary by make & model, and are not easily fabbed-up from a la carte bits from Radio-Shack, once the OEM parts become unavailable. Add to that the amount of labor involved in chasing down electrical gremlins in a vehicle loaded-down with every concievable option... no wonder folks trade-in every couple years. (MadisonAv has also been a major force here - industry makes its money by selling NEW products, not by selling products that "last forever").
And, maybe I'm spoiled by having grown-up surrounded by cars, refrigerators, washing machines, Victrolas, cameras and so-on, that were all still functioning quite fine, as they have been handed-down to the second, third, or fourth generation.
A "classic" (read: mechanical) camera (Leica, Nikon, Retina, Premo, Speed Graphic, etc) often still functions at 50 to 100 years of age, and if not, is usually returned to satisfactory operating condition by a proper Clean, Lube, and Adjust.
I wonder how long my friend's Canon EOS will be a viable camera for him ? ( before its technology is obsolete, or some chip inside croaks ) ?
Enough of us here have received cameras from our parents or grandparents, that we are used to the idea of being able to pass these sorts of things along to the next generation...
For my own part, if a widget costs me less than a week's or month's wages, perhaps I don't expect it to last "forever".
If it costs several months' ( or years' ) wages, than that item had better "last" as long as I need it to... "forever", if necessary.
And as for cars, my next "new car" is going to be a Model T Ford.
Luddite Frank
I think that "how long" something should "last" should be proportional to how "much" of your hard-earned money one has to pay for it...
In my own case, my parents were "children of the (American) Depression", lower-middle class, and grew-up learning the importance of thrift... new things were few & far between, and when they were purchased, they were well-cared for and expected to last.
As a result, I grew-up in a household that did not buy new automobiles (nor did we replace them every three to five years), when a household appliance (or car) broke-down, it was repaired and returned to service (repeat as necessary) until it was indeed worn-out ( beyond repair ).
If the article in question never did its job very well in the first-place, that was taken into consideration, and it placed nearer the top of the "buy a new one" list.
"Up-grade to take advantage of better technology" is a fair argument. Folks like Ansel Adams certainly embraced that idea.
But "planned obsolecence", epsecially for "big ticket items" such as cars, major household appliances, etc, can be a real onus.
Sticking with cars (my other major passion),
I still drive used vehicles (chosen carefully), and perform most of my own maintenance/repair. I also have a few "antique" cars... the oldest driver is an un-restored 1941 De Soto, still going at 67 years and 103,000 miles.
I'm not going to try to argue that it's "safer, faster, more fuel efficient, etc" than a new car... it is none of those. It IS reasonably safe & efficient when operated within its original design limitations.
It IS more simple in terms of design and operating systems, and does not require any sophisticated diagnostic equipment or tools to keep it going. It can be maintained by anyone with a basic level of hands-on skills and mechanical aptitude.
It is largely agreed by those of us hard-core gear-heads, that the Achilles' Heel of modern cars ( post-1980 ) will indeed be the electrical systems and on-board computer controls... many of these devices are proprietary by make & model, and are not easily fabbed-up from a la carte bits from Radio-Shack, once the OEM parts become unavailable. Add to that the amount of labor involved in chasing down electrical gremlins in a vehicle loaded-down with every concievable option... no wonder folks trade-in every couple years. (MadisonAv has also been a major force here - industry makes its money by selling NEW products, not by selling products that "last forever").
And, maybe I'm spoiled by having grown-up surrounded by cars, refrigerators, washing machines, Victrolas, cameras and so-on, that were all still functioning quite fine, as they have been handed-down to the second, third, or fourth generation.
A "classic" (read: mechanical) camera (Leica, Nikon, Retina, Premo, Speed Graphic, etc) often still functions at 50 to 100 years of age, and if not, is usually returned to satisfactory operating condition by a proper Clean, Lube, and Adjust.
I wonder how long my friend's Canon EOS will be a viable camera for him ? ( before its technology is obsolete, or some chip inside croaks ) ?
Enough of us here have received cameras from our parents or grandparents, that we are used to the idea of being able to pass these sorts of things along to the next generation...
For my own part, if a widget costs me less than a week's or month's wages, perhaps I don't expect it to last "forever".
If it costs several months' ( or years' ) wages, than that item had better "last" as long as I need it to... "forever", if necessary.
And as for cars, my next "new car" is going to be a Model T Ford.
Luddite Frank
bean_counter
Well-known
I have pretty much learned by experience that anything that has a chip or proprietary/custom electronics part in it - which is essential to its functionality - is a relatively short-term belonging. As a middle-class kinda guy, I very carefully weigh $$ spent vs. gratification received. I rarely purchase the "latest" in electronics - unless there's a pressing need for the "new" funtionality.
jarski
Veteran
so in fact we should thank those faceless mega corporations for the constantly speeding cycle of wasting and consuming ?
robertdfeinman
Robert Feinman
What's new?
What's new?
Exactly what is the "new" functionality that most people need? I understand that a new TV is needed to play High Def and this is being forced on the public in effect.
I understand that there has been a decade or more effort to make digital cameras perform the same (or better) than film, but those who bought the earliest generations did so in spite of the limitations.
Aside from news and event photographers how many people really need the ability to distribute images instantaneously? How many digital shooter make use of this feature?
Most "features" seem aimed at the photographic experience, not the final image. Different modes and viewing options don't affect the image. When all is said and done there are only the same three variables: speed, aperture and focus (color balance, also if you insist).
The Model T got people from point A to B. Once cars could achieve modern highway speeds all the new "features" were also aimed at the driving experience not the use as transport.
One of the modern achievements of marketing is figuring out how to change wants into needs.
What's new?
Exactly what is the "new" functionality that most people need? I understand that a new TV is needed to play High Def and this is being forced on the public in effect.
I understand that there has been a decade or more effort to make digital cameras perform the same (or better) than film, but those who bought the earliest generations did so in spite of the limitations.
Aside from news and event photographers how many people really need the ability to distribute images instantaneously? How many digital shooter make use of this feature?
Most "features" seem aimed at the photographic experience, not the final image. Different modes and viewing options don't affect the image. When all is said and done there are only the same three variables: speed, aperture and focus (color balance, also if you insist).
The Model T got people from point A to B. Once cars could achieve modern highway speeds all the new "features" were also aimed at the driving experience not the use as transport.
One of the modern achievements of marketing is figuring out how to change wants into needs.
georgef
Well-known
I thought "needs" are a swear word in marketing he he.
"...When all is said and done there are only the same three variables: speed, aperture and focus (color balance, also if you insist)..." colour balance is secondary, ISO is the fourth element.
...but c'mon....we all need a dedicated "direct print" button, no? LOL
"...When all is said and done there are only the same three variables: speed, aperture and focus (color balance, also if you insist)..." colour balance is secondary, ISO is the fourth element.
...but c'mon....we all need a dedicated "direct print" button, no? LOL
bean_counter
Well-known
Perhaps I should have defined my "pressing need" better; for me it's usually externally, not marketing generated - need a more powerful computer to crunch numbers for my wife's dissertation, need a better printer for presentations, need hi-speed internet for work from home, etc.
I'm not the guy buying the mega-inch plasma TV or the nearly-big-as-a-SpeedGraphic uber-pixel DSLR 'cause it's the latest thing.
I'm not the guy buying the mega-inch plasma TV or the nearly-big-as-a-SpeedGraphic uber-pixel DSLR 'cause it's the latest thing.
BigSteveG
Well-known
I don't expect much from electronics anymore. It's why I fear putting more money into digital photo equip including the M8. Audio: I'm pretty hard on my gear and don't buy top of the line "audiophile" stuff. But I do like Yamaha amps/recievers. I get about 10 years or so out of each one and do use them almost daily and quite loudly to the consternation of my neighbors (they're well trained by now). I have an old set of Rogers Soundlab Speakers (w/ 16in woofers...hee hee) that are still going strong. Only had 1 speaker re-coned. Also have a small, portable panasonic CD player that been working about 12 years. Pretty amazing considering I spent about $79.00 on it new. It is starting to clip and does need to be replaced. I just kind of like it now.
jfretless
Established
it's called...
it's called...
designed obsolescence.
Things now are made to NOT last.
http://www.storyofstuff.com/
Interesting video.
John
it's called...
designed obsolescence.
Things now are made to NOT last.
http://www.storyofstuff.com/
Interesting video.
John
vincentbenoit
télémétrique argentique
A lifetime. (The photographer's, I mean).
Vincent
Vincent
Chris101
summicronia
Electronic: 3 years or more
Mechanical: 10 years or more, 30 + with repairs/cla
Mechanical: 10 years or more, 30 + with repairs/cla
landsknechte
Well-known
While I'm certainly not going to argue against the overwhelming prevalence of forced obsolescence and the relatively short lifespan of most modern consumer goods, there's one thing that we should keep in mind when we're looking back at the products of the past... The items that we have from the past that seem made to "last forever" are the ones that survived. We've forgotten about the crappy items that have been produced in decades past. They broke, and we threw them out. Now we're judging the past based on the example of those exceptional items.
Be honest now, how different in "spirit" are Brownie box cameras and digital p&s cameras?
Be honest now, how different in "spirit" are Brownie box cameras and digital p&s cameras?
Windscale
Well-known
I also think that the answer should be "a lifetime". And I would only buy gear that needs no batteries (except just for metering). My photography in the past 30 years has progressed a lot, by which I mean differed in style. But the kind of gear has not. I still use fully machanical camera only (no batts needed).
I still use, amongst other things, my M3 which I bought in the 1970s. I always use a handheld meter. The good thing about good quality machanical cameras is that they never (or very rarely) go wrong. I have been to some cold places over the years and have seen many electronic cameras failed.
I tried to use very advanced electronic cameras before and I got confused with their functions. Also most of them are quite heavy which became an extra burden. I found it much easier just to have to deal with apertures and shutter speeds once the ASA is set and then I can conentrate on taking the pics.
My last point is that when upgrading, these cameras are easier to sell.
I still use, amongst other things, my M3 which I bought in the 1970s. I always use a handheld meter. The good thing about good quality machanical cameras is that they never (or very rarely) go wrong. I have been to some cold places over the years and have seen many electronic cameras failed.
I tried to use very advanced electronic cameras before and I got confused with their functions. Also most of them are quite heavy which became an extra burden. I found it much easier just to have to deal with apertures and shutter speeds once the ASA is set and then I can conentrate on taking the pics.
My last point is that when upgrading, these cameras are easier to sell.
georgef
Well-known
C'mon now... people make it sounds like DSLRs are going to the landfills in droves
...As a matter of fact, most of the LEICAs out therer have not taken in 30 years even close to as many photos as people take in 3 years in their DSLRs ( in the thousands); so comparing apples to apples: life of tech should be measured in amount of use, not shelf life. I am sure if I used my CANON 1DmkI in the same frequency as my ex NIKON F2 film camera, it would last me as long.
...As a matter of fact, most of the LEICAs out therer have not taken in 30 years even close to as many photos as people take in 3 years in their DSLRs ( in the thousands); so comparing apples to apples: life of tech should be measured in amount of use, not shelf life. I am sure if I used my CANON 1DmkI in the same frequency as my ex NIKON F2 film camera, it would last me as long.