When did cameras join the throw-away society: Not long ago someone talked about how people kept cameras for many years, buying new glass and accessories, but keeping what you have come...

tomw

Not long ago someone talked about how people kept cameras for many years, buying new glass and accessories, but keeping what you have come to know and trust. My OM-1N was my camera for 25 or 30 years, and I stopped using it only when digital cameras (at about 5 MPX) got "good enough" together with the cost of film and time to process to get me to change.

Now, even expensive cameras are throw away. No longer can you improve grain or sensitivity by using different film. Now to go from 8 megapixels to 16, you throw away your camera and buy a new one. And while new features are trumpeted, how much do they really add, once we had auto-focus and auto-exposure which could be used or disabled?

Should we demand industry standard sensors which can snap in and out like a 35mm canister, and let us upgrade rather than discard? Is it more odd to be able to use a Nikon sensor in a Canon camera than to use Kodak film in a Fuji camera? Or a Tamron lens on a Pentax?

Sensor changes would require a software upgrade as well, but we already do that as required.

creativ simon Loc: Coulsdon, South London

Good point

amehta Loc: Boston

tomw wrote:

Not long ago someone talked about how people kept ... (show quote)

The sensor and the processor keep getting upgraded. To make it easy to replace both would require a larger "box", but who wants an even bigger and heavier camera?

I think we've reached the point where significant technological improvements are slowing down, so digital cameras will be "good" for 5-10 years. What is interesting is that the slowest "replacement rate" is in the prosumer market: 5D/5DMkII/5DMkIII, D700/D800. There were about 4 years between each of these models, and I expect that to continue.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Tom, cameras did not join the "throw away " society. We have chosen to throw than away, not the other way around. No reason why you still can't be using the first camera you ever owned, whatever it was, either film or digital. You choose to throw it away, that's YOUR decision. ;-
SS

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

tomw wrote:

Not long ago someone talked about how people kept ... (show quote)

It would of course be a good thing. Especially with sensors as both Canon and Nikon and sony of course all use Sony sensors. However camera companies are in the business of selling cameras and lenses. They want to make older models obsolete. They improve (upgrade) the technology to entice new sales. This is not a unique concept. A 3 year old car with 25000 miles is perfectly driveable, yet the companies introduce new models each year. My Canon F-1 which I still use was new in 1971. I expect my 7D to last at least 10 years. I drive perfectly good cars with 200,000 miles. All machines will eventually fail. But it is not necessry to toss serviceable ones.

tomw

I guess my point was that incremental improvements should be an upgrade, while differences in kind are a replacement.

I decided not to use my grandfather's postcard camera based on cost of film and processing. And I couldn't figure out how to upgrade my Brownie Hawkeye.

But I sure would have liked to be able to put a digital sensor in my OM-1 or to upgrade the sensor in my current camera.

For those who have been photographers for a long time, how many cameras did you buy in your fist 20 years? And in the last 20 years?

Bruce with a Canon Loc: Islip

From my perspective it is the consumer that chooses to upgrade to the newest, bestest, fastest doo-dads and gizmos that come out.. (I still shoot film in my first camera, bought in 1972 Minolta SRT manual)
I began my digital adventure with a 6 mp Pentax and would still have it, but for the fact I enjoy shooting birds in flight and that body simply did not have the burst rate to accommodate my needs. I bought Canon 1`D Mk2 bodies ( OLD ) simply for the build quality and 8.5 FPS.

Simply no need to upgrade every time a manufacturer changes a sensor or releases a new box.

IMHO
opinion s vary

Haydon

SharpShooter wrote:

Tom, cameras did not join the "throw away " society. We have chosen to throw than away, not the other way around. No reason why you still can't be using the first camera you ever owned, whatever it was, either film or digital. You choose to throw it away, that's YOUR decision. ;-
SS

I agree with SS on this point. It's our own decision to throw them away. I moved from the T2i to a 1DIV but I still USE my T2i when I want a lighter body or feel that the 1DIV might not be the appropriate choice.

amehta Loc: Boston

tomw wrote:

I guess my point was that incremental improvements should be an upgrade, while differences in kind are a replacement.

That sounds nice, until you examine the inner computer a little more closely. Each doubling of data flow speed needs almost everything to upgrade, especially the motherboard and the bus. That makes the upgrade idea impractical when size is also a factor.

Basically, our throw-away society is a result of wanting things "bigger" and faster. But that settles down after a while. For example, mp3 players haven't changed in years, and now TVs have settled at 1080p, though 4k might be a big jump in a few years (3D fell flat).

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

tomw wrote:

Not long ago someone talked about how people kept ... (show quote)

I see it as not so much throwing away as passing on to someone else and getting some money to buy a new camera at the same time.

There's no need to discard a modern DSLR just because a new one comes along. Advances in technology make "better" cameras possible. If Nikon sits on an advancement and lets Canon introduce the new feature, they will lose out. When they can offer a feature that they think the public will buy, they do it.

I've sold several cameras on ebay and used the money to buy a new one. Two happy customers.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

You don't have to stop using a camera because a new one comes out.
The old one will still do exactly what it did when you bought it in most cases.
It is just that there is now a new one that will do a little more.
As to whether you buy the new one and throw away the old one is up to you.

Seems to me that you are blaming the camera world for something that is totally your decision.

tomw wrote:

Not long ago someone talked about how people kept ... (show quote)

tomw

lighthouse wrote:

You don't have to stop using a camera because a new one comes out.
The old one will still do exactly what it did when you bought it in most cases.
It is just that there is now a new one that will do a little more.
As to whether you buy the new one and throw away the old one is up to you.

Seems to me that you are blaming the camera world for something that is totally your decision.

No. I should make myself more clear. Businesses are adopting, consciously and deliberately, business models which require you to keep buying, with much duplication, rather than buy and use until it wears out.

One of the clearest and most extreme is Adobe. Turning PS into SAAS benefits no one but Adobe. Whatever is improved in PS could have been done with by CS-2 as an open platform with plugins.

Another example is the tag team replacement compulsion of Microsoft and Intel. Microsoft keeps bloating perfectly adequate programs to suck more and more resources. The Intel comes out with a better processor so you replace your computer, then the cycle starts again. Office 2003 and Windows 2000 did everything I needed, but I'm forced to upgrade anyway.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Yes, I know what you mean, and i don't disagree with you .... but..... it is the consumer that controls every one of these things.
The consumer does not have to follow where the seller is trying to take them.
You can turn automatic upgrade off and tell it to never look for an upgrade.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

One reason is that we are becoming service industry orientated rather than manufacturing based. We no longer compete by making our own products and we drive down prices by manufacturing abroad. As has been said Sony sensors in nikon and canon cameras. Components travelling around the world to be 'built in Britain' for sale in Europe. In the 1960's 'made in Hong Kong' meant tacky trash now 'Made in........' is merely a sticky label that means very little.

SX2002 Loc: Adelaide, South Australia

I've never "thrown away" a camera in over 50 years, still have my original Kodak 127 Brownie from when I was twelve...
I have three DSLRs I use both the D90 and the D7100 on occasion and both together for my motor sport photography (different lenses) and my wife uses the other one and it's 9 years old (Konica-Minolta)...
The thing I can't understand is why people feel the need to up-grade their "smart" phones every few months, this is the real "throw away" mob...