Shutter longevity

[venchka]

Folks using modern DSLRs are reporting 100,000 exposures per year. Is it because every exposure is free that they shoot so much? Well, not exactly free. Many of these same cameras are packing in at the 100,000, or a lot less, exposure mark. I doubt seriously if I've made half that many exposures since I picked up my first camera in the 50s. I also let my cameras sit for ages too.

Do many, or any of you, shoot 100,000 frames per year? That's 2,778- 36 exp. rolls of film. Are there any pros here who shoot that much film? Or shot that much film before switching to digital? How many exposures do y'all suppose a Leica, Nikon, Ziess, Canon, etc. rangefinder body is good for?

My point being: Before I spend mega-bucks on a digital SLR, I would like to know what to expect. At $300 and up for a new shutter mechanism, digital exposures aren't free.

 

[rover]

$300 is about the cost of a CLA for a Leica. Every once in a while everything needs a tune up. I say don't sweat it, if you see a DSLR that tickles your fancy, make your fancy happy.

Oh, and don't shoot 100,000 shots in a year, your finger will fall off.

 

[mervynyan]

shutter actuation count is a myth, any decent dslr shutter is desgined at least ove r than number, perhaps another components would fail before shutter, such as battery doors, lcds, ect. i shot fair amount of digital, never worry about the shutter failure.

 

[venchka]

shutter actuation count is a myth, any decent dslr shutter is desgined at least ove r than number, perhaps another components would fail before shutter, such as battery doors, lcds, ect. i shot fair amount of digital, never worry about the shutter failure.

Apparently the entry level DSLR bodies are failing after a year or so. Not always the shutter. With so many chips, etc. in them they just go nuts. Then it's off to RepairLand. A few hundred dollars later they return.

A $300 CLA every few decades is a very different story. I treated one of my Canon VI-T bodies to a $110 CLA just because I figured it might be time after 45+ years. There was nothing wrong.

 

[keithwms]

I think shutter longevity is the least of your worries if you go digital.

Much more of an issue, in my view, is that the camera's sensor will be superceded within a year. And mp count is a rather overblown issue, in my view- more important to me is the capture dynamic range, i.e. will the thing blow highlights and will I have to go HDR just to match conventional b&w film.

I had a fair quantity of excellent Nikon glass and briefly went digital but then quickly realized that even something really pricey like a D2x can't match prints from my mamiya 6.... not to mention that a D2x isn't a rangefinder that fits in my coat pocket! 😎 And even the mammie 6 can't touch some of the larger film formats I shoot via rangefinder e.g. 4x5.

So... my digital experiment lasted all of a half year or so and now I'm very happily shooting mostly MF and LF film. Luckily for me, I was never a compulsive shooter, I might see a dozen or two shots per month, at most. If I did sports & wildlife then I would definitely go digital for that stuff. But the "digital darkroom" isn't as much joy as the web hype had led me to believe: I found myself spending at least as much time at the computer playing with i/o curves and layers etc. as I do in the darkroom making prints.

Finally, when it comes to the cost of actual printed output, that's where film just blows digital right out of the water. I mean, it costs me around $3 to make a 20x24" toned silver gelatin enlargement that will last a few hundred years. And even if money were no object I'd still prefer the visual quality of traditional prints. When it comes to colour I think digital has some big advantages, but
I rarely shoot colour and when I do it's slide.

So, I didn't mean to turn this into a film vs. digital thread, but in my opinion, shutter lifetime is your least concern when considering whether to go digital. There are many much larger issues.

 

[venchka]

I suppose my point is that these things seem to die at an alarming rate and early age.

 

[keithwms]

I suppose my point is that these things seem to die at an alarming rate and early age.

Yeah, I've argued this point with some of my digital colleagues and their best argument is usually that they always want to have the latest and greatest technology, so they don't really mind if their investment has no resale value in a year or two. That culture is quite unfamilar to me, but people are entitled to think that way as long as it's their money they are spending! 😉

Incidentally this is why I really don't "get" the leica m8. It's a bizarre superposition, in my view: a short-lived sensor attached to a timeless body. The modul R makes much more sense to me. Oh well, we all vote with our checkbooks and credit cards.

 

[Avotius]

ive had a 20D for a little over a year and shot about 23,000 frames with it. How I dont know, it just adds up pretty fast.