Kids These Days

[dof]

A recent piece in the New York Times commented on the notion of permanence in modern electronics design. One designer quoted in the piece cited the Leica as being an example of a design that was built to last. Unfortunately his understanding of Leicas history is a little less than full, citing purchases of their cameras 100 years ago. However the article addresses a topic near and dear to many RFF contributors, namely, "What is the expected lifespan of our modern digital cameras relative to their film counterparts?" According to this article, the broad trend is toward impermanence.

"Jason Brush, executive vice president of user experience design for Schematic, a branding and design agency, noted in an interview that the fragility of electronics today might not lay in the form and function debate, but rather that gadgets are not meant to be long-lasting.

“If you purchased a Leica camera a hundred years ago it would still work today. It was bulletproof,” he said. “But electronics today are not built with permanence in mind.”​

The full article is here:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/electronics-struggle-with-form-and-function/?src=me&ref=technology

 

[StaaleS]

With anything electronic, odds are that it will be woefully obsolete within a decade. So why build it to last for fifty years?

 

[oftheherd]

With anything electronic, odds are that it will be woefully obsolete within a decade. So why build it to last for fifty years?

I know that is the theory often given. But I think craftmanship demands the best quality or an admission that the product is not built with craftmanship in mind. It should then be priced accordingly. I don't think that is being done.

 

[Alpacaman]

I think it is more to do with tolerances than build quality. Electronic beasties are by their very nature more precise, less tolerant, it takes less to throw them into a nosedive, whereas mechanical devices are, on the whole, a lot more tolerant to wear and tear. Surely quality is better compared against devices using the same technologies?

It is like saying my slide rule is of better quality than your calculator. They do the same task, but they are not really that comparable quality-wise.

 

[35mmdelux]

tighter tolerances often translate into higher quality. A Piper Cub airplane, for example, cannot be compared to a Lear Jet. A Leica to a Canonet, and so on...

 

[imokruok]

I have a Mavica that goes back to 1997. Took pics on floppies. I think that camera might work longer than I'll be able to find new media! Not that I've used it in 10 years, though...

But yes, cameras today are built with very precise circuitry that is potentially subject to a shorter lifespan because there are so many more things that can go wrong. Leave a Mamiya TLR in a hot car all day and you'll probably just ruin the film in it. Leave a point-and-shoot digital in a hot car and you might kill a chip, weaken a bad solder joint, destroy the battery, ruin the display, etc. Obsolescence is probably a more likely cause of "death," however.

 

[Roger Hicks]

What does 'woefully obsolete' mean in the context of a digital camera?

A camera that takes good pictures now will take good pictures as long as it works. Sure, it would be nice to have better high ISO on an M9, but that's an improvement, not a radical redesign. Batteries will get better anyway. What else are you going to change?

Cheers,

R.

 

[j j]

Roger

It sounds like you are thinking of cameras as capital rather than consumables.

I'm with you and I still use my first digital camera sometimes because I like the (obsolete quality) pictures.

But, The Man long ago dumped cameras and computers over to the side of the balance sheet that includes paper and film and memory cards.

John