Camera Reviews

[tirediron]

Well, because of the fast changing technology, cameras have become consummable. The thinking of the manufacturers is that the camera will be obsolete before 300,000 cycles and for pros, it is just a business expense anyway.

Tegan

True, but I think for most, it's a business expense because it has to be from the point of view of built-in obsolesence. You can bet the Life reporter from the 50s didn't buy a new Speed-Graphic every 18 months. A pro body should be something that is purchased and usable for a LONG time. Take a look at lenses; even Nikon's gold-ring stuff is only rated for 10 years. That is sad.

[Travis]

True, but I think for most, it's a business expense because it has to be from the point of view of built-in obsolesence. You can bet the Life reporter from the 50s didn't buy a new Speed-Graphic every 18 months. A pro body should be something that is purchased and usable for a LONG time. Take a look at lenses; even Nikon's gold-ring stuff is only rated for 10 years. That is sad.

I dunno.... school me if I'm wrong.... but I think 300,000 cycles would take a lot longer to achieve on film than with digital format.... simply for the sake of changing film, cost of development etc I don't think film photographers (which many of you were/are) were as careless with their shutter release as we digital shooters are. This very reason might contribute to perceived durability among film bodies simply for their lessened use. I am speaking without knowing so tell me if I am right or wrong.

Plus if you really wanna get picky about it.... the cycle rating is typically for the shutter that can be replace for a couple of hundred bucks.... just like getting brakes for your car.... if you cared to keep your body you could simply pay to maintain it... however, at the rate this technology is moving I wouldn't see this as desirable...

[tegan]

Good points, Travis. I totally agree.

Tegan

[tirediron]

I dunno.... school me if I'm wrong.... but I think 300,000 cycles would take a lot longer to achieve on film than with digital format.... simply for the sake of changing film, cost of development etc I don't think film photographers (which many of you were/are) were as careless with their shutter release as we digital shooters are. This very reason might contribute to perceived durability among film bodies simply for their lessened use. I am speaking without knowing so tell me if I am right or wrong.

Plus if you really wanna get picky about it.... the cycle rating is typically for the shutter that can be replace for a couple of hundred bucks.... just like getting brakes for your car.... if you cared to keep your body you could simply pay to maintain it... however, at the rate this technology is moving I wouldn't see this as desirable...

Very true.

I understand your points, I just don't think it's fair of the manufacturer to build in that degree of planned obselescence on a $5000.00 item.

[tegan]

Very true.

I understand your points, I just don't think it's fair of the manufacturer to build in that degree of planned obselescence on a $5000.00 item.

I agree, however I had the shutter of a good film camera go in Mexico after probably less than 100,000 cycles. The reason according to the camera repair expert was largely due to the fact that it was plastic rather than metal.

My point is that film cameras were not necessarily better or more reliable as the push came for lighter bodies and lenses.

Tegan

[tirediron]

I agree, however I had the shutter of a good film camera go in Mexico after probably less than 100,000 cycles. The reason according to the camera repair expert was largely due to the fact that it was plastic rather than metal.

My point is that film cameras were not necessarily better or more reliable as the push came for lighter bodies and lenses.

Tegan

True, but I think that pro film bodies were built a lot tougher than pro digital bodies.

[tegan]

True, but I think that pro film bodies were built a lot tougher than pro digital bodies.

Yup, the bodies certainly were, although I did accidently bounce a non pro compact digital with a 28mm to 200mm attached lens off a truck seat onto the pavement and was surprised that it did not have damage or scrapes and kept on clicking. I am sure however that was the exception, rather than the rule.

Tegan