Frank W Loc: Adirondacks in NY

Food for thought, in the old days I would take my camera out for a days shoot and use 2 rolls of 36, thinking that was a good day. Now I come home with 6 or 7 hundred. I really don't think the old camera would have held up very long.

Dlevon Loc: New Jersey

Hey I'm a geezer too, and the new bodies and lenses actually stand up better, in many cases. When you dropped some of the older equipment it would dent or break. I have dropped some of the plastic stuff and had no problems! You can say I'm a klutz if you want to, but that's only more recently! Also it all depends on how the equipment is mis-handled. The new man-made plastics are amazing!

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

Thanks for the comparison. My wife was nervous about the number of shutter activations she puts on her camera until I read her your post. She isn't worried anymore. However, I still don't want to buy a used camera from a working wedding photographer.

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

The a77 is not cheaply made. It is one of the most durable cameras out there. It will last you many, many years. Period!

billwassmann Loc: Emerson, NJ

Depends how many exposures you make. I have a miniature Speed Graphic I bought in 1946. It will still take photos.
Few people ever literally wear out a camera.

profpb Loc: Venice, Florida

Relax, stress causes a shorter life. I'm not talking about a camera. They can be replaced, and often with a new and better model.

Jim_In_Plymouth Loc: Plymouth MN

Of course, all of them can fail the drop test. We have had two fail the drop test. :)

billwassmann Loc: Emerson, NJ

Six or seven hundred in a day's shoot? You probably got as many good shots from the 2 rolls. It appears to be indiscriminate shooting. Although I teach the value of more than one shot (and especially turning the camera 90 degrees), what you're doing is overkill. To what point? You're also making more work for yourself sorting, filing, etc.
Bill

Wall-E Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Bill;

You're still thinking in terms of film.
You want to shoot that way? Fine.
Just don't berate others for the way they shoot.

I shot a parade this last Saturday.
When I got home, I had 506 images (2 bodies).
After I culled them, I had 195 to send to the promoter.
If I'd been an order of magnitude harsher, I might have pulled another 10.

I also shoot 8th grade and HS graduations.
And HS football and volleyball
If I had only 36 shots per body, I'd die.
For the sports, I typically come back with 600-700 images.

Terry Scott Reed Loc: Reading, PA

I must be in the minority here. As an old film shooter, I relized when I switched to digital that I have the priviledge (no sarcasm here) of buying amazing new technology every five years or so. For me, it's a priviledge to learn a new camera, not a hardship, and I appreciate all the new features. For someone else, it might be just two years, or ten, whatever. On that basis, I don't want to pay what it would take to build a "camera for life" because I want to stay current within reason. I think anyone who clings to the camera-for-life mentality is asea in a market that no longer does things that way, and that is, to me at least, a good thing. Cameras are still quality items, built to last beyond the meaningful life of the software. They aren't built of "cheap" plastic--it's actually pretty good plastic, but the material is appropriate for the demands of the market.
Those who "can't afford" to replace a camera say, once or twice a decade, couldn't afford to buy the camera they whine for either, as manufacturing costs would put the popular DSLRs into Hassy price ranges.
With the cash that is saved on film and processing, why not make a little deposit in a set-aside bank account to pay for a future upgrade?

All that said, I wonder why the OP even shoots digital at all? There doen't seem to be satisfaction either in the digital gear or the results. And all those old camera-for-life film models are still around, and for cheap, by and large. Film is still available, as is processing, so I would say, switch back or quit yer bitchin.' It is ok not to like something. It's your moneyy and your hobby or profession. Do what makes you happy. Emphasis on happy. Don't waste time complaining about something you don't like if there are still alternatives.

Kuzano

Shutter life is rated, but the numbers don't really mean much. I have heard of shutters rated at 100k to 150k breaking at under 50K. Rating shutters seems to be like rating MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) such as electronics, hard drives, motors and such.

My personal experience is that I have never encountered a shutter failure, and I am a Gear Hog... meaning I may have and own close to a dozen digital bodies in a year. Never had a failure.

On the very positive side, I had a Fujifilm S5 Pro which was a Fuji pro DSLR, partnered and built on a Nikon D200 body. When I sold it, still going strong, it had 254,000 actuations on the shutter.

Bodies... can imagine a DSLR camera being very outdated in two years. Can't imagine much in other problems unless treated poorly or abused. I am still buying examples of the Olympus E-1 in excellent condition, still working well. That camera came out (Olympus 1 digital) in November of 2003. I can buy nice, working examples almost any time I want. There are always from 3 to a half dozen on eBay any time I look.

Why do I buy such an old 5 megapixel camera. It used a Kodak sensor that created such vibrant and true colors that it rivals the majority of sensors installed in todays cameras, no matter the Mp rating. Wonderful camera.

I wouldn't worry about most DSLR and mirrorless cameras lasting a long time. In fact, mirrorless camera have less functioning parts to go wrong with respect to shutters.

Shutters are replaceable in DSLR camera bodies, but by the time the shutter would normally break, the cost of a shutter replacement may be more expensive than the value of the repaired body.

billwassmann Loc: Emerson, NJ

**************

I didn't berate your work because I didn't see your work. You talked about shooting for a day with two rolls but you didn't mention what kind of shooting so I assumed it was for personal fun. If you had said it was a job (paid or not) I would not have made that sort of comment. You wouldn't die with film, you'd have just bought more of it. The best thing about digital is the ability to shoot without worrying about film. I wasn't thinking in terms of film (I use digital too) but in terms of picture quality. I became hooked on photography 71 years ago so I'm as qualified as anyone to debate it.

Wall-E Loc: Phoenix, AZ

First, I didn't make the comment about 2 rolls, FrankW did.

And you are berating the way some digital photogs shoot when you say "It appears to be indiscriminate shooting."

Yes, I would 'die', as I couldn't possibly keep up with changing film during events like I describe without 1-2 assistants, even if I went to a large film roll back.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Don't know the origin, but I don't remember hearing it much before 1980ish. So it may be a fairly recent addition to the language.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

That statement that cars were built to fall apart is common mis-statement. With enough wear any machine will fail in some manner, but a well maintained and caredfor car will last for many decades. Duesenbergs made in the 30's still work and sell for several million dollars. I have a 1997 Jeep with 200 thousand miles and no major repairs but regular mantainance still works as well as when it was new.