The Death of a Digital Artifact

mfogiel

mfogiel

Veteran
Local time
5:19 AM
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
4,671
Location
Monaco
View My Gallery
Today, I tried to change the mount on a Contax Sonnar 85/2.8 to Nikon, and while following the instructions, I was supposed to take a photo of the lens before dismantling - just in case.
I reached for my only digital camera - a Fuji S3 Pro, which I bought in 2005, used several times, and which has been mainly gathering dust in the last few years. I have probably used it last time a year ago.
I put fresh batteries into the compartment, flipped the on/off switch, and ... there was no reaction. The camera died, peacefully, during the sleep, the kind of death all of us could only wish for when the day comes...
This has confirmed me what I was already suspecting for some time, having gathered ample evidence from my personal history of acquisition and use of various electronic appliances over the years: they are being made to die young... In practice, the life span of these things should not significantly exceed an average warranty period. This way you are obliged to buy a new, better one, and dispose of some difficult to process piece of plastic and metal junk.
I have recently bought from Nobbylon a 40+ years Leicaflex SL2, and I just can't believe how well it is built.
There is definitely something wrong with the way we are moving ahead nowadays: too much waste, too many closed systems. Perhaps a modular camera would be the way to go.
 
mfogiel said:
There is definitely something wrong with the way we are moving ahead nowadays: too much waste, too many closed systems. Perhaps a modular camera would be the way to go.
Click to expand...

Didn't you just say that YOU BOUGHT this camera in 2005? You are the consumer, you are the problem, not the manufacturer. The manufacturer makes what people buy, you vote with your money EVERY SINGLE DAY (or every time you buy ANYTHING). Maybe you should have a quiet meditation moment for yourself and think of what you've done.

No hard feelings, right now I am firm but fair.
 
Yes indeed. People visiting Greenfield Village are amazed by the old cars purring along smoothly. Try keeping a '96 Lancia Dedra running in 60 years' time. That would be nothing short of a miracle!
 
Hmmm, my refrigerator is about 35 years old, my washing machine about 30. Both are in operation as I type this. I have a TV of about the same age that I don't use anymore but still works. Suddenly I am tempted to try if my Epson Photo PC 500 from 1998 still works...

Sure, if I buy electronics these days I expect to throw them away when they stop working. But in truth, nothing much breaks.
 
Moriturii said:
Didn't you just say that YOU BOUGHT this camera in 2005? You are the consumer, you are the problem, not the manufacturer. The manufacturer makes what people buy, you vote with your money EVERY SINGLE DAY (or every time you buy ANYTHING).
Click to expand...

So, what digital camera should the OP have bought that would have sent the message that they should build their cameras to last? Far as I know, no camera manufacturer touts such a thing. And if the OP didn't buy the camera, would that have sent a powerful message?

Flash to the Fuji Mission Control in 2005, lit in red lights with walls of blinking LEDs and serious Japanese at their consoles staring at binary code scrolling on screens. One man stands up. "Sir, I have to report to you that a man in Sector 7 just decided not to purchase a digital camera because he doesn't believe they are built for longevity."

Commander grimaces as he reaches for the Quality Control knob and turns it from "Self Destruct Upon Expiration of Warranty" to "Built to be used in Cuba half a century from now. "Oh, well, we almost got away with it."

Seriously, I'm unsure how consumer democracy is supposed to work if all the manufacturers are in on the same idea: planned obsolescence. Should a point and shoot camera be expected to last longer than 7 years with very little use? How are we supposed to know which ones are built to last?
 
This is the reason that I am so enamored with quality vintage cameras, and my 1970's BMW motorcycles. They were built to last, and designed to be repaired, not discarded.
 
dreilly said:
Flash to the Fuji Mission Control in 2005, lit in red lights with walls of blinking LEDs and serious Japanese at their consoles staring at binary code scrolling on screens. One man stands up. "Sir, I have to report to you that a man in Sector 7 just decided not to purchase a digital camera because he doesn't believe they are built for longevity."

Commander grimaces as he reaches for the Quality Control knob and turns it from "Self Destruct Upon Expiration of Warranty" to "Built to be used in Cuba half a century from now. "Oh, well, we almost got away with it."
Click to expand...

Great little story, D. That made me chuckle.
 
Products are built for a market, the market has spoken. No one cares for a new digital camera that will last forever. People simply will not pay the price that such a product would cost to bring to market.

There are also random failures that occur, I'm sure the vast majority of 2005 model digital cameras are still working just fine. 🙂
 
I'm sure there are a few people here with very old digital cameras that are still working. Problem is that they are not obsolete because they don't work, but because they are no longer relavent. In 50 years time, there will certainly be vintage digital cameras that still work.

Remember, the cash you lose on digital camera depreciation is most likely equivalent to film costs and processing if one was using a film camera. If you buy a $2000 digital camera ... or $100 film camera and spend $1900 on film / film processing it comes out the same really. Just for kicks, $1900 will pay for 333 rolls of $3 film and $3 processing (I know, some of you are super thrifty and do it for less, but many spend more, much more). 333 rolls of 36 exp film equals 12,000 exposures. 12,000 exposures is about a year or two for a typical digital camera and it'll give a lot more than 12,000 exposures too.
 
I prefer well-made repairable precision film cameras and simple LF cameras over disposable digital cameras that can't hold their value and cost more to repair than they are worth.

But I did manage to get 10 years out of my Canon Powershot S30, which I bought in 2002. The LCD screen turns itself off sometimes, and the sliding door over the lens wants to fall off, but other than that, it's sound. I can imagine that it's going to be a highly sought after vintage digital camera one day. 3.2 Megapixels, that's not shabby. Anyway, it was my first digital camera, so I'll probably just keep it, and maybe get a CLA done on it to give it another 10 year lease on life. So, who can recommend a top service technician to CLA my Powershot S30. I also want to get the MP finder mod for it.
 
I had a ride home in this the other day, a 1914 Stanley Steamer. Quieter than a Prius, simpler than the '62 GMC pickup I owned for a long time.

L2002279.jpg
 
mfogiel said:
The camera died, peacefully, during the sleep,
Click to expand...

Thats weird. Are you sure you are using the right type of batteries (and inserted correctly)?

Electronics dont just die from sitting in a closet, at least not within a year.
 
Moriturii said:
Didn't you just say that YOU BOUGHT this camera in 2005? You are the consumer, you are the problem, not the manufacturer. The manufacturer makes what people buy, you vote with your money EVERY SINGLE DAY (or every time you buy ANYTHING). Maybe you should have a quiet meditation moment for yourself and think of what you've done.

No hard feelings, right now I am firm but fair.
Click to expand...

It is mostly an illusion. You very rarely know what you are exactly buying and whether the electronics will last 40 or 4 years. You could have some idea in the case of fine mechanics, but not in the case of electronics.

Anyway - you can vote, but the "elections" remind those in communist "people democracies".
 
Speedfreak said:
...Electronics dont just die from sitting in a closet...
Click to expand...

Capacitors do. Connections fail. Switches, e.g. on a Hexar AF do. One of my Nikon FGs did.

Yes, you added "not within a year" and I agree. But, when did the clock start.

In the old days, you would buy the best camera you could afford. In the digital era, buy only what you know you will use now, and expect to replace in a few years.
 
Moriturii said:
The manufacturer makes what people buy, you vote with your money EVERY SINGLE DAY (or every time you buy ANYTHING). Maybe you should have a quiet meditation moment for yourself and think of what you've done.

No hard feelings, right now I am firm but fair.
Click to expand...
I doubt you are fair, because you are only partially right. Sometimes you don't vote the way you want to vote despite spending your money. You buy what is available. You buy what the manufacturer thinks you will buy, or you do without. You don't get to sit down with the head honchos at Brand-X camera company and say "this is what I want."
 
Yes I hope that when my time comes some thoughtful person places me on a dark shelf in a quiet room, removes my battery and leaves me to a quiet dissultion. Instead of composing an image I would be decomposing. Gone to that great Flickr in the sky.
 
Think back to a time, when camera manufacturers worked on a ten-year cycle. Now days, a camera is obsolete shortly after it's release to the world, as someone is building a better model to beat it. And with the proliferation of review sites, it doesn't take much to turn the consumer off from a newly marketed camera. There have been a few that I might have bought to replace my aging DMC-TZ3, but each one had something that just didn't stand up to what I want in a camera. And then you wait for the next model, hoping whatever it was that turned you off is fixed, only to find that in order to do that, the manufacturer removed other features to keep it within the pricing point. It's enough to make you want to chuck all the electronics in a pit somewhere. But yes, we do vote with our pocketbooks, and sometimes the makers listen. Just not often enough.

PF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

caila77
letters to a young photographer - the meaning of photography
Replies
2
Views
257
boojum
boojum
R
Newbie B+W Development Questions
Replies
13
Views
424
DownUnder
D
p.giannakis
Agrrr... AF Nikkor 50f/1.4 delamination
Replies
4
Views
328
p.giannakis
p.giannakis
Jamie Pillers
One camera, one lens?
2 3
Replies
48
Views
1K
38Deardorff
38Deardorff
Rick Waldroup
The Granbury Project
2
Replies
26
Views
820
Rick Waldroup
Rick Waldroup
Back
Top Bottom