Pfreddee
Well-known
First of all, I want to thank all of those who encouraged me with my question. I made the mistake of trying to ask it on the APUG Forum, and I was told in no uncertain terms that I was out of line posting a digital question there. Since it is a private forum, I shall abide by the rules.
Now, to my original question: is there anything inherent in the construction of a DSLR that makes it wear out faster? I am well aware of the idea that the DSLR that I buy today will be obsolete in a year, 18 months at best. Is this because the camera will wear out sooner, and I'll need to replace it? I suppose there may be something up with the shutter cycles? I have read that my Nikon N80 is good for about 1,000 rolls of film, or about 36,000 exposures. I don't think I'm going to wear it out. But if I buy, say, an entry-level DSLR, if I take reasonable care of it, should I expect to get several years, or more, use out of it? I am working quite happily with a collection of old(er) film cameras. My most modern camera is a Nikon F100. Barring accidents, these should last me for years longer. Can I expect reasonable longevity from a DSLR?
Thanks to all who reply.
With best regards,
Pfreddee(Stephen)
Now, to my original question: is there anything inherent in the construction of a DSLR that makes it wear out faster? I am well aware of the idea that the DSLR that I buy today will be obsolete in a year, 18 months at best. Is this because the camera will wear out sooner, and I'll need to replace it? I suppose there may be something up with the shutter cycles? I have read that my Nikon N80 is good for about 1,000 rolls of film, or about 36,000 exposures. I don't think I'm going to wear it out. But if I buy, say, an entry-level DSLR, if I take reasonable care of it, should I expect to get several years, or more, use out of it? I am working quite happily with a collection of old(er) film cameras. My most modern camera is a Nikon F100. Barring accidents, these should last me for years longer. Can I expect reasonable longevity from a DSLR?
Thanks to all who reply.
With best regards,
Pfreddee(Stephen)
JayGannon
Well-known
Most DSLR shutters top out at about 100,000 cycles, pro level can go upwards of 500,000. The only real difference is that most people take a lot more shots on digital than on film so your likely to get up to the higher numbers quicker.
And the other thing is the electronics are more complex and the more complex something is the more lilely it is to fail.
And the other thing is the electronics are more complex and the more complex something is the more lilely it is to fail.
Ducky
Well-known
Stephen, in your original thread we started fooling around. I promised to apologize so, please accept my apology.
To answer your question, no, as far as I know the only reason DSLRs change hands so often is obsolesence or the fear of obsolesence. A little tweak here or there is enough to make folks sell NOW, before the price goes down. In most cases they are wrong. Every time the Canon Powershot G upgraded, the price went up, and stayed up on earlier models.
I'm sure will will get better and more detailed answers.
Thanks for coming back.
To answer your question, no, as far as I know the only reason DSLRs change hands so often is obsolesence or the fear of obsolesence. A little tweak here or there is enough to make folks sell NOW, before the price goes down. In most cases they are wrong. Every time the Canon Powershot G upgraded, the price went up, and stayed up on earlier models.
I'm sure will will get better and more detailed answers.
Thanks for coming back.
wgerrard
Veteran
Stephen, as others have said, durability and obsolescence are two different things when it comes to digital products.
We don't know if today's DSLR's are going to last 50 years. We'll know that in 50 years. But, I'm not aware of widespread failures of DSLR's from, say, ten years ago.
It's commonly held that if an electronic or digital component is going to fail, it will fail very early in its lifetime.
Many consumers consider something obsolete when the vendor introduces a new model. That's just market-speak. As long as it works, a digital product is not really obsolete as long as it can exchange data with other digital products. That is, as long as your camera can talk to whatever it is that you want it to talk to -- printer, computer, Photoshop, etc. -- it won't be obsolete. It may not be as fast as the new models, but it won't be obsolete.
We don't know if today's DSLR's are going to last 50 years. We'll know that in 50 years. But, I'm not aware of widespread failures of DSLR's from, say, ten years ago.
It's commonly held that if an electronic or digital component is going to fail, it will fail very early in its lifetime.
Many consumers consider something obsolete when the vendor introduces a new model. That's just market-speak. As long as it works, a digital product is not really obsolete as long as it can exchange data with other digital products. That is, as long as your camera can talk to whatever it is that you want it to talk to -- printer, computer, Photoshop, etc. -- it won't be obsolete. It may not be as fast as the new models, but it won't be obsolete.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Glad you came back to ask the question, and I apologize for adding to the good natured ribbing that I contributed to in your original post. I think that DSLRs are every bit as well constructed as their predecessor film counterparts, By that, I mean that an entry level DSLR is similar to an entry level film auto focus SLR as far as the shutter goes. As Jay says, most people run the shutter cycles up faster on A DSLR. AF film SLRs were very complicated electronically in the end and a DSLR adds a bit to that but I would not worry too much. Ditto for what Carlos M said about obsolescence. I got my D700 when it first came out, almost 2 1/2 years ago, and it will take a huge improvement in a new model to make me even consider selling and trading up before my D700 dies on me. Find a DSLR that fits you needs and unless your needs change it should be useful for a good long while, Remember too that your F100 is not an entry level af film SLR either so you would have to go higher up the camera model scale to get to the F100 level in a DSLR. Something like the D300 or D700 might be a good comparison.
Bob
Bob
Pablito
coco frío
DSLRs do not have the film transport mechanism, so fewer moving parts.
Different things to go wrong: pins in the card slot can bend, etc. Generally I have found DSLRs more able to take a beating than film SLRs because of the fewer moving parts. As for obsolescence, batteries may become unavailable, etc.
Different things to go wrong: pins in the card slot can bend, etc. Generally I have found DSLRs more able to take a beating than film SLRs because of the fewer moving parts. As for obsolescence, batteries may become unavailable, etc.
ZeissFan
Veteran
The other issue is dead or stuck pixels. Some cameras can map them out. Some cameras can't.
In addition, you have each camera maker with its proprietary version of RAW images. So far, all software has been made to be backward compatible. At some point, I would think that software makers will stop supporting old versions of cameras.
Mechanically speaking, the wear will be to the shutter, switches and buttons and other mechanical parts.
A few years back, I did read of a guy who burned out the shutter on his Nikon D70. I think that he had taken an absurd number of photos -- something like 200,000 in six months. Or maybe it was less. He was taking several thousand photos a day of his dogs.
He was the poster child for those who make fun of digital photography.
But in general, a digital camera should be obsolete before it breaks down. ALTHOUGH, I think that certain camera makers try to make their entry-level cameras as cheaply as possible, and it shows.
In addition, you have each camera maker with its proprietary version of RAW images. So far, all software has been made to be backward compatible. At some point, I would think that software makers will stop supporting old versions of cameras.
Mechanically speaking, the wear will be to the shutter, switches and buttons and other mechanical parts.
A few years back, I did read of a guy who burned out the shutter on his Nikon D70. I think that he had taken an absurd number of photos -- something like 200,000 in six months. Or maybe it was less. He was taking several thousand photos a day of his dogs.
He was the poster child for those who make fun of digital photography.
But in general, a digital camera should be obsolete before it breaks down. ALTHOUGH, I think that certain camera makers try to make their entry-level cameras as cheaply as possible, and it shows.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Stephen,
Yes. Several years. I'm still using a Nikon D70, though (1) it did need a repair to cure the Flashing Green Light of Death and (2) I often have to seat the memory card several times to persuade it that I don't need CHR, whatever CHR is.
Cheers,
R.
Yes. Several years. I'm still using a Nikon D70, though (1) it did need a repair to cure the Flashing Green Light of Death and (2) I often have to seat the memory card several times to persuade it that I don't need CHR, whatever CHR is.
Cheers,
R.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
A DSLR has no transport system, motorized or not...nothing to wear out.
The shutter is similar or carried over from tried-and-true shutters and should be just as reliable [or not]...except the additional cocking motor now replacing your thumb.
Electronic things have their own problems, from simple contact failures to unknown gremlins...a whole new world. [It is often said in the computer industry that the first malfunctioning thing is the on/off switch...essentially a contact problem.]
I have also seen a CCD fried...no idea why.
A DSLR is never obsolete for its original function/features that attracted you...be happy.
If one wants every new feature that props up, or more pixels or...then be prepared to pay for it. There is no such thing as a perpetual upgrade program...why should a manufacturer work forever for free, even so you will still have to pay for the upgraded parts, it's only fair.
You got what you paid for...enjoy.
The shutter is similar or carried over from tried-and-true shutters and should be just as reliable [or not]...except the additional cocking motor now replacing your thumb.
Electronic things have their own problems, from simple contact failures to unknown gremlins...a whole new world. [It is often said in the computer industry that the first malfunctioning thing is the on/off switch...essentially a contact problem.]
I have also seen a CCD fried...no idea why.
A DSLR is never obsolete for its original function/features that attracted you...be happy.
If one wants every new feature that props up, or more pixels or...then be prepared to pay for it. There is no such thing as a perpetual upgrade program...why should a manufacturer work forever for free, even so you will still have to pay for the upgraded parts, it's only fair.
You got what you paid for...enjoy.
Last edited: