Digital longevity

[Jamie Pillers]

OK... here's some thoughts that have been rumbling around in my 'attic' of a brain for the past year of so, creating a bit of psychological torture for me.

I like the IDEA of digital cameras. And I REALLY want a digital rangefinder camera that takes my lenses, someday. However, I certainly can't have one at the moment, since my only choices are the M8/8.2 and the RD-1... both are well beyond my finances.

BUT I hold out hope that one day, within my lifetime, there'll be something like a digital Bessa (full frame, of course) at a reasonable price. What do you think... five years from now? Anyway, two other thoughts that pop into my 'attic' and influence my thinking about buying an interim digital camera have to do with the technical obsolesence issue and the longevity issue.

First, I find it very difficult to spend $$ on a digital camera that I know I'm going to see as outdated in a year or two. And second, I wonder about the day when I do sink some serious cash into a digital rangefinder camera... what is its expected life? Why do I think of these things, you may ask. Well... I think its because I grew up with film cameras: cameras who's 'crop factor' is 1.0 (a 28mm lens is a 28mm lens... not 28 times 1.5 or whatever); cameras that were never really obsolete because they did the same thing film cameras have always done... accept a bit of light onto a piece of film. And they had an expected life equal to MY expected life, as long as I was willing to throw a few bucks to the local camera repairman every so often.

I'm putting this thread up to see who else out there is somewhat tortured by these thoughts. And do they keep you from jumping into the digital camera buying whirlpool? Oh... and do you have any opinions about whether you think a digital camera will last as long as my Nikon F.

 

[Solinar]

Buy your digital bodies used. You'll still take a depreciation hit down the road. You more or less rent a digital body.

I also buy my lenses used and even though my current D80 is APS-C, except for 1 zoom, all my lenses are full-frame primes.

 

[Al Kaplan]

I doubt that anybody would want a digital camera that will last as long as a Nikon F or a Leica M3 (this is the RANGEFINDER forum). Digital technology changes too quickly. I have no fear that film will go bye-bye anytime soon, and film can always be scanned with the latest equipment and and the digital information stored on the latest hard drive/disc/whatever. The Great Unknown is will files from your digital camera be useable in twenty years? Will the camera itself be useable? Are you willing to invest Leica level dollars or Euros in a gorgeous camera that in all likelyhood will be unrepairable in a few years if something goes wrong with the electronics?

 

[dazedgonebye]

My Canon 300D is as good as the day I bought it...100,000 + actuations ago.
Yes, I lust after a newer, "more capable" model, but I can still do all I could ever do with that old digital camera.
Today's digital cameras are light years ahead of my old beast. The next one I buy will be good enough for me till it stops working.

Just got to avoid that upgrade fever unless your current camera won't do something you really need it to do.

 

[Ray Nalley]

Buy $600 digital slr's and upgrade every two years. It will take you 20 years to spend as much as an M8 would cost. Then you don't need to worry about depreciation. You'll end up in 20 years with a camera technologically light years ahead of the M8.

 

[40oz]

"something like a digital Bessa (full frame, of course) at a reasonable price."

Well, I'd look for a "reasonably priced" full-frame DSLR first, and I'm not seeing one on the horizon 🙂

I don't feel I'm missing anything by not using digital. I could care less if there ever was a "reasonably priced" full frame rf. I'm happy with my film rf's, and scanning my film is not any more onerous than working a second job to pay for a digital body. Considering it's entirely optional, I'll take scanning film over the second job any day.

Also, I happen to like the way my film takes pictures. I've never been so routinely happy with the digital cameras I've had. If I don't like the way the film looks, I use a different film. It's like magic, the way I can get a totally diffferent look out of the same camera depending on what I put into it.

I fail to see what I'd be missing by ignoring digital cameras entirely. I can take a roll of film, drop it off, and an hour later have digital files to email or pay with. In addition, if I am unhappy with the store scans, I can re-scan them and get far better quality. Why pay so much for a digital body that doesn't let me "re-shoot" my digital files?

 

[shimo-kitasnap]

I dunno, I just realized how much processing and film and scanning negatives was costing me and it scared me. Then I though, hey how big do I actually make my prints, and I answered it as: mostly 8x10, some 5x7s and occasionally 11x14.

Now here's the eye opening experience:
I'm in an advanced photo course at my college and a few days ago I printed a 13x19 print on an epson printer on premium luster photo paper from a loaned rebel xt (yes an XT, not XTi, not XSi) and kit zoom of a "Weston's pepper #30" emulation and it blew me away at how nice it was. That's just 8 megapixels from a fairly old camera by today's standards and it did all this at now expence. I used cs3 (provided by the school) instead of my own elements software for post processing and shot in RAW. I provided the cost for the paper wich wasn't that expensive. And yes now dare I say, I'm giving up on film.

If anyone wants my highgly modified M6/4 (with DAG flare free optics package installed and summicron-c and elmar-c and 21mm skopar P lenses plus zhao case and some film.......please PM me and make an offer. My add is in the classifieds.

I'm now looking for a nikon d40 body and old manual focus nikkor glass.

 

[Ray Nalley]

The D40 isn't the camera to buy if you want to use old Nikon lenses.

 

[shimo-kitasnap]

Ok, well than which one? I like low light an low noise and cheap.

 

[breathstealer]

I don't really buy into the whole digital camera obsolescence thing. If it's good enough for you to buy it now, it'll be good enough to be making prints for you years down the line. Breakdowns may be harder to fix, but there's nothing inherently worse about digital as long as it gives you the results you want now.

 

[willie_901]

Ok, well than which one? I like low light an low noise and cheap.

Low noise and cheap are mutually exclusive at this point in time. However, the D200 works well with Nikkor MF AI/AIS lenses. The noise at ISO 800 is tolerable (especially for B&W) and at ISO 640 and below it's fine. A nice D200 can be bought for $700-800, US). Another $100 or so buys a spit-circle focus screen for use with fast MF lenses, although the green dot focus conformation works well for me most of the time.

willie