All the silliness about MILC needs to end

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
T3
T3
Forum ProPosts: 17,654
Like?
Re: mechanical vs electronic solid-state?
In reply to ShawnHoke, 5 months ago

ShawnHoke wrote:

T3 wrote:

LOLOLOLOL. I still remember decades ago, many old-time manual camera users warned that the "newer" cameras with top-plate monochrome LCDs were were vulnerable because those electronic LCD's would fail, fade, crack, etc. "All those electronic circuits won't be running in a few years", they claimed!

The reality is that today's electronic circuits are extremely long-lived. And because today's cameras are being made with fewer moving parts, today's cameras actually have longer lives than mechanical cameras from decades ago. If you shot the exact same number of images through an SLR from the 80's as you did on any of today's modern DSLRs (let's say 150,000 images), the 80's SLR is going to fail first. Absolutely. There are simply many more moving parts in an old 80's film SLR. And those parts are prone to wear and tear. But aside from the reflex mirror and shutter, today's DSLRs are primarily solid-state devices with no moving parts. They will last much, much longer.

Hmm, I'm still shooting an Olympus OM-1 film SLR today. It was passed on to me by my father-in-law. This camera took tens of thousands of photos during the 70s and 80s. He then gave it to my wife who used it during her teen years and in high school photo classes/yearbook shooting. It then sat in a closet for several years until I resurrected it. I've run hundreds of rolls of film through it. This camera is now almost 45 years old and it still functions perfectly. I can still choose from dozens of compact and sharp Zuiko lenses for it. Just bought a great 28mm prime at B&H for $65 a few months ago.

Count yourself as lucky. Camera repair shops used to do a good business repairing broken springs, cogs, gears, film advance mechanisms, etc, on film cameras. Today's cameras don't have any of those components anymore. As for shooting "tens of thousands of photos during the 70's and 80's", whatever the actual number might be, it's probably easily dwarfed by the number of photos people shoot on today's digital cameras. Changing a roll of film every 36 shots was definitely a physical and mental reminder of how many shots we were shooting (not to mention a reminder of the cost of those shots), which was generally quite effective in limiting the number of images we used to shoot. Heck, just the limitation on how much film you could physically carry with you at any given time was an effective limiter of how many images you could shoot!

These days, if you travel, it's not uncommon for avid photographers to come home with several thousand images. Let's say that number is 5,000 images. Well, that's equivalent to newly 140 rolls of film! Enough to fill up a small suitcase. While it's not uncommon for me to shoot that many images these days, I never recall ever shooting that many rolls of film back in the film days. So what's my point? My point is that people actually shot a lot fewer images on their film cameras than they think they did, which has allowed a lot of these old bodies to last quite a long time. If people shot as many images on them as we do on today's digital cameras, there's just no way they can hold up as well or as long as today's digital cameras. Too much wear and tear of all those mechanical parts! How can these cameras possibly compete, durability-wise, with cameras that don't have moving parts?! That's just a physical reality.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow