Roger Hicks
Veteran
From the current 'Short Schrift" on my home page, http://www.rogerandfrances.com/ (where you'll find a pretty picture of a valve radio and an M9 to accompany it):
The space probe Voyager 1 was launched in 1977. It is now more than 10 billion miles from Earth. Last time I heard, it was still broadcasting data from the edge of the solar system.
This is a poke in the eye for those who airily dismiss any piece of electronic wizardry as "obsolete" or worse still "worthless" once it is more than a few years (or a few months) old.
It would almost certainly be possible to design something a good deal cleverer today, though getting it built to the same standard might be more problematic, and the funding would be even more difficult. Besides, if you launched it tomorrow, it would still take decades to get to where Voyager 1 is today. And so, young NASA scientists are still using a satellite that was old when they applied to university. It's still doing what it was designed to do, and doing it very well.
One day, no doubt, it will either fail or go beyond the range of our ability to detect its signals. But right now, it works. If something does its job, then it does its job, much as (say) an 18-megapixel camera goes on delivering adequate quality for an A3 magazine spread. It doesn't stop working just because something newer is theoretically available. Unlike the brains of those who are besotted with (for example) the latest iPhone, computer, or, yes, digital camera.
Cheers,
R.
The space probe Voyager 1 was launched in 1977. It is now more than 10 billion miles from Earth. Last time I heard, it was still broadcasting data from the edge of the solar system.
This is a poke in the eye for those who airily dismiss any piece of electronic wizardry as "obsolete" or worse still "worthless" once it is more than a few years (or a few months) old.
It would almost certainly be possible to design something a good deal cleverer today, though getting it built to the same standard might be more problematic, and the funding would be even more difficult. Besides, if you launched it tomorrow, it would still take decades to get to where Voyager 1 is today. And so, young NASA scientists are still using a satellite that was old when they applied to university. It's still doing what it was designed to do, and doing it very well.
One day, no doubt, it will either fail or go beyond the range of our ability to detect its signals. But right now, it works. If something does its job, then it does its job, much as (say) an 18-megapixel camera goes on delivering adequate quality for an A3 magazine spread. It doesn't stop working just because something newer is theoretically available. Unlike the brains of those who are besotted with (for example) the latest iPhone, computer, or, yes, digital camera.
Cheers,
R.
f6andBthere
Well-known
This is where Brian Sweeney usually jumps in and tells us all about his (still working) Kodak digicam that he bought just after the civil war.
I miss the old days!
I miss the old days!
NickTrop
Veteran
Roger -
Agree 100%. I still shoot a two megapixel Panasonic FZ1v2. Leica-desiged lens from 35mm out to 420, stabilized. F2.8 throughout the zoom range, no other camera matches this spec. More than enough resolution for the web and small prints. Bought it in '05, I think.
To your point?
It still does its job.
Agree 100%. I still shoot a two megapixel Panasonic FZ1v2. Leica-desiged lens from 35mm out to 420, stabilized. F2.8 throughout the zoom range, no other camera matches this spec. More than enough resolution for the web and small prints. Bought it in '05, I think.
To your point?
It still does its job.
tightsqueez
Well-known
Yup, couldn't agree more. Hell… I've had more problems with film cameras than with the M8/M9.
Richard G
Veteran
My 2004 4.0MP Nikon Coolpix 4500 still sees regular service and never lets me down. Best macro on a digital camera I have had. Conversely, my 1986 R5 Yamaha stereo receiver amplifier gave up the ghost last year. I understand they were prone to the capacitors leaking and needing a tedious repair by an enthusiast. I have an HP calculator which has not had a new battery since the 1980s and my Gossen Sixtar still has a functioning Mercury battery, its second since 1977 when I bought it.
Austerby
Well-known
I'm just pleased I've got the very latest pinhole camera on the market.
al1966
Feed Your Head
Up until my record collection got trashed I used a late 60's turntable. It was a beautiful thing; Garrard 401 and it sounded a lot better than some of the more recent at the time high end turntables.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
We've still got an FZ20 floating around somewhere - and it still works. also goes out to 420mm eq at f2.8, but up to 5 Mp!
Ken Smith
Why yes Ma'am - it folds
Most true. It's amazing that a dozen men went to a hostile environment, 256 000 miles away, through the void of space, and came back home again safely in craft designed with far less computing capabilites than the average cell phone or digital camera. But then the guys in the hot seat were cool, collected, and could fly a washing machine.
I doubt we could do the same again because it would be grossly over-designed with too many redundancy systems. Plus the human race no longer has the stomach for that type of exploration. We'd rather watch a 3-D animated special effects show on what it might be like there rather than to have a human who has actually been there and tells you what it's actually like.
I doubt we could do the same again because it would be grossly over-designed with too many redundancy systems. Plus the human race no longer has the stomach for that type of exploration. We'd rather watch a 3-D animated special effects show on what it might be like there rather than to have a human who has actually been there and tells you what it's actually like.
bigeye
Well-known
People still argue that the first electronic Nikon, the FE is less desirable to the all-mechanical FM... 32 years later for my copy.
I believe that you're right about the M9 (and D700/D3/5DII), though. Once the quality reaches a reasonable standard, there is no reason to doubt its future usefulness. The sensor was made by Kodak and it should last as long as Voyager.
(BTW: As a teen, I remember that our neighbor's daughter received an award from NASA for working out the mathematics of getting Voyager through the Van Allen Belt. With mathematics...?)
I believe that you're right about the M9 (and D700/D3/5DII), though. Once the quality reaches a reasonable standard, there is no reason to doubt its future usefulness. The sensor was made by Kodak and it should last as long as Voyager.
(BTW: As a teen, I remember that our neighbor's daughter received an award from NASA for working out the mathematics of getting Voyager through the Van Allen Belt. With mathematics...?)
nobbylon
Veteran
I don't think it's a mistrust of electronics Roger, more of a mistrust of unreliable electronics. I've had various cameras over the years that have had iffy electronics. Notable was a Pentax Me super and a Leica R4. Nothing major but switch problems made both a pain as you never knew if they were going to work properly or not. Most probably worn contacts in the switch gear. Modern cams are obviously far more complex with different issues ie sensors plus of course the old ones ie switches.
I think that most digital cameras now are of good enough quality to deliver the photo's. My D700 won't be replaced until it packs in.
I do think that there is a lot of bull regarding battery dependancy and preference to mechanical rather than electronic by some because they feel that without electronics it HAS to be more reliable.
I remember when the Nikon F3 came out and none of the pro guys wanted to entertain it, sticking with their F and F2's. Gradually they switched and it ended up being more than up to the job required of it.
Certain cameras seem to have reliable elecronics and others don't. Leica seem to have more problems with theirs than quite a few others. Get a good one and it'll be fine for years. Get a bad one and it seems like endless trips to the repair shop. It's this erratic reliability that causes mistrust in electronics.
If it's put together right in the first instance, it stands a far better chance of going the distance just like Voyager.
Makes me smile that most who don't trust electronics in their cameras are probably quite happy taking to the air in Airbus, Boeing etc.
I've regularly sat there watching my TV screen in fog whilst electronics land the machine down to 0ft height and 75m horizontal visibility with our customers completely oblivious to the fact that electronics are keeping them safe.
I think that most digital cameras now are of good enough quality to deliver the photo's. My D700 won't be replaced until it packs in.
I do think that there is a lot of bull regarding battery dependancy and preference to mechanical rather than electronic by some because they feel that without electronics it HAS to be more reliable.
I remember when the Nikon F3 came out and none of the pro guys wanted to entertain it, sticking with their F and F2's. Gradually they switched and it ended up being more than up to the job required of it.
Certain cameras seem to have reliable elecronics and others don't. Leica seem to have more problems with theirs than quite a few others. Get a good one and it'll be fine for years. Get a bad one and it seems like endless trips to the repair shop. It's this erratic reliability that causes mistrust in electronics.
If it's put together right in the first instance, it stands a far better chance of going the distance just like Voyager.
Makes me smile that most who don't trust electronics in their cameras are probably quite happy taking to the air in Airbus, Boeing etc.
I've regularly sat there watching my TV screen in fog whilst electronics land the machine down to 0ft height and 75m horizontal visibility with our customers completely oblivious to the fact that electronics are keeping them safe.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
My granddad bought me a new Canon Ae-1 back in about (19)79 or 80. It still works fine, thought the mechanical battery dor and the light seals want replacing.
gb hill
Veteran
True Roger, but it's a secret the manufactures don't want anyone to know.
mwooten
light user
Well said Mr. Hicks.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
The last couple of posts makes me wonder -- so which companies' products have more reliable electronics than others?
I'd say that, once Nikon got past the carbon track design (Nikon F metered finders; Nikkormat FT series), their electronics have been extremely reliable. I find the Nikkormat ELs I own (40 year old cameras) to work quite well. And as mentioned, the FE.
Anyone have other nominations, good or bad?
I do think it's true that if a device has bad electronics, it manifests itself pretty early on. Of course, if your 20+ year old electronic camera finally has an electronic problem, chances are you can't get parts for it. That's the shame of it -- and why people favor mechanical cameras if they're using old gear.
I'd say that, once Nikon got past the carbon track design (Nikon F metered finders; Nikkormat FT series), their electronics have been extremely reliable. I find the Nikkormat ELs I own (40 year old cameras) to work quite well. And as mentioned, the FE.
Anyone have other nominations, good or bad?
I do think it's true that if a device has bad electronics, it manifests itself pretty early on. Of course, if your 20+ year old electronic camera finally has an electronic problem, chances are you can't get parts for it. That's the shame of it -- and why people favor mechanical cameras if they're using old gear.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Nice example Roger although a bit of mastering the obvious.
To master the Obvious again I will take computers out of the example for one reason.
The software that runs on them continues to evolve and bring about obsolescence of the hardware from previous generations.
Wish that it was not so but I've learned the hard way.
For example If one wants the noise reduction from 64 bit LR3 a 2006 Macbook is not going to do.
Cars and Cameras on the other hand go on doing exactly what they were designed to do if maintained properly.
What was good enough in 2005 is good enough in 2012 as the RD1 has shown us. Same with my '2000 4 wheeled German marvel which I will drive until I'm done driving.
To master the Obvious again I will take computers out of the example for one reason.
The software that runs on them continues to evolve and bring about obsolescence of the hardware from previous generations.
Wish that it was not so but I've learned the hard way.
For example If one wants the noise reduction from 64 bit LR3 a 2006 Macbook is not going to do.
Cars and Cameras on the other hand go on doing exactly what they were designed to do if maintained properly.
What was good enough in 2005 is good enough in 2012 as the RD1 has shown us. Same with my '2000 4 wheeled German marvel which I will drive until I'm done driving.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
My son is happily shooting the family Nikon D1 from 1999. Sometimes the shutter fires a burst but it doesn't record any images. He's figured out by himself that switching the camera off and on straight away solves that the quickest.
I like seeing him 'owning the camera more' every time he shoots it, by figuring out it's quirks and feats.
I like seeing him 'owning the camera more' every time he shoots it, by figuring out it's quirks and feats.
Jack Conrad
Well-known
Bah Humbug! The world went to hell ever since photographers became dependent on built-in CDS light meters.
It's too bad we didn't send ALL fake electronic devices into open space right along with Voyager 1.
It's too bad we didn't send ALL fake electronic devices into open space right along with Voyager 1.
maddoc
... likes film again.
Dear Roger,
a valid point .... but a little like comparing apples (scientific instruments) to oranges (consumer electronics). The equipment the NASA uses (including satellites) is custom-made with carefully selected parts, which have been tested over and over to make sure they won`t fail under most thinkable bad circumstances.
Camera electronics (and any other consumer electronics) is made to give the best possible "fondling factor" for the lowest price possible and is not necessarily designed to be used for a long time or under rough conditions.
Also, a "CLA" for a satellite or similar equipment to be used in space is no easy task (Hubble telescope) and there is no "back-up satellite" (usually) ...
Cheers,
Gabor
a valid point .... but a little like comparing apples (scientific instruments) to oranges (consumer electronics). The equipment the NASA uses (including satellites) is custom-made with carefully selected parts, which have been tested over and over to make sure they won`t fail under most thinkable bad circumstances.
Camera electronics (and any other consumer electronics) is made to give the best possible "fondling factor" for the lowest price possible and is not necessarily designed to be used for a long time or under rough conditions.
Also, a "CLA" for a satellite or similar equipment to be used in space is no easy task (Hubble telescope) and there is no "back-up satellite" (usually) ...
Cheers,
Gabor
Jack Conrad
Well-known
Not to mention the "planned obsolescence" calculated into every electronic consumer product since the light bulb.