The Average Life Expectancy Of A Dig-Cam?

[Barry Nelson]

Hey All,

Does anyone know the answer to this question? I know it probably varies from camera maker to camera maker but after seeing more and more topics on here lately about people sending their Fuji cameras going to the service center for repair, it made me think about the times I sent my 35mm cameras in for for repair, which was none, I did my own cleaning and nothing mechanical ever broke on them. I'm thinking it might be because we use digital cameras more than we did our old film cameras since we don't have to buy film and processing, thus we put more wear and tear on them or could be the electronics involved?

Just Curious
Barry
--
'Kicking Back With My s8000FD' & s700
Cameras Make Pictures, People Create Them

 

[Captain Marvel]

Heat can certainly shorten the life. Bumping it and dropping it can end its life prematurely.

On the other hand, if you are careful with it and keep it from harsh environments, it can last and last.

I just bought an 8 year old Canon S20 on eBay. I paid $10.50 for it. Why did I buy an old camera? Because it's 3 megapixels are pretty clean megapixels. I used to have an S10 years ago. I looked for an S10 but found an S20. It was well-cared for and is still in good condition today.

This image with the Canon



And this with my Fuji F31fd



--

Currently shooting: Canon S20 (8 year old 3 megapixel camera), Sony DSC-V1, Sony DSC-H5, FujiFilm F31fd (reconditioned), Canon HG10 High Definition camcorder, Samsung G600 (5 megapixel cell phone).

See more of my photos at http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v491/Captain_Marvel/OOBs/

Raised in Tucson, Arizona, now living near Seattle.

 

[coaldust01]

The canon's pic look's better than the F31

 

[durk578481]

If you are looking for 'years of service' I think it may well be limited to only a few years in normal use (3-5 years). This probably due to materials used, not to the lack of moving parts, which would --all other variables being equal- normally determine the life expectancy, I think. So a SLR would have the longest life, a DSLR probably (much?) shorter due to materals used (and how they are used: optimised for profit/costs, not dimensioned for quality), and a P&S the shortest.

But if ypu are looking for 'number of pictures' you can take with a digicam, the lack of moving parts might play a reverse role. My S9100's counter is at 25000 pictures (its been 'round' twice). I do not know if a SLR or DSLR can get that mileage without a major overhaul.
Does anybody have (other) empiracle figures?

 

[GAREB]

Always have read on various forums 5 years is pretty much the norm, my S5500 is going on 5 years now, been dropped a few times, in all kinds of weather and conditions, even had salt water splashed on it (yes I cleaned it) and the camera is still going strong, but the the S5500 is one of Fuji's best cameras. This camera can tell some stories.
JD

 

[RobboW]

I would say, with a much loved camera, maybe 5 years or less before you feel you need to update. My reality is that I shoot many hundreds percent more images with digital than I did with film so the digital works much harder than film ever would have. It is not an even comparison. 5 years is a long time in digital land. Film just was . Can't go back. It is like a PC. As long as it keeps you happy and works properly, you will keep using it. Once you feel it has well past the use by date, you will gladly drop it like a hot rock : ).
--
Cheers, Rob : ) Fujifilm s9600 lovin' it!

 

[Paul De Bra]

I have not yet had any digital camera for 5 years. The first one was stolen during a burglary, after just over 1 year. The second one (Coolpix 950) was used by me intensively for 3 years, then sparingly for another year, and then I gave it away when it was still going strong. I also have the Canon DRebel/300D and that has been in for repair (common mirror pin breaking off) and for focus adjustment (from which it returned much worse than how it went in). I'm going to replace it soon, after 4 years of heavy use. I would expect it to last another year or so if not replaced. So yeah, 5 years max sounds reasonable.

Hey All,
Does anyone know the answer to this question? I know it probably
varies from camera maker to camera maker but after seeing more and
more topics on here lately about people sending their Fuji cameras
going to the service center for repair, it made me think about the
times I sent my 35mm cameras in for for repair, which was none, I did
my own cleaning and nothing mechanical ever broke on them. I'm
thinking it might be because we use digital cameras more than we did
our old film cameras since we don't have to buy film and processing,
thus we put more wear and tear on them or could be the electronics
involved?

Just Curious
Barry
--
'Kicking Back With My s8000FD' & s700
Cameras Make Pictures, People Create Them

--

Slowly learning to use the DRebel (only around 32.000 shots) and now also the Fuji E900.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ .

 

[jkirk@oz]

... thus we put more wear and tear on them or could be the electronics involved?

There are a few factors involved here -

YES, they are definitely built to a much poorer standard, and in some cases I'd nearly say criminal. I've seen many terribly designed parts in 10 yrs+ of opening up Digitals.

Next major problem is parts ! That is IF you can get them after a few years, or at a reasonable price ! I have a box full of dead PCBs with component level faults that are just not worth attempting to fix.

Forget about taking them to a service company. Around here they charge up to $80+ an hour, for a cammie you can buy on ebay for say $150

I've JUST bought 5x S7000s, all in good condition, all cheap ~$50-60 and ALL with the dreaded dead CCD. It's going to be fun next week when I try to convince Fuji to replace the CCDs FREE !! I'll see then how much they really care then

Basically, they are a throw away item now. Like cell phones, MP3 players etc

I'd agree with others that IF you get 5-7+ years out of them, with CONSTANT use, you're doing GREAT, You beat the odds. IF you treat them nice and don't have any accidents, there's actually NO reason not to get 20 yrs ++ of life.

There are no parts specifically that will wear out, except for bad design issues etc.

A friend still uses her MX2900, now that was a well built Fuji !!

The early DSLRs were just as pathetic, but a heck of a lot better built now. But AGAIN, there are a LOT of different specialty parts used, and they can charge a lot more, so once again a minor fault could render the cammie worthless.

I've asked Phil for years to try to request EOL / serviceability figures, but I guess no-one wants to know.
JKirk

 

[Nev Cross]

In the last two years I've probably taken more shots with my S9500 than with my Pentax slr over the previous twenty years.

I think you have to rate a camera's life expectancy in units of usage rather than age.
--

When a man speaks at sea where no woman can hear, is he still wrong?

 

[gail]

My very first digital camera, the FujiFilm Finepix 1400 that came to market eight years ago, is still going strong. I used it intensely for two years, gave it to my daughter, then four years ago when she got a new camera, I sent the 1400 to a then 4 year old boy of a friend in Ireland. He still uses it!

http://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-FinePix-1400-Digital-Optical/dp/B00004TH2W

If a camera isn't abused, it can last a long time. In all likelihood, you'll want a new digital camera for technical advances long before the camera breaks. There are exceptions of course.

If a compact digital camera is in need of repair, even if the cost is a lot less than buying a new one, Consumer Reports suggests not repairing it if it's four years or older. Don't think this applies to expensive, well made advanced digital cameras and DSLRs.

--
gail ~ http://www.pbase.com/gailb

My digital camera BLOGs: Fuji F20; Pany FZ18 & TZ3; Canon S2, SD700 & A570; Nikon 5400
http://www.digicamhelp.com/camera-logs/index.php