Mirrorless sensors deteriorate faster than DSLR?

[f1point4andbethere]

I've read a few discussions and articles about camera sensors deteriorating over time, or more specifically the CFA component gradually fades. There is a general consensus that yes, this does occur, but is dependant on a few factors; original durability and materials used, age, and possibly most importantly the collective amount of exposure. Like window tints on a car that slowly fade and you don't notice until you roll down the window and see that little strip at the top that's normally covered by the window seal and hasn't faded like the rest of the window. The big takeaway was that is happens so slowly, that the average life of a camera would likely not net any significant fading, which could meant 20 years before anything noticeable...

But, all of these discussions and articles are older and based on DSLR usage. A DSLR sensor would see the tiniest fraction of a sliver of exposure during general usage compared to a mirrorless. If exposure of the sensor is the main driver of CFA fading, then would that not dramatically expedite the aging of a sensor in a mirrorless vs a DSLR?

There doesn't seem to be much out there specifically updated to consider mirrorless, but I'm wondering if anyone here has any insight?

 

[justmeMN]

f1point4andbethere wrote: If exposure of the sensor is the main driver of CFA fading, then would that not dramatically expedite the aging of a sensor in a mirrorless vs a DSLR?

In between clicks, aren't both mirrorless and DSLR sensors covered by a shutter?

 

[sybersitizen]

f1point4andbethere wrote: If exposure of the sensor is the main driver of CFA fading, then would that not dramatically expedite the aging of a sensor in a mirrorless vs a DSLR?

In between clicks, aren't both mirrorless and DSLR sensors covered by a shutter?

Mirrorless sensors can't be covered by a shutter while you're composing a shot. That's the difference.

Regardless, I have no reason to regard 'deterioration' of sensors as a concern.

 

[f1point4andbethere]

f1point4andbethere wrote: If exposure of the sensor is the main driver of CFA fading, then would that not dramatically expedite the aging of a sensor in a mirrorless vs a DSLR?

In between clicks, aren't both mirrorless and DSLR sensors covered by a shutter?

No not at all. A mirrorless sensor is exposed literally the entire time it's in use, without a body cap or lens cap attached.

 

[Phil A Martin]

I've read a few discussions and articles about camera sensors deteriorating over time, or more specifically the CFA component gradually fades. There is a general consensus that yes, this does occur, but is dependant on a few factors; original durability and materials used, age, and possibly most importantly the collective amount of exposure. Like window tints on a car that slowly fade and you don't notice until you roll down the window and see that little strip at the top that's normally covered by the window seal and hasn't faded like the rest of the window. The big takeaway was that is happens so slowly, that the average life of a camera would likely not net any significant fading, which could meant 20 years before anything noticeable...

But, all of these discussions and articles are older and based on DSLR usage. A DSLR sensor would see the tiniest fraction of a sliver of exposure during general usage compared to a mirrorless. If exposure of the sensor is the main driver of CFA fading, then would that not dramatically expedite the aging of a sensor in a mirrorless vs a DSLR?

There doesn't seem to be much out there specifically updated to consider mirrorless, but I'm wondering if anyone here has any insight?

I must admit I've not heard of this before but it is certainly interesting and makes me relieved that I use DSLRs.

 

[Phil A Martin]

f1point4andbethere wrote: If exposure of the sensor is the main driver of CFA fading, then would that not dramatically expedite the aging of a sensor in a mirrorless vs a DSLR?

In between clicks, aren't both mirrorless and DSLR sensors covered by a shutter?

No not at all. A mirrorless sensor is exposed literally the entire time it's in use, without a body cap or lens cap attached.

Yes obviously if you think about it, how else would you see the image in the viewfinder?

 

[MediaArchivist]

We have ~50 years of data on video cameras, has this phenomenon been noticed for those cameras?

 

[justmeMN]

f1point4andbethere wrote: If exposure of the sensor is the main driver of CFA fading, then would that not dramatically expedite the aging of a sensor in a mirrorless vs a DSLR?

In between clicks, aren't both mirrorless and DSLR sensors covered by a shutter?

Mirrorless sensors can't be covered by a shutter while you're composing a shot. That's the difference.

D'oh! I forgot about the obvious.

 

[f1point4andbethere]

We have ~50 years of data on video cameras, has this phenomenon been noticed for those cameras?

I didn't think of that, good catch.

Yeah they do degrade, sometimes to the point of needing replacing. Especially true for security cameras, where the sensor can deteriorate so much that it becomes basically useless.

I would think a mirrorless camera wouldn't see anywhere near that type of constant exposure, but image quality is much more important with a stills camera. I would think one would not tolerate as much image deterioration in a mirrorless camera vs a security camera.

 

[sportyaccordy]

We have ~50 years of data on video cameras, has this phenomenon been noticed for those cameras?

Why look into that, when we can just rely on speculation and FUD?

 

[f1point4andbethere]

We have ~50 years of data on video cameras, has this phenomenon been noticed for those cameras?

Why look into that, when we can just rely on speculation and FUD?

 

[sportyaccordy]

We have ~50 years of data on video cameras, has this phenomenon been noticed for those cameras?

Why look into that, when we can just rely on speculation and FUD?

Not a helpful comment at all.

OK, that was a bit crass. But mirrorless digital cameras are older than DSLRs. If this were an issue, we would have heard about it by now. Just seems like you're looking for something to worry about.

 

[DoctorCamel]

Why look into that, when we can just rely on speculation and FUD?

Russia meddling for sure.

 

[Tony Bologna]

The back lighting (bulbs) in our monitors and televisions slowly deteriorate too but like almost all electronics, obsolescence (planned or not) usually prevent this from being an issue. I certainly won't be losing any sleep over it.

 

[robgendreau]

I can't imagine this being an issue except for cameras, like security cameras, that are in almost constant use.

For our purposes I'd bet shutters will expire before the sensor. Or other electronic components. Just got rid of some film cameras with shot metering circuitry, for example. So I'd think parts of digitals would similarly fail faster than the sensor itself.

 

[mcslsk]

I don't have any camera in regular use that is older than 2 years.

 

[SrMi]

I've read a few discussions and articles about camera sensors deteriorating over time, or more specifically the CFA component gradually fades. There is a general consensus that yes, this does occur, but is dependant on a few factors; original durability and materials used, age, and possibly most importantly the collective amount of exposure. Like window tints on a car that slowly fade and you don't notice until you roll down the window and see that little strip at the top that's normally covered by the window seal and hasn't faded like the rest of the window. The big takeaway was that is happens so slowly, that the average life of a camera would likely not net any significant fading, which could meant 20 years before anything noticeable...

But, all of these discussions and articles are older and based on DSLR usage. A DSLR sensor would see the tiniest fraction of a sliver of exposure during general usage compared to a mirrorless. If exposure of the sensor is the main driver of CFA fading, then would that not dramatically expedite the aging of a sensor in a mirrorless vs a DSLR?

There doesn't seem to be much out there specifically updated to consider mirrorless, but I'm wondering if anyone here has any insight?

Can you provide links to the discussions and articles? Thanks!

I have not heard yet of a camera failing because of sensor deterioration due to CFA fading.

 

[EmmaNems]

So on a mirrorless digital, does the shutter have to close and then open for the appropriate shutter speed for exposure?

Does that make for a longer shutter delay than a DSLR would have?

Asking for a friend. I shoot film. My DSLR is rotting in storage.

 

[Gato Amarillo]

So on a mirrorless digital, does the shutter have to close and then open for the appropriate shutter speed for exposure?

In older models yes. Most current models also have the option to use "electronic first curtain" where the shutter stays open at the start of the exposure but closes to end the exposure. Plus for some purposes they can use full electronic shutter so the mechanical shutter is not used at all, but this does not work with flash and can have problems with moving subjects.

Does that make for a longer shutter delay than a DSLR would have?

Possibly, but I don't have definitive numbers.

Asking for a friend. I shoot film. My DSLR is rotting in storage.

 

[EXX]

Yes.

If you use full mechanical shutter, you will have the following sequence:

1. Live view: shutter is open
2. Take picture
3. Shutter first curtain closes
4. Exposure starts
5. Shutter first curtain opens
6. Shutter second curtain closes
7. Exposure ends
8. Shutter second curtain opens
9. Back to live view

You will actually hear 2 clicks from the shutter.

If electronic first curtain shutter is used, you get this:

1. Live view: shutter is open
2. Take picture
3. Exposure starts
4. Shutter first curtain "opens" using electronic shutter.
5. Shutter second curtain closes
6. Exposure ends
7. Shutter second curtain opens
8. Back to live view

Now you will hear only 1 click from the shutter.