The Longevity of dSLRs

[keyofnight]

For the last 7 years, I shot most things with a Pentax *ist D (one of the earlier Pentax dSLRs) with some degree of success. Last week, however, my trusty *ist D died. The electronics have burnt themselves out. I've switched to a Pentax MX because I can't afford the Pentax K-5 of my dreams, and I never used automatic settings anyway. Even still… I wonder how long a K-5 would last if I bought one new. My MX is certainly old, at least 27 years old, and it survived this long. My *ist D didn't last to 4 years good before needing a $250 repair to its electronics, and now the same problem has taken the camera out for good. It doesn't inspire much confidence, but I've only ever owned one dSLR.

Here are a couple questions for you good folk: how long do you expect your dSLR(s) to last? What have been your experiences with the average dSLR's repairability and longevity?

 

[gmikol]

"The electronics have burnt themselves out" is a bit of a vague statement. What's actually wrong with your camera? Is it possible that it could be repaired economically (Keeping in mind that much of the repair cost is skilled labor).

In a lot of cases, a single individual component failure (resistor, capacitor, transistor, op-amp) will render the unit entirely unusable. It is not economically viable to repair the individual component, but rather an entire board or assembly is replaced. If you were skilled with electronics, and could identify (and source) the individual failed component, you could repair it yourself quite economically. I did this for an ethernet switch / print server that suffered a capacitor failure and was out-of-warranty.

Given that many manufacturers refresh their consumer dSLR lines every year, the fact that you've gotten 8 years of life from your camera with a single repair is about as much as you could expect. Unfortunately, it's difficult to lay a blanket number out for how long a dSLR should last. Manufacturers target many different price points, and as a result, the quality and expected life of the thousands of individual components can vary greatly. Lower-cost cameras may (likely) have shorter average lives. And dSLR's are far more complex that even Canon and Nikon's most modern flagship film cameras, like the EOS-1V, F5, F6. dSLR's are essentially, consumer electronics. Instead of comparing its life to a mechanical film camera (like the MX), ask yourself, "How long would I expect an iPhone, iPad, LCD TV or laptop to last before a failure?" That should calibrate your thinking....

OK...so much for broad statements. When I buy a camera, I expect I will sell it, lose it or break it (i.e. drop, water, etc.) before it fails. I used a second-hand Rebel XTi for 2 years (so it was about 4 years old) before I moved up to a second-hand Rebel T2i, which I've now had for 2 years (making it about 3 years old). I've had good luck with camera bodies. And all but 1 lens I've had to get repaired (50mm 1.8) was my fault (drops, water, etc.)

--Greg

 

[gmikol]

FYI...there's a guy selling an istD right now on APUG for $200.

--Greg

 

[pschwart]

You can get a Pentax K100D from KEH for under $175. AA batteries and stabilization in the body. My regular camera is a Canon 40D, but I have one of these and it makes very fine images.

 

[keyofnight]

"The electronics have burnt themselves out" is a bit of a vague statement. What's actually wrong with your camera? Is it possible that it could be repaired economically (Keeping in mind that much of the repair cost is skilled labor).

I was being vague intentionally: I'm trying to keep the conversation focused on the longevity dSLRs. I'll answer your question anyway. Last time I took the camera in, the repairman told me some component "browned out" because of the low voltage rechargeable batteries I was using. They told me to use Li-ion CR-3V batteries instead to make sure the right voltage was being supplied to the camera. I was skeptical. I'm sure that I could repair the board, but I'm not the best with a multimeter, and I've lifted traces on PCBs a few times in the past. I'm sure I could do it now—I've learned a lot about soldering technique in the last year. But to be honest, I'm tired of this camera's limitations and I want to move on to something new and interesting.

Of course, I'm more interested in how long dSLRs are supposed to last than what to do about my own situation. I'm set on shooting film. It's fun. (;

When I buy a camera, I expect I will sell it, lose it or break it (i.e. drop, water, etc.) before it fails. I used a second-hand Rebel XTi for 2 years (so it was about 4 years old) before I moved up to a second-hand Rebel T2i, which I've now had for 2 years (making it about 3 years old). I've had good luck with camera bodies. And all but 1 lens I've had to get repaired (50mm 1.8) was my fault (drops, water, etc.)

So, you buy fairly close to most camera manufacturer's ~18month release cycle. I do this with cellphones, as they tend to start failing after 2 years anyway (mostly the LCD starts yellowing and slowly burning inside).

Why do you sell your cameras? Professional needs? (lol—I'm starting to sound like a survey, but I think that's okay.)

 

[Pioneer]

Pentax *ist DL2

My Pentax DL2 has been with me from 2007 to 2012 equals 5 years give or take a month or two. I have owned other digital cameras in that time period, a K2000, a K200D and a K7, but the ist DL2 is the only one that has stayed with me.

I bought my Pentax *ist DL2 used in 2007 and I still own it and use it. I have not the foggiest idea how many shutter actuations it has. The images it produces are still very, very nice, and it is very compact and light to handle. In July or August of last year (2011) the in-camera focus motor quit working. I bought and installed a focus screen from Katz Eye and kept on taking pictures. In fact, now that I am manually focusing all my lenses, I actually like the camera even more than I did before. I know it is just psychological but it never leaves Manual Metering Mode now. Since the focus motor died I have started to think of it as my little digital K1000.

With electronic devices you really never know for certain but, if no moving parts fail, there is no reason to believe that it won't keep going for quite a while longer. As long as it does I will keep using it.

 

[gmikol]

So, you buy fairly close to most camera manufacturer's ~18month release cycle. I do this with cellphones, as they tend to start failing after 2 years anyway (mostly the LCD starts yellowing and slowly burning inside).

Why do you sell your cameras? Professional needs? (lol—I'm starting to sound like a survey, but I think that's okay.)

Not really...Canon tends to refresh their digital rebel line annually, so I'm basically skipping a least one, if not 2 generations every time I upgrade, and I typically upgrade to 1 generation behind the latest and greatest. If you're not familiar with the Canon Rebel line and history (Bold are the ones I've owned):

XTi --> XSi --> T1i --> T2i --> T3i --> T4i --> ??

I'm thinking about upgrading out of the rebel line next. I'll have to see what Canon announces at Photokina to see whether it's worth waiting longer, or not.

I sell my old camera to offset part of the upgrade cost. I'm just an enthusiastic photo and technology hobbyist. And since I buy used, and 1 generation behind, I can recover much more of my purchase cost on the sale. Like buying a new car vs. a lease return.

--Greg

 

[Joe Lipka]

I still have view camera lenses that I purchased in 1978 and they work just dandy. My guess is that the question you ask about longevity of DSLRs should be a hot topic of discussion because up to now, the major reason to switch to a new camera has been improved capability of the "next generation." I think now the longevity model is similar to any other electronic device such as a computer or phone. To me, that's about three or four years depending on how hard you are on the equipment. A careful user might get 4 or 5 years out of a camera, a pro might trash it in 12 months.

 

[Pioneer]

I still have view camera lenses that I purchased in 1978 and they work just dandy. My guess is that the question you ask about longevity of DSLRs should be a hot topic of discussion because up to now, the major reason to switch to a new camera has been improved capability of the "next generation." I think now the longevity model is similar to any other electronic device such as a computer or phone. To me, that's about three or four years depending on how hard you are on the equipment. A careful user might get 4 or 5 years out of a camera, a pro might trash it in 12 months.

3 or 4 years? I am not sure how you figure that? I own a Pentax PZ-1p, which is a fully electronic 35mm camera built back in the 90s. It has more moving parts than a DSLR and the electronics were far more primitive. Yet mine is about 21 years old and still trucking happily along taking pictures. Why would you expect a DSLR to do less?

Rather than dying prematurely I think people are tossing them in a drawer and forgetting about them because they can't be bothered with that 4 or 6 megapixel sensor. Most people I know don't want anything to do with old technology. Pros are a different story. Some of them are still using film technology and some of them are actually still happily using old Canon or Nikon digital cameras because they still work.

The biggest failure item on a camera, digital or film, is the shutter. In the days of film there were not as many shutter actuations because people had to pay for the film. The only people who would reach a point where they wore out a shutter were pros. Now, with digital, people have reached the point of taking hundreds and hundreds of images in a day. I have watched them machine gun shots. No big deal they think, I can delete most of them when I get home. But actually it is a bigger deal than you think. By doing that you are using up your shutter faster than most pros do. And pros are using expensive Canon and Nikon cameras with servicable shutters. Most of you are using inexpensive, consumer DSLR cameras.

When that camera dies in 4 years you walk away believing that the manufacturers are building junk. Actually, that camera you used up was built far better than your old film camera was. Back in the day you probably thought that 50 rolls of film in a year was a huge amount to shoot. If you were using 36 exposure film that was around 1800 shutter actuations in a year. You probably do that in two or three months with that new Canon T4i (or whatever it is called now days.) If you had been shooting at that rate with your old film camera it probably would have died far sooner.

So, the next time you are tempted to believe that today's equipment is junk, give a thought to how much you are using your digital cameras today. At the end of 4 years you have probably shot the equivalent of 30,000 frames, because it didn't cost you anything. And although the manufacturer's aren't advertising this for consumer cameras, that is probably about right for most of the consumer dslr shutters out there today. Obviously some will fail sooner and some will fail later.

As for your view camera lens, I wouldn't doubt it has lasted that long. I would be very surprised that you have put even 5,000 shutter actuations on that lens in that time period. If you have, you are shooting a ton of large format film using that one lens and you are probably putting out some stunning images by this time.

 

[nolanr66]

I have a Nikkon d200. It's the only digital camera I have ever owned not counting my cell phone.. I think it's about 6 years old currently and It is working fine so far. When I was buying the camera I was thinking of it as a 20 year camera. Honestly I was not thinking about upgrades and all that. I just figured I would buy it and shoot it for as long as it worked properly. It is still my plan. I do shoot 35mm camera's also but that is another topic. Anyway I still figiure on the 20 year plan and I will be very disappointed if the camera does not give me that service since the price was quite expensive.

 

[keyofnight]

3 or 4 years? I am not sure how you figure that? I own a Pentax PZ-1p, which is a fully electronic 35mm camera built back in the 90s. It has more moving parts than a DSLR and the electronics were far more primitive. Yet mine is about 21 years old and still trucking happily along taking pictures. Why would you expect a DSLR to do less?

So…yes, your PZ-1p is a simpler camera, but that's exactly why it would make sense for it to last longer than others. Conversely, the average dSLR is complicated, and that's why I would expect it to fail sooner.

I've had or been responsible for a few point and shoots—Cannon Powershot series and others—so I've seen a couple of them die. I don't expect the moving parts to die on them. No, I expect the electronics to die, because I know many electronic components have a relatively short shelf life—especially electrolytic capacitors. I'm not sure if those are used On top of this, there are a lot more electronics that can (and do) fail: touch LCD screens, processors/ICs/miniaturized components on elaborate circuit boards, etc. Most of these things are a pain to repair, so they are often replaced. In my case, it costs more to repair my Pentax *ist D than it does to fix. There are also low-level software malfunctions that can brick a digital camera. There are lots of possible problems, but I'm no expert.

 

[Pioneer]

Yes, I have seen a few point and shoots die as well. Two died because the extending lens got gummed up and the motor burned out. The other, a Canon, gave up the ghost because of the sensor. Actually the Canon still works once in a while when the sensor clears up, but most of the time the sensor writes gibberish to the memory card. But, since point and shoots are typically sealed, and are not usually taken in for any maintenance, and ride around in purses and pockets, I am not sure you can compare their failure rates with a DSLR's.

I am certainly a long way from an expert. I do know that today's DSLR is chock full of electronics so there are almost certainly some parts that are more sensitive than others. Moisture and corrosion probably attacks a lot of parts. But with reasonable care most of these cameras should last far beyond the point that they are hopelessly obsolete.

Most of my opinion comes from my own experiences and from things I have been told by the fellow who cleans my cameras from time to time. He tells me that most of the time when these cameras die it is because a switch, dial or a moving part, such as the lens extender on a compact, has failed. Many times the failure in switches and dials is because the electrical contacts have worn, corroded, lost contact, or gotten too dirty to work any longer.

Ah well, more to your point, I have owned and sold several DSLRs. At present the only one I own that have had long term (relatively speaking of course) is my *ist DL2.

 

[keyofnight]

Yes, I have seen a few point and shoots die as well. Two died because the extending lens got gummed up and the motor burned out. The other, a Canon, gave up the ghost because of the sensor. Actually the Canon still works once in a while when the sensor clears up, but most of the time the sensor writes gibberish to the memory card. But, since point and shoots are typically sealed, and are not usually taken in for any maintenance, and ride around in purses and pockets, I am not sure you can compare their failure rates with a DSLR's.

You're right about that. I'm not sure how much we can, either. Some say that enthusiasts and pros are better with their equipment, some say they're worse. Even further, dSLRs are supposed to have a more durable build.

I am certainly a long way from an expert. I do know that today's DSLR is chock full of electronics so there are almost certainly some parts that are more sensitive than others. <b>Moisture and corrosion probably attacks a lot of parts.</b> But with reasonable care most of these cameras should last far beyond the point that they are hopelessly obsolete.

Yes! I've noticed that a lot more cameras are weather-sealed. I wonder how much this will extend the life of the device. I expect it will for many of us.

 

[Pioneer]

I actually think that the problem with the digital SLR is not longevity but repairability whey something does go wrong. I have a Leica iiic (wonderful little camera) which is difficult to focus because the beam splitter has become so faint. This is a common problem with iiic cameras. Except for that issue it still takes beautiful pictures. I sent it in to Youxin a couple weeks ago and he is installing a new beam splitter for me. That little Leica is about 60 years old and I can still get it repaired. Now I know that there are old manual film cameras out there that can't be repaired but a surprising number still can be. I don't think that will be true of our digital cameras, even at 10 years.

This is one of the hidden problems with today's technology. Our new digital cameras are wonderful beasts and they are capable of capturing some gorgeous images. Images that are probably the technical equal of anything that has ever been produced. I do enjoy using them and the electronics are very reliable. An electronic shutter will continue to fire at the correct speeds for a very, very long time. Far longer than a mechanical one. Once they go through an initial burn-in period they last quite a long time. Some of these digital cameras may last for a very long time. But when they do die, they are very rarely repairable unless someone still has the correct circuit board or screen. Or worse, if the sensor dies the entire heart of that camera is gone.

Leica owners are currently running into this issue with their M8 and M8.2 digital cameras. In some cases the LCD screens are dying prematurely, and no-one builds that screen anymore. Leica is saying they cannot repair them. This is a company that is world famous for building cameras that last almost forever with proper maintenance and repair. Once they moved to digital they are finding that they cannot do that any longer. Most people are not going to pay $8,000 for a camera that cannot be repaired if something serious happens. I think that this little repair bugaboo is going to create havoc with the entire camera industry eventually.

 

[Dismayed]

. . . Of course, I'm more interested in how long dSLRs are supposed to last than what to do about my own situation. I'm set on shooting film. It's fun. (;

I guess the answer depends on your perspective. Manufacturers want cameras to last until the warranty period lapses.

 

[Pioneer]

I guess the answer depends on your perspective. Manufacturers want cameras to last until the warranty period lapses.

I am sure there is probably some truth in that but it is probably a bit more complex. To some degree it is not in the manufacturer's best interest to build a camera that will last forever, even if they could. But I don't really think manufacturer's are purposely building things so that they melt in your hands the day the warranty runs out. Besides being tough to actually do, that probably is not good for their reputation either.

What I do think happens is that they look at the expected failure rates of specific parts and what it costs to reach certain levels of reliability. As an example, they know that they will not be able to sell an entry level camera for more than a certain amount so they need to keep the cost of parts and manufacture enough below that price point to make a profit. So, if a shutter that has a mean expected failure rate of 30,000 actuations costs x*$1, they likely will not want to install a shutter with a mean expected failure rate of 150,000 actuations since a shutter with that level of reliability probably costs X*$5. If there is no cost differential between the two parts then they probably will choose the more reliable one.

I think the same decisions are made about repairability as well. A Canon 1D X that will be used by professionals in more demanding environments not only has to be a lot more reliable, it also has to be repairable as well. That is not quite as true for an inexpensive consumer camera. Yes, it probably needs to be repairable for a certain period, perhaps 3 or 4 years past the final sell date, but you are probably going to have a hard time finding parts as time goes along. Since the Pro camera will sell for $7,000 to $8,000 then it makes a lot more sense to install much higher quality parts. Thus it lasts longer. The consumer camera will cost from $500 to $1,500, so it is not built with the same longevity in mind.

One other thing has to be considered as well. Digital sensors are the heart of every digital camera and we have all heard that they are probably one of the most expensive pieces in these cameras, likely because of a relatively high failure rate. While this is all true I suspect they were also less reliable in the past then they are today. It only makes sense that not only is the size in megapixels increasing, but that the reliability of that sensor is probably getting better as well. So the sensor that is now being installed into the Canon 1D X likely not only has more megapixels than the sensor that was installed in the Canon 1D s, but it probably is less likely to fail as well.

So while I agree that the manufacturer's perspective is a bit different than the end consumer's, it is in the interest of both parties that the product works as advertised, and does so for a decent period of time.

 

[Dismayed]

I didn't mean to imply that manufacturers want 100% failure rates the day after the warranty period is up. But they would like 0% failures during warranty. Besides, manufacturers don't need products to fail because they keep improving them. That's what generally drives the upgrade cycle.

 

[Hatchetman]

I hope to get 8-10 years out of my Canon 5Dii. I hope it lasts forever, as it does everything I could possibly ever need.

 

[keyofnight]

I actually think that the problem with the digital SLR is not longevity but repairability whey something does go wrong. I have a Leica iiic (wonderful little camera) which is difficult to focus because the beam splitter has become so faint. This is a common problem with iiic cameras. Except for that issue it still takes beautiful pictures. I sent it in to Youxin a couple weeks ago and he is installing a new beam splitter for me. That little Leica is about 60 years old and I can still get it repaired. Now I know that there are old manual film cameras out there that can't be repaired but a surprising number still can be. I don't think that will be true of our digital cameras, even at 10 years.

This is one of the hidden problems with today's technology. Our new digital cameras are wonderful beasts and they are capable of capturing some gorgeous images. Images that are probably the technical equal of anything that has ever been produced. I do enjoy using them and the electronics are very reliable. An electronic shutter will continue to fire at the correct speeds for a very, very long time. Far longer than a mechanical one. Once they go through an initial burn-in period they last quite a long time. Some of these digital cameras may last for a very long time. But when they do die, they are very rarely repairable unless someone still has the correct circuit board or screen. Or worse, if the sensor dies the entire heart of that camera is gone.

Leica owners are currently running into this issue with their M8 and M8.2 digital cameras. In some cases the LCD screens are dying prematurely, and no-one builds that screen anymore. Leica is saying they cannot repair them. This is a company that is world famous for building cameras that last almost forever with proper maintenance and repair. Once they moved to digital they are finding that they cannot do that any longer. Most people are not going to pay $8,000 for a camera that cannot be repaired if something serious happens. I think that this little repair bugaboo is going to create havoc with the entire camera industry eventually.

Repairability is definitely a concern—but I doubt many consumers will care. After all, most customers want a newer model anyway. A broken iPhone 4 is a reason to upgrade to an iPhone 5, for example. Many of us also have a different attitude about device repair than we used to: we rejoice when a company replaces the device instead of repairing the broken device.

I certainly wouldn't buy a recent Leica M for just these reasons—the added electronics are a liability. :/ I must sound like a luddite.

 

[Pioneer]

I am not so sure that consumers replace cameras that fast. Certainly you can read these forums and get the impression that everyone in the world is buying a new camera as fast as they are introduced. But I think in the real world the reality is quite a bit different. Most of the people I know don't even use their camera that often, and they certainly don't think of replacing it that often. I am not sure the phone culture of immediate upgrades applies that well to cameras, unless the camera is in the phone of course.

If they are packing around a point and shoot, which most are, they are tossing them out when they die and just using their phone camera. They were never terribly worried about image quality to start with. But I do think that most of those who put out the money for a nice DSLR and a fancy 18mm to Forever zoom expect that it will be repairable if it breaks.

 

[CGW]

I am not so sure that consumers replace cameras that fast. Certainly you can read these forums and get the impression that everyone in the world is buying a new camera as fast as they are introduced. But I think in the real world the reality is quite a bit different. Most of the people I know don't even use their camera that often, and they certainly don't think of replacing it that often. I am not sure the phone culture of immediate upgrades applies that well to cameras, unless the camera is in the phone of course.

If they are packing around a point and shoot, which most are, they are tossing them out when they die and just using their phone camera. They were never terribly worried about image quality to start with. But I do think that most of those who put out the money for a nice DSLR and a fancy 18mm to Forever zoom expect that it will be repairable if it breaks.

Agree. Know at least a dozen D200 owners who are still happily using these relics--none of which has required service beyond a sensor clean-up. Same goes for less well-made D70s and rebadged Fuji S3 and S5 bodies. I see lots of 7-8 year old DSLRs with remarkably low actuation counts(e.g., <5000 on shutters rated at 150,000 clicks) that are plainly used very seldom. Phone cameras have killed the low-end digital p&s that earlier took out mini-lab and cheap big box store processing once fed by film cameras. If anything, I've noticed more bonked up DX lenses than bodies at the Nikon.ca service counter near me.

 

[jimcollum]

I have a Kodak DCS-5c (made in 1995.. one of the first DSLRs, this one Canon based) that still works... produces it's tiny 1.5Mp images like the day it was built. Not much use for it other than a historical piece (especially if you've seen the size of the thing). My Nikon Coolpix 950 (1999) still works. Betterlight scanning back (2001) has not had a problem from the day it was made.

Of those three, it's only the Betterlight that gets frequent use

 

[keyofnight]

I am not so sure that consumers replace cameras that fast. Certainly you can read these forums and get the impression that everyone in the world is buying a new camera as fast as they are introduced. But I think in the real world the reality is quite a bit different. Most of the people I know don't even use their camera that often, and they certainly don't think of replacing it that often. I am not sure the phone culture of immediate upgrades applies that well to cameras, unless the camera is in the phone of course.

If they are packing around a point and shoot, which most are, they are tossing them out when they die and just using their phone camera. They were never terribly worried about image quality to start with. But I do think that most of those who put out the money for a nice DSLR and a fancy 18mm to Forever zoom expect that it will be repairable if it breaks.

I didn't get my impression from these forums. I got my impression from friends who shoot while they travel. They buy an SLR, use it for 4 years, stop using it, sell it, get another when they need it. I'm aware that there are many people doing many different things (though I thought it would be implied that I wouldn't make that kind of claim). All I'm saying is that I don't often hear of people repairing dSLRs. In fact, I don't hear a lot about anyone getting anything repaired anymore.

There are a few people I know that upgrade their camera the same way they upgrade their phones—sure, the market is slowly being rendered irrelevant by cameras in cell phones, but some people still keep up with phone upgrades. My mother's one of them. I just know the culture is out there, on forums, in camera groups, among the "pros," and beyond. Like any claim about people, I can't say "All people are like this." All I can say is, "I know some people like this, and there's a culture of it." In the case of phone culture, I know a lot of people who have GSM phones from the 90s so clearly I can't say, "All people upgrade every two years." I can, however, say there is a large camp of people who will buy the flagship Samsung or Apple phone when it's released. The same goes for camera enthusiasts, there is a camp will buy the flagship camera when it's released. I'm fairly certain the two camps are connected by a common business model that accounts for the resale market.

I mean, I'm not trying to sound smart or say something ridiculous.

Agree. Know at least a dozen D200 owners who are still happily using these relics--none of which has required service beyond a sensor clean-up. Same goes for less well-made D70s and rebadged Fuji S3 and S5 bodies. I see lots of 7-8 year old DSLRs with remarkably low actuation counts(e.g., <5000 on shutters rated at 150,000 clicks) that are plainly used very seldom. Phone cameras have killed the low-end digital p&s that earlier took out mini-lab and cheap big box store processing once fed by film cameras. If anything, I've noticed more bonked up DX lenses than bodies at the Nikon.ca service counter near me.

I'm glad the D200 turned out to be such a workhorse.

I suppose we'll just have to wait to see if the well-used dSLRs make it past the 8-year mark. I wonder, would people even try to fix a broken, 7 year old dSLR?—or would it be part of the junk-electronics pile that you see at yard sales?

 

[Hatchetman]

digital technology 10 years ago was terrible. 5 years ago it was OK, now it is very good. I honestly don't see how they can improve it much more from a practical standpoint.

 

[nolanr66]

I will not pay for a repair for my D200 actually. I just expect it to keep working. However eventually it will break and I will just toss it in the e-waste bin. Probably I will replace it with a Leica digital M model of some sort.