The Longevity of dSLRs

[keyofnight]

Please chime in if you have some infos.

I don't know what the common problems are with the D/DS/etc., but I can tell you what happened to mine. There is, apparently, this model is sensitive to different kinds of batteries: use the wrong kind, and you risk damaging the circuitry. CR-V3s are the safest batteries to use—even if the manual says it's okay to use other batteries. Mine lasted 10 years, and I loved that camera to death.

This may have been covered, but compared to your MX how much money / time did you save in
* film and processing
* scanner and scanner repairs
* learning more about your craft
?

(1) Film is not too bad: $2-6/roll. I develop my own film, so that's 10 bucks on Rodinal, 10 on fixer. That stuff lasts a long time too. Kodak was also nice enough to send me some free Portra and Tri-X too. They're awesome!

(2) I don't own a scanner. I use my university's Hasselblad Flextight. If I stay in academia, I'll have access to an expensive scanner. They also have a darkroom, so I may make use of that sometime soon.

(3) Returning to film—yes, I started with 110 as a child and chromes in my teens before moving on to digital—has taught me a lot about tonality, contrast, grain quality, process, workflow, editing, gear, sensors, etc. The experience has been invaluable.

So…how much time and money did I save? Probably about 500 bucks at this point—most of those were startup costs and…um…G.A.S. It doesn't matter though: there are lessons about photography I could only learn by shooting on this old MX, developing, scanning, and getting feedback.

 

[pellicle]

(1) Film is not too bad: $2-6/roll. I develop my own film, so that's 10 bucks on Rodinal, 10 on fixer. That stuff lasts a long time too. Kodak was also nice enough to send me some free Portra and Tri-X too. They're awesome!

For sure. I use a lot of it too. I grew up on film. This was not an answer to a question of which is better. I was attempting to get you to see outside the longevity issue and see costs overall.

I develop my own black and white, sheet, 120 roll and 35mm. The reasons I use film are related to look and feel as well as performance.

My G1 Panasonic did well over 12,000 images before I sold it. Which was only to get a GH1 for video.

The point I was trying to make was the longevity is not the major issue as I see it.

There are very robust digital SLR cameras out there. Shutters lasting 200,000 images. Just ask someone who does copystand work with them.


As to only learning with the MX, well that just doesn't sit straight. I learned more in a year of serious analysis of digital than in some years of film.

Then I learned more about film when I got into analysis of densitomitery.

Learning about technique, exposure, composition and lenses can be done on either digital or film

 

[keyofnight]

The point I was trying to make was the longevity is not the major issue as I see it.

There are very robust digital SLR cameras out there. Shutters lasting 200,000 images. Just ask someone who does copystand work with them.

I agree: there are lots of robust cameras out there that can last through lots of shutter clicks and many weather conditions. (Pentax's K30 is extremely rugged, and I would trust it.)

But I'm not sure robustness is just a matter of how many shots a camera can get through before it bites the dust. I think robustness/longevity is a matter of servicability and the culture of camera repair itself.

For example, I have a Leica-inspired Soviet rangefinder—a KMZ Zorki "MIR". The culture of these cameras is very much a DIY culture. If the curtain breaks, go to the hobby store and buy some cloth to make a new one. If something gums up, take the whole thing apart and clean it up. If the rangefinder alignment is off: get your screwdriver out and adjust it yourself. They're built like tanks, cheap, and good for the long haul.

On the digital side, I worry about proprietary batteries, parts that I cannot fix without access to a testbed, etc. These cameras also come with a "just-replace-the-damned-thing" culture and a "shoot at 10fps" culture. That is: I can make it to 200,000 a lot easier as a digital shooter, and once I do start having problems conventional wisdom will say to just replace the camera with the latest and greatest.

These are the kind of longevity issues I worry about.

As to only learning with the MX, well that just doesn't sit straight. I learned more in a year of serious analysis of digital than in some years of film.

I needed both. The digital / film debate itself helped a lot too.

 

[Pioneer]

The point I was trying to make was the longevity is not the major issue as I see it.

There are very robust digital SLR cameras out there. Shutters lasting 200,000 images. Just ask someone who does copystand work with them.

As to only learning with the MX, well that just doesn't sit straight. I learned more in a year of serious analysis of digital than in some years of film.

Then I learned more about film when I got into analysis of densitomitery.

Learning about technique, exposure, composition and lenses can be done on either digital or film

I agree. I have learned a lot using both digital and film.

One great example. I love shooting black and white film, but I spend a ton of time shooting black and white with my digital cameras, not because the image is better or worse, but because I can train my eye to recognize compositions that work in black and white. In fact, when I am out with my large format cameras I frequently take a shot with my digital first if I see something promising. If it still looks promising I will go ahead and set up the big old Cambo.

Longevity does play a part of course. I have a couple old Pentax ist D cameras and an old Canon 5D that are getting quite long in the tooth. At some point I am pretty sure they will quietly die and go to old camera heaven, but they haven't given any indication of doing this yet.

 

[pellicle]

(2) I don't own a scanner. I use my university's Hasselblad Flextight. If I stay in academia, I'll have access to an expensive scanner. They also have a darkroom, so I may make use of that sometime soon.

There is something about having your own scanner that helps learning. Its like learning to drive. If you have your own car you get to know it better than doing a few hours a week in a school car. Then other is the benefits had by driving a variety of cars. You don't get stuck in "how its properly done" in the context of one car.

Despite the obvious limitations I recommend owning a flatbed such as a used Epson 4870 or older and playing with stouffer step wedges and understanding negative density and responses to density.

Wish I could borrow that flextight now n then

 

[zackesch]

Please excuse me as I jump in here. This question has been sitting on my mind. I have a canon Rebel xt, and I have a feeling that it is outdated by todays standards. Is it true thinking this or is it just me use to how quick technology changes. Dont get me wrong, I shoot mostly BW film, but this is a question that has been stewing.

 

[jimcollum]

Please excuse me as I jump in here. This question has been sitting on my mind. I have a canon Rebel xt, and I have a feeling that it is outdated by todays standards. Is it true thinking this or is it just me use to how quick technology changes. Dont get me wrong, I shoot mostly BW film, but this is a question that has been stewing.

by today's standards, it's technically outdated.. but that's mostly irrelevant in it's ability to capture images. every film camera, and most of the digital cameras are 'outdated' by the current standards within months of going on sale. Same thing goes for computers, phones, .. you name it.

has your feeling been triggered by posts in forums or ad's.. or from some shortcoming you've noticed that the camera doesn't bring to your images.

 

[zackesch]

For one, after using my Canon Elan II, the XT feels pretty small in my hands. It would also be nice to have more megapixels to use, but I have trouble paying 500 for a T3i upgrade.

At the moment, I do find myself shooting more film, and its to the point if a new body would be worth the $$$.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

3 years into my 5D II, and I'd like to get five more years out of it, and I'm willing to consider anything more a bonus. I think the pixel race has leveled off for the moment. Stock agencies and their clients are realizing that 6 Mp is enough for most current uses. Slick magazines that need hi-res images are in decline. The ubiquity and increasing quality of phone cams is having an impact certainly. "Immer färtig, immer dabei" was the Minox slogan. Cloud computing, I think makes huge files a liability, for now at least. For virtually all offset print and web uses JPEGs are sufficient, and no one wants to deal with trafficking 100+ Mb TIFFs. If I need more resolution, I can shoot medium or large format film.

 

[keyofnight]

There is something about having your own scanner that helps learning. Its like learning to drive. If you have your own car you get to know it better than doing a few hours a week in a school car. Then other is the benefits had by driving a variety of cars. You don't get stuck in "how its properly done" in the context of one car.

Despite the obvious limitations I recommend owning a flatbed such as a used Epson 4870 or older and playing with stouffer step wedges and understanding negative density and responses to density.

Wish I could borrow that flextight now n then

I would love to have that flextight at home. I'm not sure I can settle for less. I think you can get similar results from wet mounted negatives on a flatbed, but that's a lot of trouble.

by today's standards, it's technically outdated.. but that's mostly irrelevant in it's ability to capture images. every film camera, and most of the digital cameras are 'outdated' by the current standards within months of going on sale. Same thing goes for computers, phones, .. you name it.

I both agree and disagree. Sure, technology becomes outdated very soon after it's release. On the other hand, digital cameras are fixed computer systems: sensors, DSPs, CPUs, a card reader, and so on—the only way to change any of these things is to sell the camera and buy another. Film cameras, however, don't seem to obsolete so easily. Every film camera takes great pictures as long as you've got access to film. Scanners are similarly problematic, of course. I guess we can't win. (;

 

[jimcollum]

I would love to have that flextight in my house. I'm not sure I can settle for less. I think you can get similar results from wet mounted negatives on a flatbed, but that's a lot of trouble.



I both agree and disagree. Sure, technology becomes outdated very soon after it's release. On the other hand, digital cameras are fixed computer systems: sensors, DSPs, CPUs, a card reader, and so on—the only way to change any of these things is to sell the camera and buy another. Film cameras, however, don't seem to obsolete so easily. Every film camera takes great pictures as long as you've got access to film. Scanners are similarly problematic, of course. I guess we can't win. (;

I guess my point is that there's no real need to upgrade a camera unless there's hardware issues. I have a Betterlight scanning back that I bought in 2001. It satisfied a quality requirement when I bought it, and in spite of advances in other technologies.. it's producing the same quality requirement that it did when I bought it. If there's a need to buy something new.. it's not that the camera suddenly lost it's ability to do what it did when I bought it.. it's that some other non-'current-camera' related event/information has influenced me. whether it be a change in style of photography, a desire to have what my friends have, or just the joy of buying something new. There's also the possibility that technology hadn't created something at the time to satisfy your requirements of the time.... and the latest/greatest gives you that one thing you've been waiting for.

(as an aside.. sometimes technology doesn't do a very good job of catching up... There's probably 2.. maybe 3 digital cameras today that will meet or exceed the quality that the 2001 purchase I made...)

p.s. personal disclaimer.. i'm probably someone who ends up getting the latest for the pure joy of the technology.. and it has a very minor, if any, effect on the quality of my images.

 

[zackesch]

Thanks for the uplifting responses. To be quite honest, I was expecting the complete opposite response. With todays cameras, I feel that I would pay for features that would not be used like video. A camera is not bought for video, but for photos. It is difficult to not get sucked into the hype.

After shooting with my ElanII, a larger digital body would be nice, but not needed. I feel lenses are a better buy "I mainly use the 50mm range but something wide would be nice. same goes for a tele like a 135.", and when I get settled in my style and see how I shoot, maybe a 3x5 large format system.

Your kind responses helped me solve my first world dilemma. It was a toss up to upgrade to a T3i for shooting color and techniques that cannot be done with film "which I now have renewed confidence in my XT" or a Canoscan 9000F Mark II to be used in hybrid film/digital to be used alongside with my darkroom. I was looking at a dedicated film scanner, but the clarity of what the flatbeds are today compared to the affordabe range of dedicated scanners the difference are minimal in my eyes. If a higher quality scan is required, then I'll take it to a pro lab and have them scan it. With the flatbed you get the virsitility with larger negs, not to mention the ability to share/archive my triditonal prints. Its the best of both worlds IMHO.

Often times we "I" get stuck in G.A.S mode, and forget that the camera is only a tool. Its like PC opperating systems. Lynux is the system that fits my needs. Some like Windows, some like IOS. As windows teaches us, the latest can be far from the greatest. Ah, good 'ol Windows 8.

 

[OzJohn]

3 years into my 5D II, and I'd like to get five more years out of it, and I'm willing to consider anything more a bonus. I think the pixel race has leveled off for the moment. Stock agencies and their clients are realizing that 6 Mp is enough for most current uses. Slick magazines that need hi-res images are in decline. The ubiquity and increasing quality of phone cams is having an impact certainly. "Immer färtig, immer dabei" was the Minox slogan. Cloud computing, I think makes huge files a liability, for now at least. For virtually all offset print and web uses JPEGs are sufficient, and no one wants to deal with trafficking 100+ Mb TIFFs. If I need more resolution, I can shoot medium or large format film.

I think many organisations that buy/acquire images have no idea of how many pixels their application really requires and therefore tend to set very high figures "just in case". I've recently noticed a tendency to demand images made only on a full frame DSLR, obviously because these are perceived to have inherently more pixels than DX cameras. True, that is usually the case, although the pixel count difference between my Nikon D200 (DX) and D700 (FX) is just 2mP.

The other day I encountered an unusual example of this thinking. I was asked to do photos suitable for a New Zealand passport. NZ is one of only a few nations that allows passport renewals to be done either on line or in the traditional manner. Funny thing is that for a paper renewal they require a print that is 35mmx45mm (413x531pixels) but for electronic renewal the image must be a minimum of 900x1200 pixels. Not a problem to do but one wonders why when the end product is the same. OzJohn

 

[StoneNYC]

I guess my point is that there's no real need to upgrade a camera unless there's hardware issues. I have a Betterlight scanning back that I bought in 2001. It satisfied a quality requirement when I bought it, and in spite of advances in other technologies.. it's producing the same quality requirement that it did when I bought it. If there's a need to buy something new.. it's not that the camera suddenly lost it's ability to do what it did when I bought it.. it's that some other non-'current-camera' related event/information has influenced me. whether it be a change in style of photography, a desire to have what my friends have, or just the joy of buying something new. There's also the possibility that technology hadn't created something at the time to satisfy your requirements of the time.... and the latest/greatest gives you that one thing you've been waiting for.

(as an aside.. sometimes technology doesn't do a very good job of catching up... There's probably 2.. maybe 3 digital cameras today that will meet or exceed the quality that the 2001 purchase I made...)

p.s. personal disclaimer.. i'm probably someone who ends up getting the latest for the pure joy of the technology.. and it has a very minor, if any, effect on the quality of my images.

Are you sure about that scanning back? I'm curious as I'm not familiar with them, but the megapixels (MP) of the new cameras are 35mp-80mp depending, does a scanning back working MP? I would be amazed if its that high but its of corse very possible.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jimcollum]

native for mine is 6000x8000 , non-interpolated pixels (no Bayer mosaic.. true RGB capture ). I can get 9000 x 12000 with interpolation on the 9000 side, which still gives a superior pixel quality to a Bayer interpolated. The high end model is 10200x13600 non-interpolated pixels.

(with the pano adapter, it gives up to 6000 x 65,000 non-interpolated RGB pixels .. but i'd consider that beyond apples vs oranges when comparing to a MF digital back)

 

[StoneNYC]

native for mine is 6000x8000 , non-interpolated pixels (no Bayer mosaic.. true RGB capture ). I can get 9000 x 12000 with interpolation on the 9000 side, which still gives a superior pixel quality to a Bayer interpolated. The high end model is 10200x13600 non-interpolated pixels.

(with the pano adapter, it gives up to 6000 x 65,000 non-interpolated RGB pixels .. but i'd consider that beyond apples vs oranges when comparing to a MF digital back)

Forgive my ignorance, is a megapixel a million pixels?

So 6,000x8,000=48MP?

Is that right? Sorry I never quite fully understood this stuff just enough to compare but not if the comparison is pixel x pixel vs MP if I'm not correct boot the million pixel thing...


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jimcollum]

yes 6000x8000 = 48MP

a MF digital back (and most other digital cameras) interpolate their data. each pixel actually accounts for just a single color (R, G or B). In camera, the pixels are blurred, and through an interpolation algorithm, an actual RGB value is determined (basically an educated guess). The Betterlight scanning back (and Foveon sensors) don't interpolate.. they obtain the actual R,G & B value for each pixel captured.

 

[StoneNYC]

yes 6000x8000 = 48MP

a MF digital back (and most other digital cameras) interpolate their data. each pixel actually accounts for just a single color (R, G or B). In camera, the pixels are blurred, and through an interpolation algorithm, an actual RGB value is determined (basically an educated guess). The Betterlight scanning back (and Foveon sensors) don't interpolate.. they obtain the actual R,G & B value for each pixel captured.

Interesting, I read a bit about Foveon sensors a while back. The information listed a reason why canon didn't pick up the technology but I can't remember what the reason was.

Thanks for the info. Always wanted to use a scanning back but I'm po'


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jimcollum]

Interesting, I read a bit about Foveon sensors a while back. The information listed a reason why canon didn't pick up the technology but I can't remember what the reason was.

Thanks for the info. Always wanted to use a scanning back but I'm po'


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

there are issues with the Foveon method... relatively poor low light ability being one.

if you're ever in the Santa Cruz, California area, I'd be happy to go out for a shoot and give you a chance to play around with one.

 

[StoneNYC]

there are issues with the Foveon method... relatively poor low light ability being one.

if you're ever in the Santa Cruz, California area, I'd be happy to go out for a shoot and give you a chance to play around with one.

Thank you, appreciate that, I won't be out there for a year or two but same goes if you're in New England or NYC please let me know

Thanks!


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think many organisations that buy/acquire images have no idea of how many pixels their application really requires and therefore tend to set very high figures "just in case".

This is true. I've worked with a graphic designer who always wanted "300 dpi" files, preferably TIFFs, not recognizing that the dpi value was arbitrary with respect to the original file, and what was really important was the number of pixels with respect to the final print size. So if the image was 300x450 pixels, it could appear in print at 1 x 1.5 inches no problem, and it didn't matter whether the file resolution attribute was set at "72 dpi" or "300 dpi."

 

[analoguey]

Had a d40x that was with me for 3 years before I passed it on, I then got a d90., have had it for under three years now. Both cameras took rain n little drops okay. D90 took a little bigger one this time but is functioning mostly okay, needs repair and I'm wondering if I should upgrade to a d700 instead (I have completely lost the urge to buy electronics/consumer goods new except where I know the warranty might benefit me. Or CBA works alright. )

Most of my film gear is used stuff and works pretty decent! *touch wood*

- via tapatalk.

 

[nolanr66]

Well if the average shutter speed is 1/125th of a second then you get 125 shots per second or 7500 shots in a minute. If you maintain that for 30 minutes then you have shot about 225,000 frames and about what you might expect from a DSLR. Give or take 10minutes. So I figure your DSLR should last for 30 minutes of use if you do not drop it. But seriously who knows how long it will last. I have only owned 1 DSLR in my life and it was a Nikon D200. I used it for 7 years and gave it to my son. He is still using it. I have an Olympus OM-D currently and hope it last a very long time. The photos are good enough for me so I will not need to replace it. If it lasts for life then that is what I will shoot. If it breaks in a few years then I will buy something else.

 

[andrewf]

Just thought I'd chime in here with the story of my Canon 7D that got rained on (fairly wet) and died after I'd only owned it 2 weeks. Never had any other camera die so quickly! The 7D was originally marketed as weather sealed but when I approached Canon about this they said "weather resistant" and pointed out that just about everywhere is sealed, except the shutter button. Which leads straight to the main board,

I've got a 400D from 2007 which is still fine, except for the batteries. So I suppose it's anyone's guess how long they'll last. With that amount of electronics inside, they are definitely not as robust as the mechanical units of the past.

 

[Nikon Collector]

Bought a D1 in 2000 and a Fugi S2PRO( Nikon F80 with Fugi digital back ) in 2003 due to the weight, the D1 was a monster. Both still work though the lower LCD on the D1 is starting to bleed. I used both, the Fugi more than the Nikon, but I also still use my Film cameras.