How many of your digital cameras have failed?

[Gabriel M.A.]

The only digital camera I've owned that has failed me: a Nikon Coolpix 4xx. Not kidding, really.

 

[bmattock]

15 Years of hardware teching on pc's... Have never seen a power supply fail as a result of other internal problems. Power supplies have failsafes built in to be the "sacrificial device" in power failures. The PS usually fails before other devices in the system. However that doesn't mean a capacitor can't blow on a MOBO or a RAM chip fail of it's own accord. But my experience has been that those failures never feed back into a PS failure.

I've worked in a service shop environment. I 've taught community college "Build Your Own Computer" classes and for the last decade been self employed on hardware, software and networking. Never replaced a Power Supply with a new one that was subsequently damaged by other components in the system. Other component shorts in the system will simply not let the power supply power up... not damage it.

My experience so far.

Well, here's the deal. I was (I am sure) working near the rated capacity of my P/S, if not altogether past it. One of my case fans had started making funny noises recently, probably a bad bearing. The machine began to act funny - USB would work alternately, once the PC locked up entirely (I run Linux, that typically just doesn't happen) and so I felt it was perhaps not feeling altogether well.

After one bad bout of not wanting to read an external drive from the USB port, I shut it down. Plugged in, but turned off.

Half an hour later, BAM! The P/S went kerflooey. You can believe that or not, but if we're comparing chops, I've been wrenching on PC's since I used to overclock 8086 XT chips by actually soldering in new oscillator chips, so I'm not exactly new at this.

When the P/S went bang, I looked up (naturally) and witnessed the fan on the CPU (clear case cover) spin around at a velocity it had never before attained - it was clearly sounding like one of those hard-core real science gyroscopes spinning up, like WHHHHHHIZZZZZZ. Then it died down and stopped. Mind you, the PC was off, the CPU fan should have been on.

That's why I fear my failing P/S took the mobo with it. It clearly sent a surge through, something had to power the CPU fan. What did it damage? I dunno. Not really sure I want to sacrifice new components to find out which of the old ones can be saved.

 

[bmattock]

Indeed I have. I fail to see what that has to do with the question of statistical profiles, however.

I doubt very seriously that this thread was started to gather information, but rather in yet another attempt to 'prove' that digital is bad and film is good, blah, blah, blah. As long as it didn't become contentious, and since my experience with digicams was rather the opposite of what was clearly hoped, I joined in. I await the climax and subsequent denouement.

 

[gavinlg]

I have to say that there are a lot of people posting in this thread about their cheap digital point and shoots failing.

My advice - don't buy cheap junk. The nikon coolpix line is cheap junk. It's made by sanyo and it's built to last a few years tops. Same with canon point and shoots, and ALL OTHER point and shoots, bar a few. They have weak little extending lens mechanisms, crap electronics and by the time you buy them they're outdated with a new model..

Just don't base your opinions of digital cameras on what cheap junk does. A nikon d3 will probably last longer in harsher environments than a leica M, same with the canon 1d and probably the olympus e3. You so much a drop an M and it's highly likely it will go out of alignment or you'll break something in the rangefinder mechanism. You drop a d3 and nothing happens.

It's all relative, especially when people are comparing 300$ nikon coolpix to leicas and metal rangefinders.

 

[bmattock]

I have to say that there are a lot of people posting in this thread about their cheap digital point and shoots failing.

Actually, I don't have a problem with my cheap digital cameras failing. Of course, I tend not to drop cameras. Not that I haven't, but I try very hard not to.

My advice - don't buy cheap junk. The nikon coolpix line is cheap junk. It's made by sanyo and it's built to last a few years tops. Same with canon point and shoots, and ALL OTHER point and shoots, bar a few. They have weak little extending lens mechanisms, crap electronics and by the time you buy them they're outdated with a new model..

a) My Coolpix 995 is pretty long in the tooth, still works a treat. Wife uses it all the time, I can't get her to take a newer/smaller one - she loves it.

b) I encourage buying cheap junk. Buying things that will last a long time applies to non-obsolescing, stable, technology. Buying cheap junk is smart when the junk in question lasts about as long as it is still viable technologically.

c) Besides, referring back to 'a', even cheap junk tends to work rather better than one would expect, given how cheaply they're made.

You drop a d3 and nothing happens.

Except that it gets older, and less capable with respect to newer models.

It's all relative, especially when people are comparing 300$ nikon coolpix to leicas and metal rangefinders.

It's all relative, all right - relative to a price/performance curve. I tend to buy technology 2 generations back from the bleeding edge, which is generally well-understood, bugs worked out, and dead cheap. Not fast compared to the latest, no - but I'll be buying that, eventually, too. I stay on the un-bloody side of that edge if I can. Cheap is generally another way to remain in that curve.

If you have lots of money and want the best, well then, there it is. If you're a pro and must have the best, same thing.

For the rest of us mooks, cheap is good. I dig cheap.

 

[eli griggs]

I have a Canon TL from 1968, a low end example of Canon offerings and it has and continues to give as good a service as any Canon professional F1 (any variety) I've ever owned, without regard for what it can't do and the F1 can. This is what I expect from Canon, then and now!

When I bought my Canon 85a, I expected, if nothing else, all the experience and natural trouble-shooting that comes from producing many tens of thousands of these cameras and all those that have come before, to have translated into a quality, long lived product, regardless of the intended market. Faster, small chip sets and better sensors were sure to come along, but the camera should have kept on working none-the-less of what became current.

If I am expected to buy "top of the line" from Canon, or any maker before I receive a reliable quality product then somewhere, something is gone badly amiss.

Such logic only make excuses for companies that have no respect for their main stay customers or value to offer in their most basic goods. Shoddy products are shoddy no matter what the maker may or may not offer in a high dollar line-up.

This situation with digital cameras is rather like the American car industry building bare-bones gas hogs when consumers wanted small, comfortable and well appointed cars like those made in Japan. Only now it seems there is no one interested in Japan or elsewhere, in providing value to customers unhappy with the norm. I don't care what their excuse is, you shouldn't have to pay through the nose to get a decent digital camera.

 

[bmattock]

I have a Canon TL from 1968, a low end example of Canon offerings and it has and continues to give as good a service as any Canon professional F1 (any variety) I've ever owned, without regard for what it can't do and the F1 can. This is what I expect from Canon, then and now!

When I bought my Canon 85a, I expected, if nothing else, all the experience and natural trouble-shooting that comes from producing many tens of thousands of these cameras and all those that have come before, to have translated into a quality, long lived product, regardless of the intended market. Faster, small chip sets and better sensors were sure to come along, but the camera should have kept on working none-the-less of what became current.

If I am expected to buy "top of the line" from Canon, or any maker before I receive a reliable quality product then somewhere, something is gone badly amiss.

Such logic only make excuses for companies that have no respect for their main stay customers or value to offer in their most basic goods. Shoddy products are shoddy no matter what the maker may or may not offer in a high dollar line-up.

This situation with digital cameras is rather like the American car industry building bare-bones gas hogs when consumers wanted small, comfortable and well appointed cars like those made in Japan. Only now it seems there is no one interested in Japan or elsewhere, in providing value to customers unhappy with the norm. I don't care what their excuse is, you shouldn't have to pay through the nose to get a decent digital camera.

That is yesterday's thinking.

Yes, I have a Canon FX, and I agree, it is a superior mechanical device.

However, it cost quite a bit in 1964 dollars - more, I think, than the typical digicam does today in equivalent dollars.

In addition, providing a 'value' in form of a necessarily-expensive (because it costs money to produce) digital camera when the technology is still moving forward at a rapid pace is foolish. Unlike my Canon FX, which happily makes use of the much-better 35mm film available today, you cannot exchange sensors and associated electronics in a digital camera so easily - so you end up with a well-built, expensive, out-of-date camera.

I realize the M8 fans are thrilled with the notion of building a 100-year camera that will be utterly obsolete in 4 years, but other than those folks, it just does not make sense.

Shoddy products are shoddy because consumers demand more for less, and faster introduction to new technology. It is an endless loop, because there is only so much efficiency to be squeezed out of the system, and we're already seeing the strain of it on every aspect of our technology, economy, and culture. But if you must place blame, look in a mirror, chum. Consumers drive this economy, that's you and I. Manufacturers sell us what we demand. Like government, we get the cameras we clamor for. We apparently like crappy cameras. Well, I do, anyway, for the reasons I've stated.

If you do not, I suggest you keep your film cameras (as will I) and stay away from digital technology. This ride is not about to slow down until it explodes.

 

[Igor.Burshteyn]

The only digital camera in our family belongs to my daughter - Pentax Option something p&s. It developed some fault - screen image is rotated 180 degree - after 1year of _tough_ usage by 6 years old. Other than this it works. Actually this is a compliment to this p&s build quality - I believe even weather-sealed, heavy armored professional camera wouldn't last longer being exposed to children :>

 

[Lani Kai]

I've had...
Fujifilm FinePix F410--dropped at least once, still working fine but doesn't get used at all anymore
Fujifilm FinePix F45 fd--No problems here, although the dent on one corner suggests that someone has dropped it
Canon EOS Digital Rebel--Bought new, had for 11 months, no problems
Canon EOS 20D--bought used, no problems while in my possession
Canon EOS 30D--bought new, no problems while in my possession
Canon EOS-1D--bought used, 90,000+ clicks and no problems while in my possession
Canon EOS-1D Mark II--bought used, one of the circuit boards shorted out and had to be replaced. Recently sold with 115,000+ clicks and perfectly functional
Canon EOS-1D Mark III--my current digital camera. No issues.

I've fixed a good number of point-and-shoot digital cameras. Power switch failures seem very common and they are typically easily fixed. One time I opened a Nikon CoolPix to find that the connector ribbon from the power switch to the circuit board had fallen out, and I just plugged it back in. I bet some repair shops would charge $150 to fix that. I also fixed a Canon PowerShot that had a lens error by throwing it off the second floor balcony. I had opened it up and was unable to fix it, so I figured I'd give it a good thrashing, and then it started working.

 

[eli griggs]

bmattock, I'll disagree; shoddy products are shoddy because the maker drops the ball and no one is there to pick it up. Most customers don't care because they are being continually educated to accept newer/better is only 4 to 6 months away and in the meantime you must have shinny new distractions as part of your perpetual upgrade.

I don't know if there will ever be a significant backlash against all these garbage-can heirlooms that they're so good at making and, yes, we're so good at buying, but I do know that my 'yesterdays thinking' is working quite well, thank you very much, and still lets me know when something is rotten in bar coded plastic wrap. Crap is crap and shame on them for selling it.

Cheers

 

[gavinlg]

I have a Canon TL from 1968, a low end example of Canon offerings and it has and continues to give as good a service as any Canon professional F1 (any variety) I've ever owned, without regard for what it can't do and the F1 can. This is what I expect from Canon, then and now!

When I bought my Canon 85a, I expected, if nothing else, all the experience and natural trouble-shooting that comes from producing many tens of thousands of these cameras and all those that have come before, to have translated into a quality, long lived product, regardless of the intended market. Faster, small chip sets and better sensors were sure to come along, but the camera should have kept on working none-the-less of what became current.

If I am expected to buy "top of the line" from Canon, or any maker before I receive a reliable quality product then somewhere, something is gone badly amiss.

Such logic only make excuses for companies that have no respect for their main stay customers or value to offer in their most basic goods. Shoddy products are shoddy no matter what the maker may or may not offer in a high dollar line-up.

This situation with digital cameras is rather like the American car industry building bare-bones gas hogs when consumers wanted small, comfortable and well appointed cars like those made in Japan. Only now it seems there is no one interested in Japan or elsewhere, in providing value to customers unhappy with the norm. I don't care what their excuse is, you shouldn't have to pay through the nose to get a decent digital camera.

Film cameras are plastic/metal boxes with a basic (usually mechanical on this forum) shutter mechanism made of metal gears and springs and washers. From an engineering standpoint they're very easy to make strong, even for cheap. You get cheapish metal body, make it rigid, and make a simple, noisy, reliable shutter mechanism. Thats basically it.

A digital camera is COMPLETELY different. For $300 (for instance) you're getting a highly complex little cluster of electronics and black magic, an expensive little silicon wafer and all sorts of automated algorithms and programming, and a highly complex retracting zoom lens with aspheric elements and electronics making groups of glass elements move to correct low shutter speed shaking. How exactly would you expect manufacturers to make this sort of stuff lightweight, reliable and durable for cheap? Comparing such a thing to an old metal Canon SLR is completely different. An old metal canon SLR should be compared to a new canon SLR, of which I've thrashed the crap out of mine, and they have NEVER let me down.

The reason the cheap point and shoots aren't particularly reliable or durable is because they're basically a whole lot of "bleeding edge tech" (as Bill put it) shoved into a tiny little plastic body (to save weight, which every reviewer in the world condemns like some sort of satanic attribute) and sold for what you can barely even buy a decent photography bag for.

 

[gavinlg]

Except that it gets older, and less capable with respect to newer models.

The best part about where the technology is at the moment, is that you can buy a 4 year old canon 5d and it is on par with the latest offerings, even after those 4 years. It still records more detail than the d3 and very close to the 1dsmkIII. The d3 has slightly better noise, and in 4-5 years time I doubt that the d3 will be regarded as a poor image maker, in fact I bet people - pros - visionaries will still be using them. So that would mean that the 5d would still be good in that time as well.

Digital technology is just a baby. It's only just starting to mature. I bought my 2nd 5d a few weeks ago. It's an old design, but I can still take groundbreaking pictures with it. It and the d3 will still be fantastic in another 5 years.

You know all this already though - thats why you buy the older technology. It's only going to get better for you as well, as current cameras are starting to plateau a bit.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Indeed I have. I fail to see what that has to do with the question of statistical profiles, however.

Likewise, I fail to see what statistical profiles have to do with the fact that computers have to be constantly replaced, on a very short time-base, before they break.

I've never had a problem with a Nikon F that stopped me taking pictures with it; I have once had a problem with a 40-year-old M2 that stopped me taking pictures with it; and (on grounds of solid experience) I don't trust a computer beyond about 3 years, or 5 at the outside.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Migracer]

Thinking people are damgerous

Thinking people are damgerous

Hmmm… Roger you are a master at asking a simple questions that evolves into philosophical, mechanical, electrical and various other disciplines along the way.
I bow to you.

To Climbing Vine: do you suppose you might be able to take the posted results of this survey and crunch the numbers?

My guess is that for the most part the digitals are reliable. A few individuals have total failures on all their digital products. (Roger, This falls into the a new category) The Mechoelrctrophilosophical consequences to these individuals is life changing.
(A separate auricle to come on this, I feel a Pulitzer coming ).

How many of us Senior members remember the failure rate of EVERY scheme attempted to automate (for the masses) exposure settings? Even my Spotmatic succumbed to an obsolete battery. How about motor drives?

The film camera evolution ended not with the last 35mm SLR’s but with the point and shoot 35’s that paved the way for the new and small digitals for the masses. The key words here are “the masses”. Being a member of this forum puts us in a minority, How many “Elfs” do you suppose Canon sells for every SLR ?

Some of us are closet anti technologist (I love the English language). We do not wish to push the envelope or our luck, “if it worked for granddad it’s good enough for me”. Others just enjoy the “Steam era clock work” technology that is a marvel of gears, levers, springs, the minds that were able to design these complicated machines, and that almost a full century later still work !

For some of us it is about the equipment, the connections between the feel of a finely machined lens barrel and the threads or bayonet of the body (I bet Freud Has a few things to say on this).

To me it is all the above and then some. The bottom line is the image. Sometimes for me the film gives a look that suits what I am shooting other times it is the digital that gets the nod. Each has its strong points and idiosyncrasies, we are fortunate to be in a time where we have both.

The digital cameras of today are at the evolution point that plate cameras were in the 1800’s. I have no delusions that in 100 years there will even be batteries or SD cards for “those old cameras” or film for the trusty old 35’s.

I am just a shooter that gets to enjoy another day in the Sun.

 

[climbing_vine]

Likewise, I fail to see what statistical profiles have to do with the fact that computers have to be constantly replaced, on a very short time-base, before they break.

Well, you're simply misinformed on that count. Which is why statistics are more important than anecdotes when you're making broad claims.

I've never had a problem with a Nikon F that stopped me taking pictures with it; I have once had a problem with a 40-year-old M2 that stopped me taking pictures with it; and (on grounds of solid experience) I don't trust a computer beyond about 3 years, or 5 at the outside.

And, I have never had one of my own computers have a serious issue of any kind. My family still runs three machines that have passed through my hands: an Apple ][ that's closing in on 30 years old, and a Performa that's about 14, and a G3 that's 10. So, again, I refer you to my response to your first quote.

Talking about computers that actually *need* to be replaced constantly before they inevitably break is like talking about disposable cameras, not a Nikon F.

It's apples and oranges. I respect your camera hardware knowledge, Mr Hicks, but you're being silly here. Frankly. It's deliberate distortion of argument.

Cheers to you as well, however. Nothing personal.

-Brian

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well, you're simply misinformed on that count. Which is why statistics are more important than anecdotes when you're making broad claims.
-Brian

Dear Brian,

Sorry, which count am I misinformed upon?

Have you read The Black Swan?

For the broad claims you're making about computer reliability vs. camera reliability, you may have an argument, though I'd want to see figures before conceding. Edit: You didn't actually quote any statistics, but merely asserted them. What ARE your statistics on the reliability of cameras and computers?

For broad claims in general, statistics based around the Gaussian curve (which is what I assume you are talking about) are in many situations worthless -- as LTCM's mathematical models of economics well demonstrated.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[NickTrop]

Not sure if there are statistics on it - it's all anecdotal, but missing is that a lot of the old mechanicals can be either self-repaired or repaired at a sensible price. As a result, they've survived decades. When digital anything breaks - it breaks. Not worth fixing, into the landfill with it. My Panasonic works fine. Bought it in 2004. Way obsolete at merely 2 megapixels, but to my eye it takes fine pics to 5x7. No bokeh though, only 4 stops, and it's no good, really, after ISO 200.

Nothing wrong with digitals, but I doubt they'll operate 40 years from now like a lot of the old mechanical rfs and slrs. In those days those crazy manufacturers considered these as "investments" (they weren't) to "last a lifetime". You bought a camera - agonized over your decision, bought the best one you could afford, and that was it. For a long time.

Silly manufacturers. They hired their first Wharton or Harvard MBA grads (guessing 🙂 And that was it. Planned obsolescence, cycle new products every three years or so...
|

 

[-doomed-]

I have yet to have one of my digitals fail .

My 20d has been through at least two other owners before me and still always gives the results i am after.

I used a fuji finepix a340 before that and i used that thing hard , i dropped it numerous times , left it in a hot car ,generally did not follow any of the manufacturers reccomendations , i sold it not to long ago because i never use it anymore .

I am new to film so i cant say how or when any of this gear will fail , but i think that everthing breaks eventually , some is easier to repair and some you just buy new .

I have yet to have any of my digital cameras fail on me.

 

[NickTrop]

Oh - do camcorders count? They never last. At least not mine. I have a Canon Optura with a stuck shutter. I found a work-around (it needs to run for about 5 minutes in "play" mode) before the shutter unsticks. Common problem. Read about that fix on the web - works. Glad because that cost me good money and it's a good MiniDV. I refused to buy another one.
|

 

[David Goldfarb]

My brand new Canon A-1 failed within 48 hours some time in the early 1980s, as electronic gadgets tend to do, if they're going to fail. I got a warranty replacement.

My New F-1 shutter once got stuck when a frayed thread from a film cartridge became lodged in it, but that was repairable, and I still use the camera. I don't regard that as a failure on the camera's part.

My Time magazine machine of the year for 2000, Nikon Coolpix 990, purchased for around $1000 with grant money I had to spend before it ran out, is still working fine over 7000 exposures later, 99% of them images of documents, 0.25% other copy work (like digitizing prints for the web), 0.25% images of stuff I've sold on the internet, 0.25% pictorial photographs.