Cameras Built to Last?

You have just bought a new top of the line, just out, camera. Congratulations.

My questions are how long do you intend to use it before upgrading to another camera? Will it be a life long companion? Is that realistic? Or are you in favor of upgrading to the next top of the line, just out, camera as soon as you can afford it? Is there a planned obsolescence with cameras? Camera manufacturers are presenting new and improved models every year.

How would you reply? Thank you for your thoughts on this?

Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada

There are at least two factors that will play a role with me.

1. Am I happy and does the current model satify my needs?
2. How significantly better are the features in the new model to make it my worthwhile?

In any case I personally think that one should keep a camera as long as possible.

Technically the shutter of top end dslr's is built to last around 150k-250k shots, but that's an arbitrary number, which may or may not ever happen. You have to do the math to figure how many years of shooting that adds up to for you.

But in the days of digital you are not going to shoot the same body forever because in say 10 years the megapixel norm may be something like 100mp, and your 24mp machine of today will be antiquated. Not to mention the dynamic range, sharpness, and color rendition will keep improving, and you're going to want to keep up. It's not like the days of film, where an old, manual camera, and a modern camera could produce the same results using the same film.

I tend to upgrade when there's a big enough megapixel jump to warrant spending the money. I've been shooting a 10mp Nikon body for 3 years, and the latest generation of 12 mp has not been a big enough incentive to upgrade. I'm waiting for them to release a non top end 24 mp, which according to speculation is due out soon.

I'm 26,857 images past the 100,000 actuation shutter life expectancy on my Nikon D200 and I will probably hang on to it even when I get a newer model for use as my back up camera and would then sell the D70 that has fewer actuations.

I'd use the newer camera as long as it suited my needs.

I don't know that any single camera could be my lifelong companion because I'd probably wear the shutters out.

I would only upgrade if I think the improvements have been made that I believe are worthy of upgrading to and that might improve my image quality.

We have no inclination to keep up with the Joneses, so our decision is based on two factors: when we absolutely wear out a camera, or when their antiquated function puts us at a disadvantage- whether a competitive disadvantage or some old feature is getting in the way of our uses.

Camera wear is certainly about shutter actuations, but we have never managed to wear out a shutter. We have had sensors "wear out." We're always on the look out for dead "pixels" and once enough appear to become obnoxious from the post-processing standpoint, the camera is gone. That's actually kind of an early warning system I think, because within 6 months to a year from the point they start to appear the sensor dies completely. We're also incredibly hard on our camera bodies, so other things are likely to get broken, and at some point it just makes more sense to replace than repair. Last year my wife ripped the hot shoe off a D2X for example, and relative to the price of a replacement the $450 repair was a good buy. If I did it again today, spending another $450 on a badly beat up body might not seem so reasonable.

"Obsolescence" comes more in the form of accessories than our needs. Advances in card technology (fat 16 to fat 32) killed off one generation for us, and improvements in buffer size/write speed are more compelling reasons than sensor size for us to change. Advances in high ISO performance will probably force us to relegate our current models to backup because we need that feature so much. And while that's a factor of sensor size, we don't have a single reason to upgrade to a bigger sensor for larger files.

I agree with most of the comments so far, but I'd add one more: it takes a while to really learn the feature set of a camera, and to use that feature set effectively. I don't want to miss photo opportunities or compromise chances while I fumble to find the ISO button or whatever. And then there are the little things that re unique to each camera; the way the "sweet" f-stop varies with different lenses, so example. So it takes pretty compelling new features to get me to budge.

I've set rules for myself because you can really go nuts trying to keep up with new technology (not only cameras). My rule for cameras has been that I must have a camera for 3 years before buying an upgrade. I currently have a Canon 5D (full frame) which is a wonderful camera, but still I'm dying for the 5D Mark II. But since I only bought the 5D last year, I won't let myself get the 5D Mark II until 2011. This probably won't make much sense to most people, but so far it's worked for me. I'm stuggling with this rule right now, however, because of the release of the 7D (1.6 crop). I'm starting to take just as many avian/wildlife photos as I do landscape/travel photos and I reallllllllllly want the 7D for the extra reach it will give me. So I've been trying to figure out how I can fit this camera into my "rule". I think I have by justifying that it is not an upgrade to my current camera, but a different camera for a different purpose. So basically, I will find a way to get whatever I want (if I can afford it) as long as I follow my rules (sort of).

The replies so far are logical and practical. We know when it is time to buy a new camera.

Carol, the 5D Mark II probably won't exist in 2011 or at least be difficult to find. And if I am wrong about that then there would be other models to tempt you away from the 5D Mark II if you did find it. In the meantime the cameras keep on upgrading, upgrading, upgrading...

Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada

Will: I tend to drive cars until the wheels fall off but expect I'll upgrade cameras more often. My first DSLR was the Sony A100 and I bought it as soon as it came out. I had (have) a fortune invested in Minolta lenses so when Sony took over Minolta I breathed a sigh of relief. I upgraded to the A700 a couple of years later even though the pixel count only increased to 12mp from 10mp. I did wait several months though before buying it to let the price come down. The factors that were important to me were dramatically better AF performance, ease of control, better high ISO performance and better build quality. Since most of my shooting is flora and macro I'm not in a huge hurry to upgrade to the full frame A900 or A850. If Sony comes out with a remarkably better APS-C model I might think about it but the A700 is perfect for my needs. I might even skip a generation. >=))>

I view cameras about the same as I view cars - they are a way to get a job done. If it doesn't do what I need it to, I start looking elsewhere.

But having said that, I find the need to upgrade with every new camera model to be rather amusing. I've kept my 20D long past the upgrades of the 30D and 40D, in part because I didn't see it as being enough of an upgrade to justify the cash, especially as I have paired it with a 5D. The 5D gave me far nicer files and is my primary body for everything but macro work. The 20D was my macro camera.

The 50D got me thinking about an upgrade and the introduction of the 7D pretty much clinches it, especially when coupled with the 20D's 70,000+ frames and its recent illness (which has gotten far worse - I'm not sure if it is worth sending to Canon now). I think there is enough to justify the purchase of the 7D, with the 5D also in the bag.

I also shoot 4x5 and film (gasp! ) That is about as far away from the digital megapixels arms race as you are going to get. Why? The images still beat 35mm based digital, there is control over focus and perspective that takes some work in PS (getting it right in camera is always better than in PS), and I just plain enjoy the process.

I like to upgrade when the new stuff offers tools that I need/want that my old camera can't provide. The new pro-sumer bodies certainly seem to provide better image quality than the top line pro bodies did just a few years ago. Now if I can afford it I will upgrade. If not I will wait.

I came very close to upgrading this fall, but decided not to for two reasons. First, my current Nikon works quite well, and meets my needs, though I wish it had a few more AF points. I refuse to get caught up in the mega pixel hype as the be all of photography. The best 20 MP camera, in the hands of a dummy will not help and more than a pocket job. Second, I recently attended a workshop put on by a photographer who has also published several books. His most recent purchase still uses the Nikon DX detector and replied 10-12 MP is plenty. All I want is a camera that offers aperture and shutter priority, as well as manual. I do not want or need all the auto settings or video. I firmly believe my camera budget is best spend on workshops, lenses, traveling to new places and software for processing the days shots.

"I firmly believe my camera budget is best spend on workshops, lenses, traveling to new places and software for processing the days shots. "

Wash your mouth out with soap, young man!!!!!

If I can produce quality, sharp, 36x24 prints from my Nikon D80 with 12 megapixels why should I care if a 100 megapixel model comes on the market.? I suppose if I wanted bigger prints...

I no longer follow the "good enough" line of thinking. A contradiction to the above statement. However, for 30 years I used a cheap 300 dollar camera (lens included) before I bought my Nikon D80. The upgrading has improved my work immensily.

Eventually I would have to move on to a new model. That being said, a camera can become like a friend and saying good bye could be difficult to do.

Bottom line, if it serves me well I will keep it a while longer.

Dead pixels? That is new to me, Hank. What does that do to your photos?

Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada

"Dead pixels? That is new to me, Hank. What does that do to your photos? "

They show up as single little bright spots in the image. Always in the same spot, and you have to clone them out. And their number starts to mount as time passes. We haven't experienced it with our Nikons yet, but I saw it in the one Canon I owned (D30?). It became routine with the Fujis we owned and was eventually their demise. That's three S2's and two S5's. Hopefully the issue has been completely solved in recent years, but I'm watching my images like a hawk. I'm at something over 50k shots on one D2X and 30k on the other. The first one is three years old now, so I'm watching. And watching.

Thank you, Hank. And I assume there is no cure for dead pixels.

Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada

There may be no cure for dead pixels but if you save up enough of them and rearrange them, you'll get a nice photo of a polar bear in a snowstorm hiding his black nose.

Oooooh, now there's an idea!

I have one dead pixel on my D200, it has been there for about 18 months. I haven't noticed any others form.

I had a Canon P & S that developed several before the first year, I sent it back to Canon before the warranty expired and they fixed it. Before the next year was over it developed more dead pixels. I gave it to my mother so she could take snap shots and she doesn't care about the dead pixels.

I would care if I had any more on the D200 than the one.

I like the polar bear in a snow storm idea though.

I would love to have a polar bear in a snow storm shot. But not from dead pixels.

Thank you all for your thoughts.

Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada