life of the 1Ds

[silvertone7]

is it true that the canon 1ds has a life of 150,000 images?
Also, do other digi cameras have a life. I feel when purchasing a new digi, the number of images it takes is important as the cost of each frame/image can be expensive.
Any thoughts appreciated
michael

[Andy_T]

Michael,

I remember there's a thread written by Pekka that deals with the 'life' of Canon digicams.

In a nutshell: The shutter can be either a 'prosumer' (up to 35.000 - 50.000 shots) or more sturdy 'professional' version (up to 150.000 shots).

So the probability is high that you the shutter wears out sooner and you would have to get a new one as replacement part (but most likely not a complete new camera). If the number of images exceeds the 'calculated number', Canon won't fix it under warranty.

I also think that in this thread Pekka wrote that the only camera with a 'professional' shutter is the D1s.

So go look for that thread...

Regards,
Andy

[Roger_Cavanagh]

The camera does not "wear out" per se, but as Andy points out shutters are only rated for a certain number of actuations. But I'm fairly certain I recall Chuck Westfall (Canon US) posting that the rating was not published information, so I don't believe that a repair would be charged, if the shutter failed during the warranty period with more than the rated number of actuations.

I believe Pekka discovered that the D30 shutter was supposed to be good for 20k (maye be it was 30k) uses by chatting to a Caon service technician in Finland. But that doesn't mean the shutter is guaranteed to fail at that number. I read a couple of posts the other days from guys who claimed 200k/250k actuations on their D30's.

If you can afford a 1Ds, I wouldn't worry about this issue.

Regards,

[Andy_T]

If you can afford a 1Ds, you can also afford to buy a new 10D whenever the shutter wears out :)

Regards,
Andy

[pwagner]

>>> Also, do other digi cameras have a life.

[justme_dc]

It costs under $300. USD to replace a shutter. If it fails every 30,000 frames, (Most shutters will outlast that estimate by a long shot anyway.) that's under one cent (.01¢) per frame shooting cost. I think that kind of makes it a non issue. Really, if you are using a DSLR you are getting off light. There's no film costs or processing. You have instant feedback and you can shoot more frames than you ever would with a film camera. Replacing a moving part every once in a while is not that big an issue. Having my film cameras serviced regularly costs a fair amount but I use them all the time, I wouldn't expect my DSLR to need less service.
Like cars, cameras have occasional failures and need tune ups. It is the nature of the mechanical beast...I think you might be looking at it from the wrong perspective. I hope this makes sense to you all. As always, YMMV.

[zWWWer]

that worries me as well, in a 6 months i did around 13,000 shots with my 10d. and i was sort of holding back :) don't like the idea of changing shutter every year or so.

[msvirick]

zwwwer wrote:
that worries me as well, in a 6 months i did around 13,000 shots with my 10d. and i was sort of holding back :) don't like the idea of changing shutter every year or so.

I would enjoy the investment.
If it need replacement, so it be.
Nothing lasts for ever

[Patrick 10D]

Yikes! I have already taken more than 1500 pictures a month since I bought my camera three months ago!

However, nothing last forever. Maybe I will be ready for the 1Ds by the time my 10D shutter fails!

[zWWWer]

msvirick wrote:
zwwwer wrote:
that worries me as well, in a 6 months i did around 13,000 shots with my 10d. and i was sort of holding back :) don't like the idea of changing shutter every year or so.

I would enjoy the investment.
If it need replacement, so it be.
Nothing lasts for ever


yup, so it seems, it's still a good deal and great fun shooting digitally.

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

Hi,

Maybe a stupid remark but also film camera's have the shutter life span ?

I don't worry about it anyway :D.

Greetings,
Frank

[Andy_T]

Frank,

most likely, as the mechanics are the same.

Difference is that it takes a lot longer to do 30.000 frames on a film camera for the average user...

Regards,
Andy

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

Andy,

30.000 frames are 30.000 frames :D.

I know that with digital you shoot more, so the costs savings are even higher.

It's the way of looking at the glass is half empty or it's half full.

Greetings,
Frank

[silvertone7]

Nice to see a good discussion on this issue. Cheers to all who put in their thoughts.

[lightandlife]

J.A.F. Doorhof wrote:

It's the way of looking at the glass is half empty or it's half full.

Greetings,
Frank

It is not a question of half empty or half full.
The question is: Which of the two, the camera or the photographer, lasts longer. I am hoping to outlast it.

If it quits, I will gladly replace it, perhaps with a descendant of 10D or 1Ds.

In the meantime, enjoy it and ponder the Eternal One who created the nature for the photographers.