Usable life for Digital Camera

[p_rodgers]

Can someone confirm that Digital Camera's have a use by date built in.
More so the CCD Sensor or the CMOS sensor.
I have noticed in Remote Capture it states pictures left to take.
Have I got the wrong slant on this or does the sensor have a limited life.
Please confirm and explain. :(

[PeterS45]

I'm afraid your looking at the number of pictures you can take before your harddrive will be full. :lol: Try connecting your camera to a PC with a small or almost full harddrive and you will see what happens.

[Malok]

Here is another question which fits under the same title, although the subject matter is different.

Companies in the USA normally consider their computers to have a lifespan of just over 3 years, at least for tax purposes. How long do you think the life of a digital camera is? When you buy it, do you expect to have it for 2 years, 4 years or more before upgrading? :?:

[Edgar in ATL]

I have resorted to a 3-year cycle for digitial cameras to keep myself from buying everytime something new hits the market. I have done the same with PDAs and PCs and spaced them so each year I get the thrill of buying one of three. It works well for me and my wallet, and keeps peace with the wife. Let's see...time to start looking at PDAs!
:D

[John_T]

I think the only planned obselescence is the newest model. I've had my two G5s not even a year, but oh boy, I don't think I'll be able to pass up the new Canon Pro 1.

Gotta have it! :D

[mookiemeister]

Wow. 3 year cycle time is pretty short. I plan to use my PC and my G3 camera for at least 5 years if I can. Only if it start to break apart will I upgrade.

[FlyingPete]

My old Sony died a natural death after about three years, it was heavily used though, went everywhere. I had taken about 8000 photos a year on it, in the end it became too temperamental to use (noise levels seemed to be increasing, autofocus was on the way out, card door was well worn, and wouldn't stay closed, some buttons were a bit dodgy). It was only sold as a point-and-shoot anyway, so it did pretty well!

So far I have taken 5000 shots on my G3 since I bought it in November, so I am running it a bit harder, hope it lasts 3 years (then again, if it dies I have an excuse for a new one, perhaps a Powershot Pro-2 by then?).

[p_rodgers]

That info sets my mind at ease,
Maybe we should hold a poll on the expense of a digital camera
get users opinion on buying and ongoing expenses

[FlyingPete]

On running costs, I worked out that to take a shot on my film SLR, it cost me around $1 each (local kiwi dollar), that is based on a good 36 roll costing $10-12, and good developing costing $20-28.

Now my first digicam cost me $2000, I took around 24000 images, that would have cost me around $24000 if I used my SLR!! Then again, I wouldn't have taken as many photos, but also wouldn't have got so many exceellent images.

[roanjohn]

On running costs, I worked out that to take a shot on my film SLR, it cost me around $1 each (local kiwi dollar), that is based on a good 36 roll costing $10-12, and good developing costing $20-28.

Now my first digicam cost me $2000, I took around 24000 images, that would have cost me around $24000 if I used my SLR!! Then again, I wouldn't have taken as many photos, but also wouldn't have got so many exceellent images.

Good point!!! So digital camera pays for itself in the long run...........

Ro1

[John_T]

Cameras used to be built like a tank, made to last forever, but they were also so heavy it was like carrying a tank around. And a decent camera was quite expensive.

Today, digital cameras are built to be light and small so that we don't give a second thought to carrying them around and using them on any whim of the moment, and with modern design and materials I think they are very well built. But when you consider all the capabilities and electronics in them, older film cameras look like an old jeep next to a space ship.

The point is that we want all these goodies and that's why we are getting them. When we see what we can get and what we can do with that, we become insatiable for more so that we can do still more without having to take a degree in rocket science.

I think that for the most part the current generation of cameras will last far longer than we will still be interested in using them. If a camera is just another recording medium, I suppose you can put a price on it. But if photography is your passion, like women, cars, race horses or even stamp collecting, the price is not the point.

[pradeep1]

I would say the main thing to go would be the shutter mechanism, probably even before the CCD gets swiss cheesed hot pixels.

I'd guess being a consumer camera, the G3/G5 can do 50,000 - 60,000 pictures before giving up the ghost. That's about a 120 GB hard drive filled to the max with 2 megabyte pictures.

What do you guys think?

[John_T]

Good one Pradeep. How many people does anbody know of that has taken 50 - 60,000 photos with any camera?

I should imagine that on the average, a digital camera should outlast a film camera by quite a bit, in that a digital camera has/needs no film transport mechanism and motor, and a digital camera does not have the vulnerability of an opening in the camera body through which dust, dirt, air pollution and humidity can enter directly to the heart of the camera as is required for film loading.

Through hi tech materials, watch maker design, automated precision and applied physics, the mass and weight of all mechanical parts have been reduced to those of a thin wrist watch, and even a mediocre wrist watch in a plastic case lasts longer than you want it. I have a twenty-year old Swatch that seems indestructable. A battery lasts five years.

The newest thing out, which I doubt will last as long as the camera, is a one time use CF card from Sandisk for fifteen bucks. Shoot it full, send it off for prints and store in in a box like film.

[Ballen Photo]

Good one Pradeep. How many people does anbody know of that has taken 50 - 60,000 photos with any camera?


I've been privy to this debate a year or so back on a forum I still frequent, and the general consensus was that you should get at least 80,000 cycles plus on a well made digicam. I've seen where some Pro models were tested to over 150,000(I think it was) cycles, or shutter trips.
Whenever I lay down my hard earned cash on a supposed high quality camera, I expect to have it for at least 5 years or more.
I HAVE heard of people wearing their shutter mech out, then sending the camera in to the factory for service, ie; they replace and adjust the shutter, then send the camera back to the once again happy owner.
........Bruce

[Andy_T]

Hmmm.

I didn't realize the G3/G5 had a shutter MECHANISM.... does anyone know for sure?

On a DSLR, you *have* a shutter mechanism. The mirror moves out of the way of light, you have a 'blackout', and you hear the sound. Moving parts.

I always assumed the reason why you see the picture you're taking on a digicam's LCD is because the 'shutter' is all electronic and has no moving parts. If this assumption is tru, there should be no issues with wear-out.

regards,
Andy

[pradeep1]

Hmmm.

I didn't realize the G3/G5 had a shutter MECHANISM.... does anyone know for sure?

On a DSLR, you *have* a shutter mechanism. The mirror moves out of the way of light, you have a 'blackout', and you hear the sound. Moving parts.

I always assumed the reason why you see the picture you're taking on a digicam's LCD is because the 'shutter' is all electronic and has no moving parts. If this assumption is tru, there should be no issues with wear-out.

regards,
Andy

I think the G3/G5 has a shutter. You can hear it open and closing when you turn off all your camera sounds. As for taking thousands of photos, in reponse to John_T, my G3 is only a few months old and I have over 6,000 photos on it. I can hit 50,000 pretty fast if I seriously get back into photography.

[Malok]

I am hoping and dreaming that in the near future, affordable SLR digital cameras will be available that have the quality of today's large format cameras. My focus is landscape photography and I just can't compete with those using medium to large format cameras. :oops:

I plan to upgrade either when my G3 dies or when I can get afford a camera that can compete on the professional scene. I think that to continue to upgrade in little steps is just a waste of money!

Malok

[msvadi]

I absolutely agree with Malok.

I really hope that several years from now there will be reasonably prices, high resolution (12MP+), high image quality DSLRs. But the manufacturers are taking us there in very small steps. It looks like they make huge profits from upgrades along the way.

[Wolfey]

I am hoping and dreaming that in the near future, affordable SLR digital cameras will be available that have the quality of today's large format cameras. My focus is landscape photography and I just can't compete with those using medium to large format cameras. :oops:


Malok

Have you tried stitching to increase your resolution? It might work until they make your dream camera. There's a guy who used a 10D to make a 1 gigapixel image--had to write his own software to do it. :shock:

[Malok]

That is a fascinating thought. Do you have any more information about how it can best be done?

Malok

[nemesis]

I have a G3 too.:D I simply stich several images together when I feel that I need a larger field of view or resolution.

I recall that gigapixel image. It was shot using a D60 and a page describing how it was done is here (http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm).

[pradeep1]

I am hoping and dreaming that in the near future, affordable SLR digital cameras will be available that have the quality of today's large format cameras. My focus is landscape photography and I just can't compete with those using medium to large format cameras. :oops:

I plan to upgrade either when my G3 dies or when I can get afford a camera that can compete on the professional scene. I think that to continue to upgrade in little steps is just a waste of money!

Malok

Hey Malok, read this. You might find it interesting:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/paris-rebel.shtml

Michael Reichmann, compares photos taken with his 300D and 4X5 large format. I found it quite interesting, and his observations are eye opening.

[Malok]

Pradeep,

Thanks for the link. I read that article with great interest a few weeks ago. It came up on another forum that I am a part of (Colorado Nature Photographer's Forum) where most of the photographer's use large format cameras. They felt that although image quality may be getting there, the camera is not able to give the same sense of perspective. I am wondering however if using a high quality DSLR with a shift-lens could help to overcome this. I am watching the digital development with great interest.

Thanks for your help. I the appreciate knowlege and awareness you bring to this forum. (Even if you are afraid of cold air :lol: ).

Malok

[FlyingPete]

Hmmm.

I didn't realize the G3/G5 had a shutter MECHANISM.... does anyone know for sure?

On a DSLR, you *have* a shutter mechanism. The mirror moves out of the way of light, you have a 'blackout', and you hear the sound. Moving parts.

I always assumed the reason why you see the picture you're taking on a digicam's LCD is because the 'shutter' is all electronic and has no moving parts. If this assumption is tru, there should be no issues with wear-out.

regards,
Andy

I think the G3/G5 has a shutter. You can hear it open and closing when you turn off all your camera sounds. As for taking thousands of photos, in reponse to John_T, my G3 is only a few months old and I have over 6,000 photos on it. I can hit 50,000 pretty fast if I seriously get back into photography.

If the G3/5 had a shutter, you wouldn't see the feedback in the LCD (much like the D-EOS's), unless it was held open until you take the photo (then wounldn't there be too clicks?).
When the first consumer digicams came out in the mid nineties (remember 320x240 was hi-res!), it was discovered that the users didn't like the fact they didn't 'click' when you took a shot, so the manufacturers started to put mechanical clicking mechanisms in them to simulate the feel and sound of a shutter, perhaps this still holds true? I know my Sony didn't have a shutter, and it still clicked.

[pradeep1]

Pradeep,

Thanks for the link. I read that article with great interest a few weeks ago. It came up on another forum that I am a part of (Colorado Nature Photographer's Forum) where most of the photographer's use large format cameras. They felt that although image quality may be getting there, the camera is not able to give the same sense of perspective. I am wondering however if using a high quality DSLR with a shift-lens could help to overcome this. I am watching the digital development with great interest.

Thanks for your help. I the appreciate knowlege and awareness you bring to this forum. (Even if you are afraid of cold air :lol: ).

Malok

I was thinking about the shift perspective correction and using a high end dSLR for landscape photos. There was this bellows system for use with your dSLR that I saw in one of those British photography magazines. Basically it gives you all the control you normally have with a large format camera, but adapted to the SLR frame.

Let's see here....yes B&H has it. Maybe this could solve your problem:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=197081&is=REG

I've seen it cheaper at other places, by the way.

What do you think?

[Malok]

Pradeep,

That's probably what I am looking for. I think that such a device would give me the perspective that I need to compete on the landscape scene, but man is it expensive!!! :shock: I don't think I will be making such a purchase in the near future. I'll earn what I can with my G3 until there is a worthy DSLR to upgrade to which may be a couple years. At that point though, I will probably be looking at purchasing such a device.

Thanks for the suggestion!

Malok

[Roumen]

Malok,
If something happens to your camera you could sent it for a repair, so you could consider buying an exteded warranty or just to pay for such repair after the warranty period (example: in case of developing of hot pixels on the CCD or some other malfunction).
Regarding the CCD - you could test it in the beginning for hot pixels using some of the available programs. Some people reported developing hot pixels in the warranty period and they sent their cameras for warranty repair. CCD is an electronics chip and it should have very high reliability. I would worry more about the power supply subsystem, which is normally reported like the weakest link in every electronic device.
Regarding the shutter shots limitation - I know that some professional cameras give warranty for some shots number (example 250 000 shots) however it is for professional use. In this forum I have seen only one post for more than 90 000 shots using Pro90 (I have already more than 32000).

Greetings,
Roumen

[twl845]

:shock:
I hope my G3 lasts many years. I had an experience with my first digital camera, a Kodak dc4800. I paid full price in the beginning of $800, and bought a wide angle, zoom, and set of macro lenses for it, plus the adapter, which put my investment over $1,000. I wish I had that $1000 now to put towards a digital slr. (sigh) Well, I had the camera 3 years, and one day I was uploading pictures to my PC with the Kodak software, and an .exe file from the camera uploaded to the computer with no way to restore it. After that my camera wouldn't start or if it did, as soon as I touched a button it went off. I called Kodak and they said they would look at it for $150. Instead of getting it fixed I bought the G3 because it has shutter priority and the Kodak only had aperture priority, and I had an excuse to upgrade. Being a retiree, I can't efford to drop a grand on new toys every 3 years. As I said, this camera better last a looong time. Does anyone know if treating a camera gently will help make it last longer, or is it just a case of the electronics wearing out.

[Malok]

Regarding the life of digital cameras, I guess you can count either the number of shots or the number of drops. For me, it took just one drop to doom it.

Keep a firm grip on your cameras!

Malok

[Ballen Photo]

Regarding the life of digital cameras, I guess you can count either the number of shots or the number of drops. For me, it took just one drop to doom it.

Keep a firm grip on your cameras!

Malok

Erik? That sucks! A friend and fellow Canon shooter caught me shooting my 10D sans the strap and sternly chided me about that, stating that if I dropped it, that would be an expensive mistake. I was carrying the camera in a Tamrac belt holster at the time. I now always have the strap around my neck.
........Bruce

[Andy_T]

Another word of advice on the G series ....

when you have fixed the strap to the camera and adjusted the length to your comfort, make some stitches through the ends sewing it together.

Doesn't look nice to the eye ... but keeps the ends of the strap from slipping out of the little plastic pieces!

Luckily, this happened to me when I had the camera on a couch table 20 cm from the carpet floor - and not e.g. 1.5 meters over a concrete road.

[MackRoe]

In reference to the lifetime of high-end "prosumer" class digicams like the G3, wouldn't the CCD be the part that would most likely give up the ghost before most other parts; maybe the lens mechanism, too. I've seen posts by another Forum member who takes apart his cameras (I love disassembling stuff, too...but the challenge is getting everything back where it goes without having screws left over) and I wonder if this chap has found out whether or not the CCD can be replaced as a modular piece. Anyone have any skinny on this ?? :?: