buddah17 Loc: The Bahamas

srt101fan

Sorry, Bipod, I can't find any post from you where you asked me that question!?

I'm not going to spend the time to dig out information on when I bought them, but, I've had three digital cameras. The first one I gave away. It was fully functional at the time. The other two I still have and they work just fine.

Bottom line is there hasn't been a NEED to replace any of them.....

Bipod

I hang onto digital cameras. As a result, I now own a pile of broken ones.
Fortunately, I only buy them on sale.

This is after I fixed all the simple things: corroded contacts, problems with
connectors and cables, etc.

For example, I have one of the last Kodak's made before the bankruptcy, which
has a Schneider branded lens. Never a great camera, but it worked well for about
three years. Then it started booting only when it feels like it.

But when an embedded system locks up or won't boot, even when it's got good power,
there isn't much anyone can do about it. Or if something wears out that
can't be replaced.

For example, I own an old Samsung whose memory card contacts have
lost their springiness, so it works with internal memory only. No way to fix that.

A Fujifilm died -- I forget what the symptom was. I keep it for parts.

I also owned an Olympus that used a priorietary xD memory card (remember
when Olympus and Fujifilm were trying to compete with SD?). That one still
worked, but I gave it to the Goodwill, because the cards were hard to find and
expensive.

There are many ways for a digital camera to die or become unusuable.
But they all do.

Bill_de Loc: US

Same with people, but we don't spend every day of our lives dwelling on it.

You should never have a pet, it too will die someday.


---

JD750 Loc: SoCal

I don't usually feed trolls but what the heck.

My oldest working digital camera is about 15 years old. Nothing is limiting it's survivability other than the battery, which will probably lose it's ability to hold charge at some point. An electronic device is inherently more reliable than a mechanical device.

Re changing SMT components. I can, but I usually have our shop change SMT components on multi-layer boards. I have done small ICs myself, but not the bigger 128 pin flat packs. I let the shop change those. All that is required is the proper tools and technique. But enough about electronic rework.

What does that have to do with digital cameras?

Bipod

I'm really glad to know that it doesn't matter how long equipment lasts.
Thanks for that insight, Bill.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Having a wide range of tonal values seems to be an important characteristic of the best monochrome images. I remember reading several uncomplimentary comments criticising what some photographers referred to as "chalk and soot" images.

Bipod

A lot of the information about 3-D shapes is carried by gradation.

Shade a circle with a pencil, and you can change it into a sphere.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I think his point was that due to technology improvements, and the eventual discontinuance of support and spare parts, the useful working life of a digital camera is significantly less than a film camera and may average 10 years or less. My Pentax K1000 from the late '70s still works like new. Its unlikely a well used 40 year old digital camera will still work or be desirable to use.

Bipod

Nothing you say here even remotely supports the notion that "FF digital cameras .... have to be replaced every few years..."

Precisely.

The older technologies (clockwork, discreet transistors, or single-layer pad-hole boards)
were modular. A broken or worn component could be replaced. Mechanical parts could
be fabricated if necessary (I've turned shafts for gears in watches). The electronic components
were generic (most could be purchased at Radio Shack). The technician located the faulty
part and replaced it.

But current digital cameras--besides being vastly more complex--use surface mount, multi-layer
printed circuit boards, which are not feasible to repair. The cost of the board often exceeds the
value of a used camera. And once a board goes out of production, the camera is not repairable.


Also, "technology improvements" are often "in the eye of the beholder". Some people find
them easier to use, some find them harder to use. More importantly, in creative endeavors
technical improvements usually do not directly translate into better works.

Enormous improvemnts have been made in paints, brushes, canvases, etc. So today's painters
are the best that every lived, right? Wrong.

Or consier writers: novelists from Henry Fielding to Jane Austen to Thomas Hardy wrote longhand.
The typewriter may have produced novels faster, but not better. William Faulkner and F. Scott Fitzgerald
used mechanical type writers. The introduction of the IBM Selectric did not produce better novels,
nor did software text editors. Editing became less laborious -- that's all.

I think srt101fan's point was that anything that interferes with digital camera sales cannot
possibly be a fact. We all know that, thanks to technology, everything always gets better and better! :-)


Srt101fan, please explain why increased complexity and the use of large, expensive assemblies that are
not repairable in modern digital cameras "does not support" my position.