Canon 5DMKII or Nikon D700

[Jamie123]

Digital cameras have become a disposable item. Use them while they are current; sell them off before they loose most of their value (unless you find a sensor you really like). And, buy a current model as needed. A positive trend, is better cameras for less money. They have become like laptops or toasters.. actually toasters stay current longer than laptops or digital cameras.

Not sure I agree that digital cameras "have become a disposable item". They are much less disposable than they used to be. Renewal cycles have become longer and the quality of mid-range DSLRs like the original 5D has reached a point where many people use them for many years without feeling the need to upgrade. The same has happened quite some time ago with desktop computers.
And of course, toasters are not a good analogy as there's very little innovation there 🙂

 

[gavinlg]

Digital cameras have become a disposable item. Use them while they are current; sell them off before they loose most of their value (unless you find a sensor you really like). And, buy a current model as needed. A positive trend, is better cameras for less money. They have become like laptops or toasters.. actually toasters stay current longer than laptops or digital cameras.

The original 5d is 6 years old now. Still being widely used by working pros, including myself. It's better than 35mm film in quality now, and it still will be in 10 years time, so I'm not sure I agree with what you're saying.

 

[rxmd]

My Nikon F3s are really old. I have them serviced and repaired as necessary.. they're still going. The first digital camera I off-ed was a Kodak 14N. It was $5K new, and Kodak quit servicing it 3 years after I bought it. Then they dropped production and all support.

I think it is quite a stretch from "I bought a camera from the wrong manufacturer who quit the DSLR business three years after I bought mine" to "Digital cameras have become (?) a disposable item".

You just got lucky that the electronic film camera you bought is a Nikon (for which the manufacturer is still around, and there is a solid supply of spare parts) and not, say, a Rollei or an electronic Contax. I hear Leica is running low on spare replacement shutters for R6s too.

 

[rxmd]

The Kodak was the first FX camera on the market. At the time I bought them, they were the only game in town. I don't think Nikon will repair a D100 today.. or maybe a D200.

I don't know about the D100, but when we were digitizing a library in Uzbekistan in 2007 we were using a pair of D1X's that had several hundred thousand actuations on the shutter. At some point the shutter in one of them broke. One of our photographers took it to Japan, and Nikon repaired it. The D1X came out in early 2001, so that's not too bad. (Older than those Kodaks incidentally)

Your case boils down to buying a Kodak and getting bitten. This is unpleasant, of course. However, the reason why you bought it irrelevant to the question of support. That has nothing to do with digital cameras as such and everything with Kodak getting out of the market. Again, it is quite a stretch a stretch from "I decided to be an early adopter and the manufacturer of my camera quit the business" to "Digital cameras have become a disposable item."

 

[rxmd]

http://www.nikongear.com/smf/index.php?topic=16425.0

Did you actually read that thread you quoted? It's also quite a stretch from "Guy gets quoted an outrageous price for a lens repair, complains, gets it repaired for free" to disposable camera gear.

What I was trying to get across is when the cost of repair reaches the cost or a newer, better replacement - or the item is no longer repairable, you are better off with a new item. The life span of digital cameras is approaching the life span of a laptop computer. Repair time - if the parts are around is expensive.. that cost goes up with time. They have become disposable - to me..

Except that for obvious reasons this is not what happened to your Kodak, because you couldn't have it repaired even if you wanted to. It's actually the exact opposite of a disposable camera. As for the rest, well in 2007 it was worth taking that D1X to Japan as opposed to buying another camera.

I know it's rather fashionable to rehash the same cultural pessimism about how the digital age leads to throwaway mentality and loss of appreciation of real value both of the material and cultural kinds. And then you take a look at what these people actually say and find that, for example, people compare yesterday's high-end professional gear (F3 in your case) to today's amateur or mid-range gear (D100 in your case). Or they apply survivor bias (your F3 that still works, as opposed to the many others that broke beyond economic repair). Or they are simply picky about their examples and choose those where it works out - you got lucky with those Nikon F3s, but try finding a Contarex repairman nowadays in Germany where the camera was made. People usually don't let those kinds of things get in the way of the sentimental statement they're trying to make.

The statement that things break and that spare parts don't last forever and that manufacturers sometimes go out of business doesn't really pass the "So what?" test. Non-electronics things break beyond economic repair, too. Just yesterday there was the thread about a guy who dropped his Leica M3 in salt water for about a second and got slapped with a $640 repair bill and the repair is now uneconomical - I guess it means that Leica Ms are becoming disposable.

 

[Jamie123]

Well I agree in that we gave reached a point where a decent file size/cost has been reached. If you have to repair a 2 year old camera that isn't a simple board swap or sensor replacement, it's likely the cost will be greater than buying a newer, better, cheaper camera.. given the two years. My Nikon F3s are really old. I have them serviced and repaired as necessary.. they're still going. The first digital camera I off-ed was a Kodak 14N. It was $5K new, and Kodak quit servicing it 3 years after I bought it. Then they dropped production and all support. I had two.. one is a 14NX, I keep because I like the sensor for portraits. When It dies it's a paper weight. The "big" camera makers have already dropped repair on some older cameras. We're fighting a window of use - from the time the camera is new, in its first year of sales to the time of no repair. The chip-sets for a given camera are made in a set quantity, and when they are gone, no more repair. As, the technology will have advanced far beyond the electronics used in a 2 year old camera. This wasn't the case with most of the film cameras we used. I think you get my point.. even if you don't agree.

Oh, I do get your point but I still don't quite agree. Sure, electronics have a somewhat shorter shelf life than mechanical equipment and, ecologically, this can be a problem if things aren't recycled properly. However, if we're talking about the costs it's not much different. For most mechanical camera equipment these days is doesn't make much economic sense to get them repaired. I used to own an extensive set of Hasselblad equipment and for almost all items except for the body in most cases it made more sense to get a replacement on the used market instead of having the item repaired (at least where I live). Just as an example, a used film back in good condition would run me about $100 whereas a CLA of one I had cost $200+. And that was a quote from a very affordable repair guy.
And we also shouldn't forget that any mechanical camera requires a CLA from time to time (wear of parts, loss of tension, etc.) whereas an electronic camera can work accurately for many years without needing any repair.

And what's the comparison with laptops? Laptops aren't disposable either. My mother uses my brother's 7 year old Dell laptop that still works. A couple of years ago I replaced the old HD with a new one for $80 and it was as good as new. If that one fails I can still get a new disk. I can also exchange the memory or processor if I want. No scarcity of parts there. As long as it does everything she needs it for there's no point in replacing it. Sure, at a certain point (e.g. if I had to replace the processor) it makes more sense to get something newer and better but that is/was the same with mechanical gear.

 

[sojournerphoto]

Back to the original question, if you want to print 30 by 20 get the Canon. I've a 1Ds3 and had a 5D1 and the extra resolution makes a difference in that size print (and smaller actually). There's a lot of guff about the internet and 12Mp can do amazingly well at 24 by 16, but for a detailed subject 21Mp does look better. (Actually I like 9 by 6s from the 1Ds3, they are relaly nice)

Mike