Lament for a broken digital camera

dadsm3

dadsm3

Well-known
Local time
11:25 AM
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
842
Location
Hamilton Ontario Canada
View My Gallery
I've just come back from my camera shop, brought in my 16 year-old daughter's Nikon Coolpix 6.2 MP which she just dropped off her dresser.....it's scrap. I just paid $500 for it 7 months ago....
These things are total garbage, made to disintegrate on minor impact, and have an built-in irrepairability to force you to buy a new one every time you tap it on the wall. Just another scam on top of the instant obsolescence ripoff.
Roger at Camtech told me he gets over 30 dropped digitals in a week, the vast majority are not repairable.....he told me Sony doesn't even supply spare parts for theirs! If it's their fault, they replace it, if it's the customer's fault, tough crap, buy a new one.
I dropped my old M3 down several stairs, put a nice ding above the counter-side lug, swore like a sailor, picked it up and....still using it years later, not even a CLA.
But I guess the dumb-cluck public will just keep paying big dollars for these plastic toys.
 
dadsm3 said:
But I guess the dumb-cluck public will just keep paying big dollars for these plastic toys.
Click to expand...

Naa, now they are buying cell phones that takes pictures also 🙂.
Sometime now, this cameras like your ex-coolpix will not be bought at all 🙂 Wanna bet? 😉
 
I just dropped my Rolleiflex 3.5E and dinged the back. Removed the back, tapped the ding out straight. It's almost unnoticeable. Of course, the camera continued to function perfectly.
 
I'm sorry to hear it, but this is going to continue. Yes, the new digicams are badly made. They have to be. No one is going to pay the thousands more it would cost for an item that will be obsolete and non-upgradeable in a couple of years, tops. They have no reason to build any kind of reliability into them while customers are demanding more megapixels, longer zooms, anti-shake, and whatever else the feature-du-jour is. We have to blame ourselves, we're the public, we want it cheap and we want it now. By 'we' I mean the 'we' that includes the hundreds of millions of Joe Sixpacks, not you and I specifically.

One can hope that when digital cameras begin to plateau in terms of sales, megapixels, and features, sellers will again begin to differentiate from each other by providing more X or Y or Z. With X hopefully being durability.

In the meantime, I've heard good things about this:

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_ricoh_caplio_400g_wide.php

Designed for contractors and the like - meaning hard knock life. Well, just what I've heard, no personal experience with it.

Again, sorry to hear about the broken Nikon. My wife still has her Coolpix 995 (touch wood) and has had no problems with it.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
YES!!!! Ain't it so. Digital cameras are trash. My Nikon D70's shutter failed after I owned it for only a few months. I had a new shutterbox installed, but hey. Digicams are built to last just long enough so you can go out and buy the next model.

Of course the high end cameras are built better. You could probably use the D2X as a mace without too much trouble.
 
You know they should build a digicam that can be dropped from down a flight of stairs. I don't mean every digicam, but one or two that have decent resolution and limited zooms. Some high density foam padding on all the edges would do it.
 
dadsm3 said:
But I guess the dumb-cluck public will just keep paying big dollars for these plastic toys.
Click to expand...

Planned obsolescence is a contract between the (rational) digital camera buyer and manufacturer. Given the fast pace of technology, the rational consumer expects his camera to break after a while anyway. Since the repair costs are so prohibitive, he might as well buy a new one, which probably has twice the megapixel count, and a whole host of new features that he may or may not need.

I don't think the public is dumb...they've simply voted with their dollars to say that digital cameras are consumables and not capital.

Clarence
 
Solinar said:
You know they should build a digicam that can be dropped from down a flight of stairs. I don't mean every digicam, but one or two that have decent resolution and limited zooms. Some high density foam padding on all the edges would do it.
Click to expand...

"They" will build one if people will buy one. Will they? What if it costs double for the same zoom, megapixel, etc?

Anyway, here's one that might do:

http://www.photographyblog.com/revi...o_400g_wide.php

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Bill, I saw the Ricoh just now and you are right will we pay $500 for a three megapixel camera.? I don't know about you, but I got to the store, get a six pack and then think about it.
 
Never compare a Leica M to a consumer product. What are you even trying to say? Would I expect a $3500 M7 to be better built than a $500 digicam? Hells yes.
 
It's true that digicams aren't built to last but is it really a good business model to make cameras like the the M3 that can last 50 years? You could have bought 20 digicams in that time, camera manufacturers aren't our friends they are businessmen.
 
Toby said:
It's true that digicams aren't built to last but is it really a good business model to make cameras like the the M3 that can last 50 years? You could have bought 20 digicams in that time, camera manufacturers aren't our friends they are businessmen.
Click to expand...


that is EXACTLY why I'm staying out of the digital thing. I don't want to be a market segment lemming.
 
Those digi cams dont need to be broken to be crap.
Today i've received a prize award that i won on an on-line site. You guessed, a digi cam. Its an old model, i beleivo not in production now (relesead a year ago a think). An HP 717. Just took some photos with it. Dontknow if i will ever use it again.....
But i like my 350D very much 🙂
 
My first digicam, a Dimage 7i, served me well for four years with considerable use, none of it particularly gentle. Nothing mechanical on that camera (zoom, focus, etc.) ever failed; instead, it was the image sensor that gave out. It turns out the whole batch of sensors was defective and K-M didn't discover this for a couple of years until they started failing prematurely. Bad luck, but the camera seemed designed to last.

Come to think of it, I may see if they are still honoring that service advisory... I miss using that camera.
 
I tend to agree. One of the reasons I am taking advantage of the current ability to cheaply buy "worthless" film cameras on the internet is that aside from enjoying them, and using them, I am am convinced that they will become collectible again (even the pretty average ones) as people realise that there aint no such thing as a collectible 10 year old "antique" digitial camera - at least one that works better than a papaer weight.
 
bmattock said:
I By 'we' I mean the 'we' that includes the hundreds of millions of Joe Sixpacks, not you and I specifically.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
Click to expand...

Pardon me, but ain't that a bit of exaggeration, hundreds of millions of Joe Sixpacks? To the best of my knowledge I am the only Joe Sixpack out here, or at least I’ve yet to run into anyone else with that name.
 
All the more reason to stick with film! Hey if you want digi prints, spend a little extra on a film scanner or a flatbed that can scan film, you probably won't get around to dropping that. I don't see why a camera needs to be expensive to expect durability. My canonet has been dropped a few times and works great. My vivitar 220sl has been dropped on to pavement, has a dent that is about 1/4 deep on the prisem and still works great. Both cameras can be picked up for less than $100. I say if you want to get your kid a camera, get them film with a scanner. Vintage is in, spend $500 on a CL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RichC
Ditching an SLR for a mirrorless Sony A7R II...
Replies
11
Views
2K
willie_901
willie_901
Back
Top Bottom