Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Rangefinder Photography Discussion

Rangefinder Photography Discussion General discussions about Rangefinder Photography. This is a great place for questions and answers that are not addressed in a specific category. Take note there is also a General Photography forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Anyone besides me notice the advisories on digitals?
Old 10-06-2005   #1
MacDaddy
Certified Machead
 
MacDaddy's Avatar
 
MacDaddy is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dahlonega, GA, USA
Age: 70
Posts: 214
Anyone besides me notice the advisories on digitals?

Seems the big boys of digital have all issued advisories about their camera sensors within the last two weeks—Canon, Nikon, Fuji and Sony have all put out warnings about their camera's sensors going "tango uniform" and really messing up the pictures they take
Sure glad I use FILM cameras, and especially RF film cameras, aren't you? ;o)
__________________
To photograph is to hold one’s breath, when all
faculties converge to capture fleeting reality.
—Henri Cartier-Bresson

Geezerdude
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2005   #2
julianphotoart
No likey digital-phooey
 
julianphotoart's Avatar
 
julianphotoart is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: 2,567 miles from Toronto
Posts: 606
First, thanks for helping me learning a new term today -- tango uniform. Second, It will be interesting to see if this is played up or artificially played down in the oh-so-pro-digital photography magazines. They have sure suppressed the long-term storage issue. They are being so irresponsible not pointing out all the dangers of digital.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2005   #3
MacDaddy
Certified Machead
 
MacDaddy's Avatar
 
MacDaddy is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dahlonega, GA, USA
Age: 70
Posts: 214
What's been interesting is to follow the MAJOR issues Canon and Nikon in particular have had over the last two years with quality control, even on their top digital cameras. The ONLY place i've seen this documented is on the user forums across the internet; NEVER in a photo magazine! One of the reasons I switched back to film from digital! (For the un-initiated, "tango uniform" is military slang for "toes up"; i.e., DEAD!)
__________________
To photograph is to hold one’s breath, when all
faculties converge to capture fleeting reality.
—Henri Cartier-Bresson

Geezerdude
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2005   #4
Honu-Hugger
Registered User
 
Honu-Hugger is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sun Valley, ID Corona del Mar, CA
Posts: 1,527
Toes Up? I have alway thought otherwise...(but it is a PG forum ).
What is the nature of the sensor problems? Just curious...a friend relentlessly tries to get me to buy one of the full-frame Canon's (he is totally invested in two of them).
__________________
D2
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2005   #5
Toby
On the alert
 
Toby's Avatar
 
Toby is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: West Wittering, West Sussex
Age: 48
Posts: 777
I remember when digital was still very new a nameless english photography magazine said that shots from a 2mp slr were "indistinguishable" from 100 iso film in a nikon F5 and then actually showed examples. It was truly pitiful but I bet they made their advertising quota for that month. Any connection?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2005   #6
MacDaddy
Certified Machead
 
MacDaddy's Avatar
 
MacDaddy is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dahlonega, GA, USA
Age: 70
Posts: 214
The CCD and CMOS sensors have developed processing issues similiar to what Brian described above. Here's a direct quote on a new Canon issue noted today at DPReview.com: "Canon has announced a problem with some of the CCDs used in its digital cameras and camcorders which causes images not to appear or appear distorted. This is due to a malfunction that means the wiring in the CCDs may come undone if exposed to high temperature or high humidity. "
Last year both Canon and Nikon had issues with numerous parts of their top-end cameras that became the subject of a recall notice to customers to correct the issues. And the beat goes on!
__________________
To photograph is to hold one’s breath, when all
faculties converge to capture fleeting reality.
—Henri Cartier-Bresson

Geezerdude
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2005   #7
Kin Lau
Registered User
 
Kin Lau is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,680
Not too bad for owning up to a manufacturing defect considering many of the models listed are almost 1 year out of production (my A70 is). I'm sure many Fuji S2 Pro owners will be happy to hear this... they've been the most vocal (rightly so) group so far.

Not like there aren't any film camera's out there with known issues like the control dial on Canon EOS slr's, flimsy film advance gears in certain cameras (I believe that there's one Leica model with this problem), Konica S2's with loose lense barrels (everyone I've seen so far) etc etc etc.
__________________
Of course I have a photographic memory: over exposed, under developed, grainy and out of focus

<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=583'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2005   #8
DougK
This space left blank
 
DougK's Avatar
 
DougK is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Westlake, OH
Age: 49
Posts: 1,548
Haven't heard "tango uniform" since I left the Army. Thanks for the memories

I had that happen on my Minolta Dimage 7i... at first it was just an intermittent problem and then gradually it started freaking out more and more regularly. Definitely an insidious problem... and an expensive one to fix.

EDIT: Note that I'm not necessarily blaming the camera manufacturers for this, it's just the way things are with complex devices. Electronics, when they fail, fail hard and expensively.
__________________
Doug K.

Last edited by DougK : 10-06-2005 at 14:50.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2005   #9
zeos 386sx
Registered User
 
zeos 386sx is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 344
This is another good reason why digital cameras should be modular.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2005   #10
pvdhaar
Zoom with your feet!
 
pvdhaar's Avatar
 
pvdhaar is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3,196
Trouble with digital cameras is the complexity their electronics. It's downright impossible to exhaustively test for all possible things that can go wrong in the manufacturing process of large sensors and processors. As a result, some will slip through the post manufacturing test, even if they are only borderline functional. Most of these slip-throughs will probably fail within a very short time frame, but the problems are with those that function for a while and give up after that.

Many of these fail from 'electro-migration', which means that because of the enormous currents flowing through these chips (sometimes even amps), the atoms that the micron wide wires inside them consist of will actually move. It gets worse under high temperatures, as the atoms move more easily then. This can be prevented by designing for robustness, but that takes quite some engineering effort. Sensors and processors would be considerably more expensive (we're not talking 10% or so here, but factors), and we're all complaining about the cost of digital SLRs as they are now, aren't we?

Still, I'll hazard a guess that the failure rate for dSLRs isn't that much different from their (electro-) mechanical brethren. It's just that with mechanical cameras, even if there's a failure, some parts of them still work and you can sometimes make do with them. So we think of them as more reliable. With digital it's often all or nothing..
__________________
Kind regards,

Peter

My Hexländer Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2005   #11
pvdhaar
Zoom with your feet!
 
pvdhaar's Avatar
 
pvdhaar is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3,196
Oh, and as an illustration, here are my personal numbers:

1. Zenit E : no failures
2. Nikon FE: mirror stick ups
3. Nikon FM: shutter jams
4. Nikon AF-SLRs: no failures
5. Bronica SQB: parts falling off (keeps on working though)
6. Konica Hexar AF: no failures
7. Konica Hexar RF: alignment (keeps on working though)
8. Voigtlander bessaT: no failures.
9. Digital compacts: no failures
10. Digital slr: no failures

Conclusion: from my (certainly not representative, but nevertheless) experience I could conclude that cameras primarily fail mechanically.
__________________
Kind regards,

Peter

My Hexländer Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2005   #12
zuikologist
.........................
 
zuikologist is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,870
I had been thinking about buying a 350D soon - this has given me food for thought.

Regarding the (informal) reliability test - the Nikon FE/FM and even the Bronica might be 15 or 20 years old? Will our digicams/DSLR's be operating then? Should we expect them to work after 20 years? In real terms, compared to the equivalent film cameras of 20 years ago, digital cameras are probably cheaper than they have ever been, particulalry considering how much technology they contain.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=867'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2005   #13
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,257
1. Olympus OM-1: 1 Failure, mirror lockup
2. Olympus OM-1n: No failures
3. Olympus OM-2: No failures
4. Olympus OM-2: No failures
5. Olympus OM-2n: Nofailures
6. Konica C35: No failures
7. Minolta 7s: No failures
8. Olympus XA: 1 failure, shutter lock
9. Olympus XA: No failures
10. Olympus 35SP: No failures
11. Olympus 35SP: No failures
12. Olympus 35SP: Dead meter (purchased as is on oBoy)
13. Rollei SL66: Failures of 2 out of 3 backs; no failures of 3 bodies
14: Leica M3: No failures
15. Toyo 45A: No failures
16. Pentax H2s(?): One failure, can't recall specifics
17. Olympus C2000: No failures; bought used on oBoy

Damn, I've had too many cameras!

Trius
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55, 18/2 & adapted Zuikos and Hexanons
http://zuikoholic.tumblr.com
https://www.instagram.com/e.r.dunbar/
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2005   #14
GeneW
Registered User
 
GeneW's Avatar
 
GeneW is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Port Credit, Ontario
Age: 74
Posts: 3,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuikologist
I had been thinking about buying a 350D soon - this has given me food for thought.
Don't let it scare you off. Threads like this illustrate how you can take a few isolated examples and attempt to build them into a general principle: i.e., don't buy digital, it's not safe. It's bad logic.

My results don't bear this out:

Canon G2 -- no problems
Canon S45 -- no problems
1st Canon 300D -- no problems
Panasonic Lumix -- no problems
2nd Canon 300D -- no problems

I've had occasional (and sometimes serious) problems with film gear, but it doesn't stop me buying film cams.

Gene
__________________
genewilburn.com
Gone digital: Olympus E-P7, Sony RX-100 II
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2005   #15
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
 
SolaresLarrave's Avatar
 
SolaresLarrave is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: DeKalb, IL, USA
Age: 59
Posts: 7,472
BGLOD is the built-in problem in the Nikon D70 body.

However, given that its frequency is not quite high, it won't deter me from buying one body some day.

I guess the problem when a digital camera fails is the complexity of their innards and the principles on which they work. It's easy to visualize the weak spots in a film camera because, after all, their goal is to allow light to hit the film surface. However, digitals not only have to deal with the light hitting the sensor: they also have to "create" the image inside. Easier said than done...

Interesting thread, though... Thanks for starting it, Rob!
__________________
-Francisco
Check out
My Leica M4-2 Blog and/or
My Nikon D700 Neophyte's Guide
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2005   #16
RObert Budding
Registered User
 
RObert Budding is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Arlington, Massachusetts
Posts: 1,362
Cars are very complex, but quite reliable. Same with cameras, both mechanical and electronic. It's just that the mechanical parts need service. And the electronic parts - well, often it's just time to toss the camera.

Robert
__________________
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true."
~Robert Wilensky

"He could be right, he could be wrong. I think he's wrong but he says it in such a sincere way. You have to think he thinks he's right."
~ Bob Dylan
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2005   #17
GeneW
Registered User
 
GeneW's Avatar
 
GeneW is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Port Credit, Ontario
Age: 74
Posts: 3,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolaresLarrave
I guess the problem when a digital camera fails is the complexity of their innards and the principles on which they work. It's easy to visualize the weak spots in a film camera because, after all, their goal is to allow light to hit the film surface. However, digitals not only have to deal with the light hitting the sensor: they also have to "create" the image inside. Easier said than done...

Interesting thread, though... Thanks for starting it, Rob!
Yup, a digital camera is basically an optical lens with a computer wrapped around it.

Gene
__________________
genewilburn.com
Gone digital: Olympus E-P7, Sony RX-100 II
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2005   #18
zuikologist
.........................
 
zuikologist is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,870
Gene

Thank you for the reassurance - I still need to consdier it, and I think as the price of DSLR's drops further there will be an even greater temptation. resolution and performanc of DSLR's is probably "good enough" for me now, although low light capability, silent operation etc means rangefinders still have their place.

I know I am treading old ground and not wishing to start a digi/film flame war, but I am old school when it comes to cameras, and any other high quality consumer durables such as watches, hi-fi, tv. I think my viewpoint is that older equipment is generally repairable and usable, but probably less so during the next decade as the repairers' knowledge literally dies off (luckily we have the internet to spread this knowledge) and film is harder to find.

I look forward to the Christmas sales (Thanksgiving sales in the US/Canada?) for a posisble bargain.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=867'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2005   #19
Nikon Bob
camera hunter & gatherer
 
Nikon Bob's Avatar
 
Nikon Bob is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,630
Robert

I like your comparison to car. There is nothing more annoying than having a perfectly mechanically good car go TU because of the failure of a rinky dink electronic part. OTH electonic control in cars is now very reliable so you do not often get this incident anymore. As digital photography matures more the reliability issues will also decrease. It is unfair to compare matured film camera technology with yet maturing digital camera technology.

Bob
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=557'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2005   #20
pvdhaar
Zoom with your feet!
 
pvdhaar's Avatar
 
pvdhaar is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuikologist
Regarding the (informal) reliability test - the Nikon FE/FM and even the Bronica might be 15 or 20 years old?
Indeed, the FE and FM were a bit on age, but the Bronica SQB is 6yrs old now; I bought it new. Parts started falling off and coming loose after about 2 years (ca. 100 rolls). Stuff like strap eyelets and a small grip on the handle of the advance lever, nothing crucial, but not what you'd expect from a system designed for professional use (well perhaps that's it, I'm no professional )...
__________________
Kind regards,

Peter

My Hexländer Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2005   #21
zuikologist
.........................
 
zuikologist is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,870
Peter

I would have to agree that the Bronica does not sound too good. 100 rolls is not excessive at all (a pro would get through 100 rolls in a few weeks!).
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=867'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2005   #22
GeneW
Registered User
 
GeneW's Avatar
 
GeneW is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Port Credit, Ontario
Age: 74
Posts: 3,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuikologist
I know I am treading old ground and not wishing to start a digi/film flame war, but I am old school when it comes to cameras, and any other high quality consumer durables such as watches, hi-fi, tv.
I hear ya! That's why I have a Rollei, Hassy and Leica. But I like the new stuff too -- and I picked up a used Canon Digital Rebel with kit lens for $600 Cdn. How can you go wrong?? I like using it with my older Zuiko lenses.

Gene
__________________
genewilburn.com
Gone digital: Olympus E-P7, Sony RX-100 II
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2005   #23
Honu-Hugger
Registered User
 
Honu-Hugger is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sun Valley, ID Corona del Mar, CA
Posts: 1,527
There may be a bell curve to this reliability, as well. My impression is that some of the most reliable film cameras were made in the '60's to early '80's...Canon F1, Nikon F2, Leicaflex, Rollei, along with seemingly reliant lesser variations like the Nikkormat cameras come to mind (I am intentionally not promoting my personal biases ).
__________________
D2
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2005   #24
zuikologist
.........................
 
zuikologist is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,870
Now, if only I could find a used Canon Rebel for $600Cdn..........

(seriously, the 350D looks like good bang for the buck and probably worth the extra $. I have been adding some Super Takumar glass and an EOS adaptor to the growing camera pile over the last few months, in preparation for a DSLR ;-).
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=867'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2005   #25
MacDaddy
Certified Machead
 
MacDaddy's Avatar
 
MacDaddy is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dahlonega, GA, USA
Age: 70
Posts: 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikon Bob
Robert

It is unfair to compare matured film camera technology with yet maturing digital camera technology.

Bob
I somewhat agree about the comparison, but remember, as has been pointed out, that most times with a film camera you can either keep shooting or shoot with some workarounds, whereas with digital it's pretty much an "all or nothing" affair. The "point", if any, is that this maturing technology is having some teething problems and they are quite expensive. A friend has the Canon 1DS mkII, for which he spent $8,000 just for the body and it's spent more time at the repair facility (and been replaced twice with a new body!) than it has in his hands being used. Not a pretty situation for ANY photographer!
I guess what I'm trying to imply is that we don't need to feel inferior in ANY way to the digital guys with our film cameras. Having been in IT for 27 years, I know how much it bites sometimes to be on the "bleeding edge", as a lot of these guys are. Having said that, however, to the guys thinking about going digital, In the 5 years I was in it, I only had one partial failure and I was able to keep shooting with the camera, so go buy one and have fun if you want! As for film, I had a Nikon FM3a slr that should have been painted lemon yellow. But that's another story for another day...8o)
__________________
To photograph is to hold one’s breath, when all
faculties converge to capture fleeting reality.
—Henri Cartier-Bresson

Geezerdude
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2005   #26
zuikologist
.........................
 
zuikologist is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,870
Honu

I think you are right. The Nikon SLR lineage goes all the way back to their rangefinders of the 50's/60's - you would hope Nikon would get the basic engineering right after 20 or 30 years. Similarly, Pentax dates back to at least the Spotmatic etc etc.

The bell curve probably started its downturn perhaps in the mid-80's, when the generic Cosina cameras appeared badged for other manufacturers (Nikon, Olympus, Canon T series and all of the others). We have possibly reached that point with digicams (Samsung produces for Sony). The same fate is probably not far for DSLR's.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=867'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2005   #27
zuikologist
.........................
 
zuikologist is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,870
MacDaddy

I have heard the same for the 350D which is where the reliability concern comes in.

The basic camera shell should be ok (it is after all basically a gutted film AF body). The electronics are the issue. If you speak to some of the older repairers, they are surprisingly not anti-digital and say that most things can be repaired. Unfortunately, digicams and DSLR's are not DESIGNED to be repaired and that is where much of the cost comes in. There is an assumed reliability which is perhaps not there yet.

As has been mentioned, modular design or a totally different form factor (to aid cooling of the CCD or protect the electronics) might be the answer.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=867'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2005   #28
Honu-Hugger
Registered User
 
Honu-Hugger is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sun Valley, ID Corona del Mar, CA
Posts: 1,527
Whatever failures may be occurring aside, I must admit to being favorably impressed by the mecahnical aspects of my friend's Canon 1DS mkII (never would have remembered the name until you mentioned it, thank you Rob); all buttons and knobs are o-ring sealed, body seems very robust (although beastly as well compared to say... a Contax IIa ).

I've only owned two digital cameras: a very early Agfa P&S which did not fail and my present Sony DSC-V1 which is also still going strong. As for the Sony it could fail tomorrow and I can't imagine even investigating having it repaired -- I'd probably just replace it. That's how I feel about digital: I don't have any strong attachment to the gear -- it's just plastic and IC's. Of course if I had $8K in a Canon repair would be another story !!!
__________________
D2
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2005   #29
Kin Lau
Registered User
 
Kin Lau is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuikologist
Now, if only I could find a used Canon Rebel for $600Cdn..........

(seriously, the 350D looks like good bang for the buck and probably worth the extra $. I have been adding some Super Takumar glass and an EOS adaptor to the growing camera pile over the last few months, in preparation for a DSLR ;-).
The 350D/XT body is currently $999- CDN. The 300D was down to about $750- shortly after the 350D introduction.

The *istDL is going for $819- CDN body only, $929 w/ the DA18-55.

The Nikon D50 is going for $799- CDN.

Prices are all quoted from SimonsCameras.com, which is where I got my 350D.

Henrys.com actually has 2 used DReb's for $599-CDN and $649-CDN.
__________________
Of course I have a photographic memory: over exposed, under developed, grainy and out of focus

<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=583'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2005   #30
Rob
rangefinder camera magnet
 
Rob is offline
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Atlanta, Ga. USA
Age: 61
Posts: 477
Sounds like the Canon problems were simply bad solder joints that they will fix for free.
I have to look at how these DSLRs are used..where we might shoot 1 roll of film on something with a digital you may shoot 200 shots or more since its basically free shooting.
Often these DSLRS keep going until the shutters fail in the many 10s of thousand of shots.
Install a new shutter for $300 or so and keep shooting.
Meanwhile you already paid for that camera several times over in film costs savings.
Case in point a friend of mine that does some commercial shooting switched to digital a few years ago. First year he saved over $6,000 worth of film costs and processing.
So first year he paid $2000 for the camera and kept $4000 in his pocket, next year he kept $6000 in his pocket, 3rd year another $6000...

Thats a backup camera now and still working...Even my digital point and shoot cost broke even after 450 pictures. So even if it breaks today I am way ahead since I am over 600 pictures now. I dont think we will ever put these on display in our collection 20 years from now as collectors items but they have their place. These arent the chrome and brass cameras from yesteryear but basically plastic disposable cameras.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=367'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2005   #31
Honu-Hugger
Registered User
 
Honu-Hugger is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sun Valley, ID Corona del Mar, CA
Posts: 1,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob
Sounds like the Canon problems were simply bad solder joints that they will fix for free.
I have to look at how these DSLRs are used..where we might shoot 1 roll of film on something with a digital you may shoot 200 shots or more since its basically free shooting.
Often these DSLRS keep going until the shutters fail in the many 10s of thousand of shots.
Install a new shutter for $300 or so and keep shooting.
Meanwhile you already paid for that camera several times over in film costs savings.
Case in point a friend of mine that does some commercial shooting switched to digital a few years ago. First year he saved over $6,000 worth of film costs and processing.
So first year he paid $2000 for the camera and kept $4000 in his pocket, next year he kept $6000 in his pocket, 3rd year another $6000...

Thats a backup camera now and still working...Even my digital point and shoot cost broke even after 450 pictures. So even if it breaks today I am way ahead since I am over 600 pictures now. I dont think we will ever put these on display in our collection 20 years from now as collectors items but they have their place. These arent the chrome and brass cameras from yesteryear but basically plastic disposable cameras.
True...my friend with the two Canon's is a working pro. It was pure economics for him and he admittedly just blasts away more so than he ever did with film, although I doubt film costs deterred him too much from shooting what he wanted before.
__________________
D2
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2005   #32
zuikologist
.........................
 
zuikologist is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,870
Kin

Thank you for those prices. The 350D is about £550 UK with a kit lens ($1400 Cdn?). The 300D s hard to find now. I will have to start deGASing or save some pennies. I suspect the next wave of model upgrades might be a good time to buy the 350D - Christmas or early next year? this also allows time for production/reliability glitches to be worked out.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=867'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2005   #33
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
 
Bertram2 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacDaddy
Seems the big boys of digital have all issued advisories about their camera sensors within the last two weeks—Canon, Nikon, Fuji and Sony have all put out warnings about their camera's sensors going "tango uniform" and really messing up the pictures they take
Sure glad I use FILM cameras, and especially RF film cameras, aren't you? ;o)
There is a bunch of good reasons why I still keep my fingers off digital but I admit I had not thought that much about the reliabillity or lifecycle prob .
Now reading it am not surprised tho, isn't that the same crap as we suffer from since we have to live with embedded systems in each and every thing, no matter if a waltz-dancing-and-singing super-dildo or a BMW 530i for $ 75.000 ?

We are living in an age where all mechanical probs finally are under control, a normal car runs 250.000 mls nowadays without any serious mechanical probs if you treat it decently. But now electronic systems are driving us mad and empty our wallets and make sure that there be will no BMW 530i still running in 2055 while a 1938 BMW 328 will still run then.

As long as possible I'll keep my photo hobby out of this trouble, there is enuff other trouble keeping me busy. A year ago my 5yo dishwasher died, mechanically in top condition as they confirmed but the processing unit was dead and the repair would have been the half of a new one.

Thought already about buying a japanese car (!!! AAARRGHHH!!!) because the Europeans don't get their electronic probs under control, don't feel like acting as a beta tester for BMW , Mercedes or Volkswagen.

I have to use a PC and a scanner, maybe a printer too one day ( NOT sure !) and that is enuff digital photography for me, at least my cameras will use an analog medium as long as possible. Not only because of the picture quality but also because of my blood pressure which does not stand any more embedded systems !
Not to speak of my wallet.

Bertram
__________________
Gone elsewhere
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2005   #34
ywenz
Registered User
 
ywenz's Avatar
 
ywenz is offline
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,456
That's why we semi-pros don't use the stupid P&S cameras. You shouldn't be comparing anything film+good lens to a $400 P&S.. The DSLR sensors were not mentioned in their advisories..
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2005   #35
RObert Budding
Registered User
 
RObert Budding is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Arlington, Massachusetts
Posts: 1,362
I'll probably buy a DSLR at some point (lower prices would help). But I'll probably always shoot film because I love darkroom work. And the results are outstanding.

Robert
__________________
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true."
~Robert Wilensky

"He could be right, he could be wrong. I think he's wrong but he says it in such a sincere way. You have to think he thinks he's right."
~ Bob Dylan
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2005   #36
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
 
Bertram2 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by ywenz
That's why we semi-pros don't use the stupid P&S cameras. You shouldn't be comparing anything film+good lens to a $400 P&S.. The DSLR sensors were not mentioned in their advisories..
I was talking more about the general prob caused by complex electronic designs than about the mentioned advisories.
The digital P&S are surely the worst way to waste your money but i know enuff folks with probs concerning amateur and prosumer DSLRS too. That's not a matter of sensor type, rather of QM which is in principle always the more expensive the more complex a system is. Old story.
.
__________________
Gone elsewhere
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2005   #37
Kin Lau
Registered User
 
Kin Lau is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by ywenz
That's why we semi-pros don't use the stupid P&S cameras. You shouldn't be comparing anything film+good lens to a $400 P&S.. The DSLR sensors were not mentioned in their advisories..
The Fuji S2 Pro was mentioned, and it's a DSLR.
__________________
Of course I have a photographic memory: over exposed, under developed, grainy and out of focus

<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=583'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-09-2005   #38
ywenz
Registered User
 
ywenz's Avatar
 
ywenz is offline
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kin Lau
The Fuji S2 Pro was mentioned, and it's a DSLR.
that's why you stick with the 1st tier manufactures like Canon and Nikon for your DSLR needs.. other filler-brands need not apply..

How many generations of Nikon and Canon DSLRs have we seen already? They're all field-tested and approved. Fuji... pfftt

Last edited by ywenz : 10-09-2005 at 19:42.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2005   #39
RJBender
RFF Sponsoring Member
 
RJBender is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Honu-Hugger
There may be a bell curve to this reliability, as well. My impression is that some of the most reliable film cameras were made in the '60's to early '80's...Canon F1, Nikon F2, Leicaflex, Rollei, along with seemingly reliant lesser variations like the Nikkormat cameras come to mind (I am intentionally not promoting my personal biases ).
Several years ago I dropped a Nikkormat FT3 on to a hardwood floor. It hit flat on the baseplate. The meter and everything else was fine. I mentioned it to a technician who used to work for a major camera manufacturer (not Nikon) and Mark said the Nikkormat FT3 was one of the best cameras ever made in his opinion. But that was 15 years ago...

R.J.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Short Notice - Another Photo Contest for Cali Residents bmattock Rangefinder Photography Discussion 1 06-23-2005 12:30
Notice anything new? MP Guy Rangefinder Photography Discussion 27 11-26-2004 03:03



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 17:28.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.