For those who don't trust electronics...

[batterytypehah!]

Wasn't Voyager nuclear powered? Maybe that would work for the M10.

Joe

Indeed it is. Still producing close to 270 watts as of October, according to NASA: http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/weekly-reports/

 

[haempe]

Well, I trust electronics. Mostly.
But don't trust the marketing divisions.
Keyword: planned obsolescence...

 

[jawarden]

Will the 18 MP camera last another 10/15 years with regular $300 CLAs?

Perhaps, in fact it could last much longer, especially if you launch it into deep space so it doesn't have to deal with Earth's gravity, atmosphere, pollution, moisture, salt spray, sand and dust, being dropped by a toddler, a dog chewing on it, etc.

🙂

 

[Paul Luscher]

Well, I guess I've gone back even further. Last camera I bought was an all-mechanical Leicaflex SL 2. Only electronics on it is the light meter ( and that works pretty good after 37 years--longer than the Voyager...)

 

[Jamie123]

I think you're mixing two different arguments here, Roger. Those who always want the latest and greatest usually don't have a problem at all with trusting electronics. They don't 'upgrade' because they think the newer product is more reliable, they do so because they think the newer product does something better than the older.

And that's not always wrong. Sometimes you use something that does a good job and then something comes along that does the job better or does the same job more easily. There are people who always want the newest for newness' sake but that doesn't mean that technical advancements have no merit.

 

[Ezzie]

I think Roger has a point. Granted NASA spec electronics are bound to be of better quality than consumer grade, but the die hard electronic sceptics tend to apply their yardstick to all things electronic, making no distinction between one or the other. The moral of the story is that anything can be made to be reliable, with enough effort and attention, no matter if it is mechanical, electronic or any combination thereof.

 

[delft]

After having spent a good part of the day to get my computer recovering from a disk-failure, I have to say there is something to be said for film and wet-printing. In the last 2 years I've had 4 disks fail on me.

 

[1750Shooter]

The thing I think we're all forgetting with airy talk of "consumer electronics" & "planned obsolescence" is that few of us could afford NASA or military-grade stuff. People today, yes even Leicaphiles, are cost-driven. If you made a hardened, mil-spec laptop, it would cost $10K & consumers would ignore it. When cost is no object, you can have incredible durability & reliability.

 

[rdeleskie]

Are we discussing declining manufacturing standards or passing moral judgement on modern consumer spending habits?

The Voyager example that began this discussion may not be the best example for either. The original probes were built using proprietary technology at massive expensive. They represent an incredible outlay of human labour, scientific knowledge and state capital. Their operational longevity is a testament to the engineers who designed and built them to survive under very specific conditions (they wouldn't last long submerged in salt water, for example).

However, I think that any current NASA engineer would love to snap his or her fingers and have the Voyager probes magically upgraded with the latest sensors, scientific apparatuses and yes, digital imaging technology. While the original probes still work and still provide useful data, modern devices could provide a much greater range and depth of scientific information under the same circumstances. So what we're really praising here is the build quality of the old machines, and not that they achieved some level of ideal or perfect functionality.

Do people here feel that digital cameras have reached an ideal or perfect level of functionality? If so, when did it happen? When Nick got his 2 megapixel camera? Or when Roger got his 18 megapixel M9? Is my 10 megapixel M8 overkill, or woefully inadequate?

I think that what's really at issue here are consumer spending habits and the marketing machine that enables them (needing to have the latest and greatest) and not technological "progress" per se. But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Ten years from now when my trusty M8 is destroyed by a fragment from a falling, poorly designed modern space probe and I have to replace it, what's wrong if one of my options includes a Leica M12 with a 50 megapixel sensor with an effective dynamic range of 19 stops? Or a tiny pocket camera with some new organic lens technology that enables a super-sharp 12mm-1200mm zoom range (35mm equivalent). Neither will make me a better photographer, but presumably they won't make me a worse one. If the technology opens new ways of seeing and perceiving the world around me, all the better (in the same way that ultra-wide and long lenses, microphotography, IR and high-ISO film stock all equipped photographers with new and novel ways of capturing reality). If, in the meantime, my next door neighbour has upgraded his camera 15 times, what do I care? His dollars helped pay Leica/Canon/Nikon/Sony/whoever's R&D while I smugly sat things out on the sidelines, biding my time.

Anyhow, if folks are really convinced older is better, I have a Canon PowerShot A80 from 2003 you can have. It works great and its very reliable unlike all the modern junk cameras electronics companies are trying to foist on us. I'll gladly take a M9, or Nikon D4, or the upcoming Canon 5D MIII or any other modern crappy camera in trade.

 

[Roger Hicks]

To all who've agreed: thanks.

To those who have expressed doubt: sure, mil-spec is (or can be) prohibitively expensive. On the other hand, to tar all earthbound electronics with the same 'consumer' brush is not outstandingly realistic either.

My point is simply this. as long as something works, it works. As long as it is reparable (preferably economically), it can be made to continue working. If it does what is needed today, such as producing an A4 image that is indistinguishable from anything 'better', the quality ain't gonna plummet, and the image will not suddenly become distinguishable from anything 'better', no matter how much 'better' the 'better' becomes.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Jamie123]

My point is simply this. as long as something works, it works. As long as it is reparable (preferably economically), it can be made to continue working. If it does what is needed today, such as producing an A4 image that is indistinguishable from anything 'better', the quality ain't gonna plummet, and the image will not suddenly become distinguishable from anything 'better', no matter how much 'better' the 'better' becomes.

But aren't you intentionally leaving out a few important aspects here? Of course the quality of the old will not plummet once something newer and better appears. Everyone knows that, even the people who always want the latest and greatest camera. The problem isn't that these people are mistaken about what the newer camera is better at, they are mistaken about whether or not they actually really need these improvements. A new 30 megapixel camera appears and suddenly people who've never even printed a postcard size image will get fantasies of possibly doing Gursky-size prints one day. Or a new camera appears that does ISO 200'000+ and suddenly pepple who only really take their camera out on a sunny sunday afternoon will get ideas about going out at night and taking pictures in near darkness.

So the fact that people will buy all sorts of stuff that they don't really need or won't use is nothing new. That's why most advertising is not about convincing people that the product is good, it's about convincing them that they need the product.
But as a previous poster said, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Newer things sometimes do offer significant improvement and sometimes it makes economical sense to 'upgrade'.

 

[Roger Hicks]

But aren't you intentionally leaving out a few important aspects here? Of course the quality of the old will not plummet once something newer and better appears. Everyone knows that, even the people who always want the latest and greatest camera. The problem isn't that these people are mistaken about what the newer camera is better at, they are mistaken about whether or not they actually really need these improvements. A new 30 megapixel camera appears and suddenly people who've never even printed a postcard size image will get fantasies of possibly doing Gursky-size prints one day. Or a new camera appears that does ISO 200'000+ and suddenly pepple who only really take their camera out on a sunny sunday afternoon will get ideas about going out at night and taking pictures in near darkness.

So the fact that people will buy all sorts of stuff that they don't really need or won't use is nothing new. That's why most advertising is not about convincing people that the product is good, it's about convincing them that they need the product.
But as a previous poster said, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Newer things sometimes do offer significant improvement and sometimes it makes economical sense to 'upgrade'.

Yes, I'm deliberately leaving them out. Are they 'important'? Not to the argument, which is that it ain't gonna stop doing what it already does. That's the point really: the gap between what it does; the fantasy of what it might do; and the actual real needs of the user.

Cheers,

R.

 

[rxmd]

Will the 18 MP camera last another 10/15 years with regular $300 CLAs?

Mechanical devices that need regular $300 CLAs aren't really worth much over the "planned obsolescence" of electronic devices.

With mechanics, you have regular $300 expenses; with electronics, you spend the money on a new device instead and can give the old one to your nephew who wants to learn photography.

 

[Archlich]

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.[/I].

For devices that are central to a program that cost 900 million dollars (1972-1989), they better not fail...and shouldn't one take their exceptional lifespan (and craftsmanship) as granted, once related to the cost?

 

[anerjee]

This is where the big if is -- after some time, it is always more economical to replace electronics than repair it.

Case in point -- my Ricoh Gr1s is back in Japan for repairs. I've been quoted an amount that is almost 50% of what I paid for it, since the entire shutter assembly needs to be replaced.

If I really had a choice, I would buy one new -- but they don't make pocket-able FF cameras any more.:bang:

My point is simply this. as long as something works, it works. As long as it is reparable (preferably economically), it can be made to continue working.

R.

 

[rxmd]

This is where the big if is -- after some time, it is always more economical to replace electronics than repair it.

Case in point -- my Ricoh Gr1s is back in Japan for repairs. I've been quoted an amount that is almost 50% of what I paid for it, since the entire shutter assembly needs to be replaced.

If I really had a choice, I would buy one new -- but they don't make pocket-able FF cameras any more.:bang:

Note that there are two issues, really.

One is whether you trust electronics or not.

The other is that there is stuff that is irrepairable (economically or totally) because it's no longer made. This can happen to you with mechanics as well - a case in point, if I remember correctly, is the shutter assembly of the Leica R6, of which there is a limited supply and after that it will be basically irrepairable. (Along a similar line, I remember discussions on a German forum where someone had problems getting his goggled 35 Summaron repaired, because Leica wouldn't touch anything where they've run out of spare parts.)

Anyway, the two don't really have much to do with each other. You can distrust mechanics and trust electronics all the way you want - at some point when it's dead it's dead, and the eternal repairability remains a rather hollow theoretical proposition.

 

[taskoni]

I use a lot of vintage electronics in my studio recording artist practice. I usually record EWI (wind driven synthesizer) and I mainly use for serious gigs the very first model of it as I prefer it to the later/latest ones. Ok, it's not only a personal preference I can tell you, it's just better build, more reliable and versatile, with more control and with better sounding analogue module. It is the superiority of the Control Voltage over MIDI but anyway...
I agree many things are build to last and many things are just build.

 

[Ben Z]

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.

I'm typing this on a seven year old Pentium-D 2.8gHz running XP-SP3. I've replaced the power supply and upgraded the RAM from 1 to 3GB. My iPhone is a 3GS, which I got for free when the 4S came out. I use a Canon 20D and a 5D-Mark 1 as my SLR's, both bought refurbished after they were discontinued. So by your definition at least, my brain is working.

However, although I do not care that the newer generations of my devices have capabilities that exceed the one's I own, nonetheless I fully acknowledge those added capabilities are real.

 

[zuiko85]

I note that my mechanical OM-1 cameras are still doing fine after 35 years.

But! It's just a hobby for me. How long will even the best and most rugged 35mm SLR's (Nikon F & F2 ?) last when a professional photojournalist is putting more film through them in a week than I would in a year?

 

[Roger Hicks]

However, although I do not care that the newer generations of my devices have capabilities that exceed the one's I own, nonetheless I fully acknowledge those added capabilities are real.

Exactly. And how many people really care about (or have any real use) for the new features? How many are merely persuaded that newer = better, even if many of the features are marginal at any price, and, if they thought realistically, would not be worth the price being asked?

I am not against progress or improvement. I am just against the idea of buying stuff I don't want or need (such as a scanner built into my printer), and against the blanket idea that "old" = "useless."

Cheers,

R.