How long will my DSLR last (1 Viewer)

[markho]

My Dad has an old Russian Zenith 35m SLR , which still takes perfectly good pictures. he brought it in 1973 , its 33 yeras old and in good working order. My camera is a Nikon D50 and every time I pick up a camera magazine there seems to be a review or advert for the latest model.trying to persuade me to upgrade, why . Do they not expect these camera's to last. Exactly how long do the big companies like Cannon , Nikon etc expect a Digital SLR or Compact to last. Will I like my Dad , still be able to use my D50 in 33 years time.

 

[SMC2002]

Marko,
I wouldn't count on being able to use your D50, 30+ years from now. Your Dad's old camera is probably 95% mechanical. Keep it fairly clean and it will work for a long time. Your D50 is likely 95% electronic. The mirror and shutter action are mechanical, but just about everything else is electronic. Electronics are reliable, but not as reliable as purly mechanical devices. Besides, who knows if there will even be a way to view today's RAW and jpg files in the future?....lol

CF cards will likely hold 10 terabytes (one card and you're good for life ;-) Most folks will be shooting with the newer style camera that use the shooters eyes as a lens...lol

Just kidding on most of this. But I believe the built in obsolence of today's Dslrs is probably like 5-8 years or so. Depending on how heavily you use the camera. Anything more than that is gravy, IMO.


Steve

 

[RAH]

I agree that it is very nice that film cameras from decades ago are still usable, but I think that you shouldn't think of digital imaging in the same way. The technology is simply moving too fast. In 10 years, you'll almost certainly be able to buy a 15 or 20MP DSLR for say $300. Under these conditions, you probably woudn't want to use an old D50. Plus, you'd probably have a hard time finding memory cards for it, because they stopped selling them 4 years ago. This is simply not the same thing as film.

 

[Kevin]

I agree that it is very nice that film cameras from decades ago are still usable, but I think that you shouldn't think of digital imaging in the same way. The technology is simply moving too fast. In 10 years, you'll almost certainly be able to buy a 15 or 20MP DSLR for say $300. Under these conditions, you probably woudn't want to use an old D50. Plus, you'd probably have a hard time finding memory cards for it, because they stopped selling them 4 years ago. This is simply not the same thing as film.

Which is why when I bought my Canon EOS 350D instead of the highly attractive, but more expensive 30D, I did it without any regret.

Why spend the extra money - when I'd only have to replace it in a rediculously short amount of time. And when I do, I'm sure the new model will have everything on it that the more expensive one has today. Ah - the virture of patience!

 

[Keith Reeder]

Hi Kevin,

nobody forces us to upgrade when a new model comes out, remember.

I am very happy with my 30D. I like the spot metering, the ergonomics and handling, the 5 fps, the large buffer, the build quality, the 100,1000 actuation-rated shutter - all things missing from the 350D - and fully expect to be using it 5 years or more from now.

In that time, it will be doing its thing in a way which I really like, and in a way the 350D can't.

If I had bought a 350D I would be looking to upgrade at the earliest opportunity: but the 30D and I will be together for a good long while yet.

So that's why I spent the extra money, and it was worth every penny to me - especially as the money I'd have saved buying the 350D wouldn't have improved my lens choice at all.

In my view, if you're always holding off for "the next big thing" which is supposedly just round the corner, you'll never buy anything, because there's always something new just round the corner.

 

[Leif]

My camera is a Nikon D50 and every time I pick up a camera magazine there seems to be a review or advert for the latest model.trying to persuade me to upgrade, why . Do they not expect these camera's to last. Exactly how long do the big companies like Cannon , Nikon etc expect a Digital SLR or Compact to last. Will I like my Dad , still be able to use my D50 in 33 years time.

Photo-journalists make a living from writing, so they are always searching for things to write about, and trying to convince you that they have something important to say. Reviewing cameras is one way to earn a penny for scribbling, and they often get carried away by the latest whizz bang widgits. Anyway they usually haven't spent any money on the toy, and they get to play with it for a week or two.

IMO the latest crop of consumer digital SLR cameras are all most of us will need. In fact for some of us they are more than we need. But that won;t stop many of us upgrading to the latest whizz bang wotsit.

 

[RAH]

IMO the latest crop of consumer digital SLR cameras are all most of us will need. In fact for some of us they are more than we need. But that won;t stop many of us upgrading to the latest whizz bang wotsit.

Leif, I agree with you in the short term - a few years. But in the long term which is what this question is really about, digital photography is hardly what you'd call a mature technology.

Even the most cynical person who doesn't believe any of the hype from the camera manufacturers can fail to notice that they really do make tremendous improvements over time. Otherwise, we'd still be using those Sony Mavicas that wrote 640x480 images on a floppy. It wasn't all that long ago that those were very popular. Yes, they still do the job, but when you can buy a 4MP camera for $150, few folks use them.

Do you really doubt that in 10 years there will be very affordable 15 - 20 MP cameras, with improvements on all the feautres of current models? And if they do exist, why would you continue to use an 8MP one, which probably focuses slower, writes slower, starts slower, and has much worse noise?

 

[Keith Reeder]

I don't think Leif would doubt that the technology will move on apace, RAH - but I don't think that's the point he makes.

The fact is that regardless of what a given camera can do - now, or in a few years' time - there will always be a limit to how effectively it can be presented, or how it can be used by the viewer's eyes and brain.

So let's assume that in ten years there will be 20mp sensors that can deliver low noise, accurate images: what are we to do with all that extra image information?

I don't now, nor will I ever, want to print 5 foot wide images: and I doubt that my computer monitor in 2016 will take up an entire wall.

My point is that in ten years, most of us will still be browsing photo galleries online in much the way we do now; and that our photo printing requirements will continue to be much as they are now.

So, to pick up Leif's point: what we need and what we might buy - simply because it is available - are likely to be two entirely different things.

 

[Adey Baker]

If you look at a recent issue of 'Amateur Photographer' you'll see an article on Zenith cameras and notice how many different models have been made over the years - so they wanted you to upgrade all the time as well! It's not exclusive to digital cameras.

Even the legendary Leicas, which are generally much better made than Zeniths, appeared in many different models from the basic original up to the 111G in screw-thread and then they started all over again with bayonet mount models!

 

[greypoint]

I would have thought that to some degree it's more a case of how long the cameras gives trouble free use and the cost of any repairs. For someone who does'nt take 1000s of shots and is lucky enough to buy a reliable camera that does'nt go wrong, then there's no need to upgrade if the current models are sufficient. The crunch comes when the camera goes wrong after 2/3/4/5 years and the cost of repairs balanced against the cost of buying a new model effectively writes the camera off - for the extra you may as well get a new camera with a guarantee. Adding the cost of film and processing to an SLR still makes the DSLR cheaper even if it's worthless after a few years.

 

[Leif]

Keith has done an admirable job of putting across my point. I think that digital is starting to mature and today a Nikon D200 is matching and in many if not most respects exceeding 100 ASA slide film. I think the same is true of the Canon 30D and the Sony A100.

Aren't Leica bought by collectors?

Leif

 

[Adey Baker]

Aren't Leica bought by collectors?

Leif

They are now! But they used to introduce new models just to incorporate the 'latest' feature which wasn't available on the earlier version, just as happens now when the 6Mp is superceded by the 8Mp or 10Mp version, etc

 

[RAH]

So let's assume that in ten years there will be 20mp sensors that can deliver low noise, accurate images: what are we to do with all that extra image information?

I don't now, nor will I ever, want to print 5 foot wide images: and I doubt that my computer monitor in 2016 will take up an entire wall.

Yup, I agree with you and Leif, but see, what I'm thinking is that perhaps in say 10 years you'll be able to take a picture of a bird where the bird isn't even close to filling the frame. You then crop it down so it is filling the frame, and you still have a SHARP picture that you can print at say 12x16. Now, wouldn't that be cool! It would eliminate the need for big zoom lenses for example, and image stabilization too. I'm just blue-skying here, but I think the way we are currently thinking about photography may be in for a radical change in the somewhat near future.

(And yes, what I just described might take some of the fun out of it.)

 

[Adey Baker]

Yup, I agree with you and Leif, but see, what I'm thinking is that perhaps in say 10 years you'll be able to take a picture of a bird where the bird isn't even close to filling the frame. You then crop it down so it is filling the frame, and you still have a SHARP picture that you can print at say 12x16. Now, wouldn't that be cool! It would eliminate the need for big zoom lenses for example, and image stabilization too. I'm just blue-skying here, but I think the way we are currently thinking about photography may be in for a radical change in the somewhat near future.

(And yes, what I just described might take some of the fun out of it.)

Two major problems to overcome - if the bird is small because it's some distance away, then atmospheric haze will cause degradation of the image on most days whatever the camera/lens quality.

Secondly, diffraction effects limit the amount of enlargement possible before the image looks unsharp.

Still we can all dream and you never know what digital effects might be possible in the future...

 

[RAH]

Two major problems to overcome - if the bird is small because it's some distance away, then atmospheric haze will cause degradation of the image on most days whatever the camera/lens quality.

Secondly, diffraction effects limit the amount of enlargement possible before the image looks unsharp.

Still we can all dream and you never know what digital effects might be possible in the future...

Yes, that's why I emphasized the word SHARP. I'm not talking about just a higher-res version of what is possible now (e.g. crop an 8MP picture down to say 640x480 to fill the frame with the bird). We shouldn't assume that optics will remain static, and even if they do, with enough digital processing power and resolution, radical things are possible.

 

[Leif]

Yes, that's why I emphasized the word SHARP. I'm not talking about just a higher-res version of what is possible now (e.g. crop an 8MP picture down to say 640x480 to fill the frame with the bird). We shouldn't assume that optics will remain static, and even if they do, with enough digital processing power and resolution, radical things are possible.

Adey Baker is correct as diffraction is a fundamental characteristic of classical and quantum optics, which means that you cannot simply enlarge an image ad infinitum. Crudely put, the very fact of passing light through an aperture imposes a limit on the resolution. (The wave theory of light can be used to prove this. I'm sure the quantum theory of light also reaches the same conclusion though I cannot recall the reasoning.) This means that there is a limit to the information delivered by a lens, and current APS sensors are reaching and sometimes exceeding that limit. Once so called full frame reaches about 20MP it will also be at the limit. Note that this assume that you use the best lenses, stopped down one or two stops to get the best performance over the frame. In practice most lenses do not perform at the diffraction limit unless stopped down quite a lot.

Of course you can argue that more MP might be good because it reduces artifacts and the need to sharpen, but it also increases file sizes and hence storage requirements.

However, there are some very blue sky optical theories, which for example allow a light microscope to resolve detail smaller than the wavelength of light, or allow an object to disappear (c.f. Star Trek cloaking devices). So in 100 years time we might have some very exotic cameras, but don't expect them to use conventional lenses. Oh, and by then we'll all be nibbling the daisies by the roots.

Leif

 

[RAH]

Yeah, I agree that optical improvements will definitely be the slowest (being physical in nature); mosty I'm looking for sensor resolution and clarity improvements and especially digital image processing techniques. Another thread mentions one new idea:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=66023

 

[Mickymouse]

There was an item in New Scientist a while ago about a new development for surveillance cameras, I can't remember the details but the essence of it was that the information was stored in such a way that when the image was uploaded to the PC you could apply the focusing there, foreground background or anywhere in between, early days yet but where is that going to lead?

Mick

 

[Alastair Rae]

The main reason that old film SLRs still work is their simplicity and the fact that the 35mm film format lasted so long. But in a few years time you'll have difficulty finding fresh film stock.

I'm not sure we'll still be using DSLRs in 30 years time. That clunky mirror is so last century - the future will be high quality electronic view finders. But lenses won't change that much so the basic professional camera will still look much like an SLR.