Lament for a broken digital camera

Agreed, not fair to compare an M3 with a digicam. But why shouldn't I be able to spend $100 or so to get it fixed? It only fell on a wood floor from a 30" height, not onto ceramic or pavement.....hardly a big blow. I'm out the $500 because manufacturers want it that way....
I don't know how D-70 would hold up to a small drop....and I don't want to.
Shite is shite....
Daughter #2 is taking a fuji point & shoot and 3 rolls of film for her Grade 8 trip to Ottawa next week. It has performed well for years on end, and you should see the dings on it.....
 
I haven't bought a digital camera yet for precisely this reason. I know Olympus builds them with weather seals and a darn sturdy body, as do most DSLR manufacturers with a "consumer" and a "pro" line, but it would cost me more for a good body + lens + backup system than all my camera expenses in the last 15 years. (Then again, so would any desirable Leica body). Even with that system, it expect it would be more like using a computer than like handling a camera. God, I'm looking forward to something decent, be it the digital M, a new Epson RF or a more RF-like digicam like the Panasonic LC-1. It doesn't need to be RF, as long as it's a camera and not a plastic computer toy that wants me to push its tiny little wee buttons so that it wears out faster.

Bill, I don't think wrapping a plastic digicam in rubber, foam and more plastic does the trick. It's the same fad gadget wrapped into a couple more fad gadget layers.

This tendency is actually one of my disappointments with cell phones. All of them were designed after this decline in build quality had taken place. There's no alternative. Live with cheap plastic or don't buy one. Then there's the user interfaces (fortunately, that term is very literal and doesn't imply there should be any ergonomics involved).


Peter.
 
Or don't spend $500 on a CL.

I'd recommend something super cheap and indestrucible - Olympus Trip 35? The going price seems to be £1-5. Mine is proving itself indestrucible - worst was leaving it on the roof of my car and hearing it fall off driving down the road. The front lens is a little looser but looking a the prints I got off it today there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

I darn't take my digital camera anywhere where I'm going to be clumsy/drunk - they're just too fragile.
 
ywenz said:
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.
Click to expand...


And with §3500 sunk into a camera $500 for a CLA is money well spent 🙂
 
dadsm3 said:
Agreed, not fair to compare an M3 with a digicam. But why shouldn't I be able to spend $100 or so to get it fixed? It only fell on a wood floor from a 30" height, not onto ceramic or pavement.....hardly a big blow. I'm out the $500 because manufacturers want it that way....
I don't know how D-70 would hold up to a small drop....and I don't want to.
Shite is shite....
Daughter #2 is taking a fuji point & shoot and 3 rolls of film for her Grade 8 trip to Ottawa next week. It has performed well for years on end, and you should see the dings on it.....
Click to expand...

I think that my D70 or D100 would fare somewhat better - but neither is the brick shite house like a F5 for example.

Similarly, though, I think the little plastic Nikon N75 film SLR I bought for "P&S" type shoots but where I want to use "good glass" would smash to smitherines like your daughter's digi CoolPix if dropped

Plasitc bodies are "light tight" and not an issue until you drop them. But if an "oops" happens - kiss the camera goodbye - be it film or digi!
 
I dropped an M2 on the kitchen floor about a year and a half ago - I could have bought a new digicam with the repair bill that I received to get it back up and running. Moral of the story - don't drop cameras.

If anything, I find that modern plasticky cameras fair better in a collision with a floor than older all-metal cameras. The metal barely gives and the internals of the camera take a beating - on the other hand, I have a plasticky Stylus that has not only been dropped several times, but also chewed on by a dalmation pup. (Yup, it still has the teeth marks.) I think the plastic has a little give to it which helps the survival rate.
 
dadsm3 said:
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.
.
Click to expand...

In an oversaturated camera and film market the "ingenious" idea of digital imaging was
1) start the whole camera and picture taking evolution new
2) do it with the extremely accelerated innovation cycles of the digital industry.

Thus it got possible to sell a P&S for $ 300 to 800, which is beaten hands down by a $ 100 P&S like a XA when it comes to picture quality.
The super short innovation cycles of 6 months or less make the idea of lasting for years obsolete, that would be contra-productive to the original intention.

The "cheap" consumer SLRs are following the same laws too, a 300d was offered first for $1200 when the film version was at $250. And now you hardly can sell a 2 yo 300d for more than $ 300. Makes even a Leica look really cheap.
"Easy to use and easy to break" is not only part of the idea, it is a logical consequence for all digital consumer products in the camera market.

Bertram
 
Bertram2 said:
In an oversaturated camera and film market the "ingenious" idea of digital imaging was
1) start the whole camera and picture taking evolution new
2) do it with the extremely accelerated innovation cycles of the digital industry.

Thus it got possible to sell a P&S for $ 300 to 800, which is beaten hands down by a $ 100 P&S like a XA when it comes to picture quality.
The super short innovation cycles of 6 months or less make the idea of lasting for years obsolete, that would be contra-productive to the original intention.

The "cheap" consumer SLRs are following the same laws too, a 300d was offered first for $1200 when the film version was at $250. And now you hardly can sell a 2 yo 300d for more than $ 300. Makes even a Leica look really cheap.
"Easy to use and easy to break" is not only part of the idea, it is a logical consequence for all digital consumer products in the camera market.

Bertram
Click to expand...

Bertram,

While I'd like to agree with you - I cannot.

Firstly, digital photography has clearly become the image-making form of choice in virtually all professional endeavors. I think the wedding photgs here would likely bear out that their profession has been one of the last to adopt the form - but they too have done so.

I cannot forget the sidebar NYT story during the immediate 9/11/01 aftermath where they indicated that digital photography had proven its ability to PJ a story faster than film in a demading situation that required constant updated images!

Similarly, the migration of consumer shooters to digicameras is simply an expected response to the plummeting price points for more and more sophisticated image making devices coupled with a general societal shift to using digital technology.

As to image quality - for the average consumer the comparison is not a $500 digi to the capabilities of an older $100 film P&S. The comparison is rather to the percieved "no additional cost" of a digiphone option vs. a film P&S! The average P&S consumer (prone to chopping off heads and feet) is not nearly as demanding of image quality as most people here. They like the immediacy of image display offerered by digicams of all types - and on that score - film can never compare.

We're a farily rarified bunch of photographic enthusiasts here - but we are a small minority - and that is not going to change! I love using film - but I also know that I am in a small fellowship in doing so!
 
Posted May 5 - DSLR survival *and non survival* in PJ use. Getting hit on the head lessons.

http://lexardigital.typepad.com/davidhonl/2006/05/choosing_pro_or.html

On Monday my new 30D backup was crushed beneath me, and became destined for the scrap heap. I was covering a heated political demonstration here in Turkey and things took a painful turn for the worse. After being attacked by a group of volatile PKK supporters, thrown to the ground, kicked, beaten, and introduced to the experience of having a 1D body slammed over my head, I was face-down on the pavement with my 30D. My pro-grade 1Ds survived, even after being used to hit me over the head (ouch). On a CF card note, I was able to rescue my nearly-filled 2gb card from the ground before running for the hills (it popped out of the camera on impact).
Click to expand...

And there you have it.

David Honl is an American photojournalist based in Istanbul Turkey. Over the past 20 years his photography has appeared in publications like French Elle, Paris Match, Newsweek, People Magazine, and dozens more. He covers news and features throughout Turkey, conflict in the Middle East, and is a contributor to World Picture News in New York.
Click to expand...

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Creagerj said:
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.
Click to expand...

I did spent money on a neg scanner, and then I spent more time than I care to remember scanning the 365 rolls I shot per year. I still have over 200 rolls lying about, all dev'd but none scanned, from 2003 up to 2005.
 
My wife is hard on her stuff. She's destroyed a Pentax ME Super, a Ricoh XRS, two Pentax LXs... and totalled two Saab Turbos. But she keeps using her 3Mp Nikon Coolpix 995, most amazingly it remains usable. We've shopped for replacements a few times but she likes the swivel design and it's convenient for her to carry everywhere.
 
Bertram2 said:
The "cheap" consumer SLRs are following the same laws too, a 300d was offered first for $1200 when the film version was at $250. And now you hardly can sell a 2 yo 300d for more than $ 300. Makes even a Leica look really cheap.
Click to expand...

It's good that, we hardly lose any to depreciation, and have fun doing so...

M3 anyone?
 
Will said:
2 Saab Turbos, how? older Saab are pretty tough...
Click to expand...
Yes, and expensive to fix. Body shop guy finally confided that BMW and M-B are cheaper to repair. 🙂 She ran the 900T into the back of an SUV... Then ran the 9000T through water deep enough to slurp some up through the air cleaner, bending a rod. That we fixed, but she later crashed that car too. Still says she loved that car and its huge hatch. But they get "totalled" easily due to the repair expense, and both have been restored. She's been much more careful the past 6 years with M-B, but did destroy a wheel last winter in a "chuck hole"... must have been a gigantic one.
 

Attachments

  • 991206-21.jpg
    991206-21.jpg
    96.7 KB · Views: 0
Dougg said:
Yes, and expensive to fix.
Click to expand...
Ditto, I had a Saab 900 a long long time ago (an 80's model), and it cost me an arm and a leg to keep it on the road. It kept breaking up despite regular maintenance with the official dealer. Apart from the usual stuff like tyres and brakes, it had about 3months between being towed to the garage each time. There was an endless list of items of the type 'hey that's strange, we never encountered this broken'.. Of course parts like these are never in stock so I finally gave up on that brand altogether..

I managed to scrape together the dough to buy what must have been the cheapest car at that time, and have driven it since (12 years). Over this 12 year life time, I've had less expenses in repair than I had with that Saab EVERY SINGLE YEAR! I'm planning to keep this el cheapo for another 12 years at least..

Saabs are very fine cars to drive, but a disaster in the cash department..
 
Last edited:
copake_ham said:
Bertram,

While I'd like to agree with you - I cannot.
Click to expand...

George,
I've read your answer twice and carefully, and I can't see the point where you really relate and contradict to what I have said: I spoke about the marketing principles on which the design of digital consumer cameras are based, especially where the "planned obsolence" thing comes from in this context ? 😕

Bertram
 
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