life span of a camera

Started Jan 16, 2009 | Discussions
Michael Fritzen Veteran Member • Posts: 5,477
Re: life span of a camera

Hi,

a little bit off but my impression over several years was that whenever some essential part of an electrical / etectronical equipment breaks it's around 30% of its new price to fix it by a professional servicing. Be it dishwasher, camera....what ever.

Maybe the servicing price calculation is based of some long term experience that this is the price range which the customers is willing to accept/pay for a repair versus buying something new.
--
Cheers,
Michael Fritzen

Mike Logan Regular Member • Posts: 498
Re: life span of a camera

Your lens will last a lifetime as my lenses have. I have lenses over 30 years old that are fabulous on my a-900. The body is mute and lives a short time. Just my 2cent comment
--

No pp or tweaks candid no makup 85mm 1.4g

Mike Logan Regular Member • Posts: 498
Re: life span of a camera

Sorry forgot to mention this is the oldest g Minolta .

Gregory King Veteran Member • Posts: 7,322
Re: Bad analogy

Barry Fitzgerald wrote:

Gregory King wrote:

Actually, in essence, you're saying 1930's film cameras are as good
as today's digital cameras, by extension. And you realize that is a
silly statement, I'm sure.

I dunno

Leave it to Barry to catch the film comparison.

In pure IQ terms..

Tech pan can outgun 24mp...

Yes, but even comparing film cameras, most every feature has been improved...weight, metering, focus, and even antishake on some platforms.

The bone of contention here is practicality, and for everything but large format, the infusion of technology has made newer cameras much more practical.

And expensive.

Greg

OP pramodaggrawal Regular Member • Posts: 279
Re: aww...

eeks!! Hi Jennifer,

There are many i know who are this big sentimental fools.

It all started with my trip an old street Taicang lu here in shanghai and an old japnese couple was taking pics with a Hasslebald like 50 year old camera [ not hasslebald but usage like it] and taking much better pics then my A100 and 50 1.7.

I thought practise will make me better than the Sony A9999 with two full frame sensors by 2050 and then a youngster will be starting this discussion again asking if his cam will survive time.

Also again the idea is to show my gradchildren, where the lovely pics they are seing, have come from.

Keep clicking!!

Regards
Pramod

OP pramodaggrawal Regular Member • Posts: 279
Re: life span of a camera

Hi Mike,

Lovely pic and that question mark look in her eyes.

I am going to save my Minolta 100-200 and 50 1.7 + if i manage too get a beercan here in shanghai somewhere..

Thanks for the boost!

Regards
Pramod

dukeblue91 Contributing Member • Posts: 620
Re: life span of a camera

I remember the panic when I have to use any version of windows!

EvilOne wrote:

Barry Fitzgerald wrote:
EvilOne wrote:
its like having a computer with 256 MB of memory.. it may

still work but its no longer practical.

It is if you run win 98

The problems come when trying to run more modern software, on an
older platform.

-- hide signature --

I remember the panic when everyone had to go from win 3.1 to 3.5
Bill
Capturing memories, one at a time.

Visit my Smug Mug Galleries at:
http://evil-twin.smugmug.com/

-- hide signature --

Thanks.
Jorg S.

If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?

WaltKnapp Forum Pro • Posts: 13,857
Re: aww...

pramodaggrawal wrote:

Also again the idea is to show my gradchildren, where the lovely pics
they are seing, have come from.

My a700 is my third DSLR. My first, the Minolta RD175. I used that for ten years until the 7D came out, it was still running just fine. But the software had not been updated in a long time and I was down to one desktop computer I kept on a older OS just to process it's raw files. It was not anything in the camera that stopped it, it was software.

The 7D was effectively stopped by Minolta quitting. I did not get as long out of it as the RD175, but it's also still in use as I set my son up with it and a selection of lenses split out of my kit. The first camera system he's personally owned though he's already a very good photographer from using my stuff. He may very well keep the 7D running until it's up over 10 years too.

My a700 is less than a year old. It's possible I might replace it with a newer model if something really desirable came out. Like maybe the backlit CMOS sensor or such. If I did my son would get a upgrade and have the a700. I have no need to do this, however.

It's easy to keep old cameras on the shelf. I still have my XD11 manual focus system in full working order. But the chances of using it again are virtually nil. Just won't bring enough money to be worth the trouble to sell. Same with the RD175.

Walt

Mike Logan Regular Member • Posts: 498
Re: life span of a camera

pramodaggrawal wrote:

Hi Mike,

Lovely pic and that question mark look in her eyes.
I am going to save my Minolta 100-200 and 50 1.7 + if i manage too
get a beercan here in shanghai somewhere..

Thanks for the boost!

Regards
Pramod

-pramodaggrawal -

Yes the 100-200 is one of my favorite lenses.Verry unobtrusive and low key. I love it for the compact size and the quality it produces. And for $50.00 dollars how could you go wrong. I will post some shots with this if you like

garykohs
garykohs Veteran Member • Posts: 4,593
Re: shutter replacement cost - $150-250

Well, I have over 60,000 on my A700. If the A800 rumors are true, though, the A700 may be my backup camera when it rolls over 100,000.

roweraay wrote:

The shutter replacement cost is around $150-250 and that is after
100,000 actuations. 100K actuations will by itself last you a LONG
while.

The key here is that technology will outpace the lifespan of these
cameras and the need to upgrade will be dictated not by the camera
failing but by the need to get the latest-and-greatest, x number of
years from now. The camera itself will keep on ticking, if you are
satisfied with its output.

 garykohs's gear list:garykohs's gear list
Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Canon EOS-1D X Sony a99 II Sony a9 Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM +16 more
tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 35,793
Still don't agree

My whole point was with photography the subjects don't change. If a camera took a great picture of a subject 40 years ago it will today. My Minolta SRT 101 purchased in 1970 will take just as good (some would argue better) photos as any Full Frame camera made today. Computers today can do things impossible only 10 years ago. With cameras new tech is for convenience more than better IQ. I can live without the convenience. Any improvements in IQ are marginal at best and mostly at high iso's. I'm sticking with my A100 until it breaks because it does everything I want it to.

I used to upgrade computers every 4 years or so although I do have to admit my present Dell is 4 years old and still does everything a new computer does just as well. Maybe PC tech has reached a point where we can use them until they break too.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD Sony RX10 III +10 more
tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 35,793
Re: Bad analogy

Gregory King wrote:

Yes, but even comparing film cameras, most every feature has been
improved...weight, metering, focus, and even antishake on some
platforms.

The bone of contention here is practicality, and for everything but
large format, the infusion of technology has made newer cameras much
more practical.

But they don't take better pictures. New computers can run better software. Those of us who grew up with manual film cameras learned how to work around the limitations of manually setting focus, aperture & shutter speed. The skills we gained allowed us to do pretty much anything possible with digital. Digital has just made me lazy. When I got my first SLR I was happy just to have a meter built into the camera. (yes I used to use hand held meters. We also got very skillful at looking at lighting conditions and adjusting exposure without a meter)

-- hide signature --

Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD Sony RX10 III +10 more
Gregory King Veteran Member • Posts: 7,322
Re: Bad analogy

tbcass wrote:

The bone of contention here is practicality, and for everything but
large format, the infusion of technology has made newer cameras much
more practical.

But they don't take better pictures.

Bill said "practical". So did I. You can call that lazy if you want.

Greg

OP pramodaggrawal Regular Member • Posts: 279
Re: life span of a camera

Hi Mike

i want to see min 100-200 shots.. all the potraits i took are from same lense in my photo page

http://pramodaggrawal.smugmug.com/gallery/6338049_rTt5n#400008036_qbDSR

Thanks

Regards
Pramod

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads