DSLR Lifespan

CatB · 13 Jun 2008

The thread asking how long people have kept their cameras has started me thinking - do people tend to buy a new one to upgrade or do the older ones actually fail?

I am looking into getting a DSLR that will take my canon EF lenses and I'm currently leaning towards the 350D or 400D because the controls will all be familiar from my EOS 300. I'm on a budget so I've been looking at buying secondhand as I'll be able to save a bit or potentially get a bundle of extras with it that will get me started (CF card and the like). However, I'm a bit concerned that the £100 or so that I will save by doing this will be a false economy if the camera packs up on me after a month!

So, do people find that they seem to start mysteriously going wrong when they are just out of the warantee period as some products seem to these days! Or do they carry on just fine for several years?

Wail · 13 Jun 2008

The primary limiting factor with SLRs is their shutter, the only physically challenged part, and usually manufacturers specify the average life-cycle of the shutter.

That said, personally I only upgrade when my camera needs service regardless the type of service. When my main body goes in for service, mostly a shutter issue, I buy the next model I want (which is usually not the top of the line, as I like to get bargains).

But, I think most people like to buy latest things ... don't we all ... and may be you will find the majority of people upgrading once something new is out and they are able to afford the upgrade. I like this approach, but it gets too expensive ... so I train myself to adhere to my upgrade method.

Knikki · 13 Jun 2008

Well I bought an Olympus E20P (a professional SLR says the Olympus Marketing) about 3 or 4 years ago and it dates from around 2000 - 2001, no idea how many pictures it has taken and is a 5Mb machine.

It is still going strong and I can get really nice sharp A2 pictures out of it.
Only just got a E3, but still have the E20 and still intend to use it.

Lufbrarunner · 13 Jun 2008

Although I just purchased a 40D I still have my 300D that I got second hand in 2005 and it is still going strong.

Flash In The Pan · 13 Jun 2008

The weakest part of a Canon 300D/350D isn't the shutter, but rather the plastic operating pin for the AF sub-mirror (although it may have been upgraded in the 350D/400D), I've seen them break at under 25000 actuations, repair cost is in the region of £120 at a Canon authorised service agent, or at least it was last year.

allanm · 13 Jun 2008

Like all things, some last well, others dont. Theres no reason a DSLR should fail, technology marches on regardless, and most of us ( me!) are caught up in the race to get the latest stuff, whether we need it or not. Old technology falls by the wayside, although there are many old capable DSLR`s around that will produce great prints, people got caught up in the megapixel race ( More is best, right?) and lately, LCD screen size and best autofocussing system :geek:

I still have a Nikon film SLR, an F70, quite a few years old and still works as the day it was bought and produces impressive photos. But, these SLR`s will tend to last longer as they will have lower shutter counts ( unless you are a pro) as you pay for each shot, whereas with digital, they are free.
I also have one of the first digital cameras from Casio from around 1995 ( QV11) Still works, but at 250,000 pixels, its a bit low on resolution!

I look at pictures from my "old" Nikon D50 and compare them to my new D300. If I was honest, I would say that in many cases, looking at them on my computer, its hard to tell the difference. I would imagine other brands are the same too.

Hang on, I`m almost convincing myself i didnt need all those upgrades, of course i did, new cameras are so much better than the old stuff........

Allan

Luckynp · 13 Jun 2008

The thing is, digital cameras have become computers with lenses attached. Buying a new DSLR generally represents a genuine upgrade in capability.

Whether a particular person needs a particular upgrade for their purposes is another matter. But it's not like film cameras, where one 35mm body essentially does the same as any other. Differences in picture quality were down to the photographer's skill, film type and lenses. Now we have to take out film type and add camera body to the list of factors affecting IQ.

awp · 13 Jun 2008

Camera bodies have far less effect on IQ than using good glass. You still need skill to take good pictures - digital or otherwise.

Anorakus · 13 Jun 2008

As a die-hard film user and a recent convert to a DSLR system, I wanted to be able to achieve comparable picture quality to what I would get shooting film. By all accounts, the Canon EOS 5D seemed to be the most "filmic" DSLR available (without paying silly money), in terms of having a 35mm-sized sensor and a pixel count that hadn't been bettered (apart from the 1Ds) since its release 3 years ago.

A.

Jamougha · 13 Jun 2008

allanm said:
I look at pictures from my "old" Nikon D50 and compare them to my new D300. If I was honest, I would say that in many cases, looking at them on my computer, its hard to tell the difference. I would imagine other brands are the same too.

Well if you don't crop heavily or print big then you won't see a difference at low ISOs. The reason to get a better camera is mainly convenience - better autofocus, viewfinder, metering and so on. If you want better quality pictures then you spend money elsewhere.