View Full Version : How many of your digital cameras have failed?
Tuolumne
11-14-2008, 11:49
Although digital cameras are reputed to be disposable and not manufactured for the long haul, how many of yours have failed (after working fine initially)? I have had about 5-8 digital cameras, including a Nikon D200. The only one that has ever broken was a Casio P&S. I put it in my pocket and sat on it. The screen broke. The camera still worked. despite their reputation for being disposable and unreliable, mine have worked flawlessly. This is rather depressing, since if they failed more often, I could more easily justify upgrading.
What has been your experience with digital cameras. Are they gung ho or do they just go hang?
/T
nightfly
11-14-2008, 11:52
They've all failed to deliver decent black and white images, so I've sold them before they've had a change to physically break.
pesphoto
11-14-2008, 11:57
mine broke when I flung it at that brick wall.......
None.
My Pentax K20D at 14.6 mp out-resolves any 35 (superb prime lenses) and it makes gorgeous B&W, as all digital cameras can, to the limits of their resolution, when the file's converted properly (eg using Lightroom) and printed properly (eg using Quadtone RIP).
As well, the K20D is incredibly rugged and water resistant. The only similarly rugged 35 is the Pentax IQ zoom.
Leica0Series
11-14-2008, 12:04
My Coolpix 800 likes to turn itself off frequently but it still works. I bought it eight years ago. My Nikon D1 will run forever and has had only one freakout when it decided that a CF card was full when it wasn't. My (now sold) D100 never put a foot wrong and probably still works fine somewhere. Hoping my new (to me) M8 will hang in there for the long haul.
I've owned several and never had one fail, they've just become out-dated. I've only ever had one camera fail and that was a L*ica P&S 35mm. Never again!
Roger Hicks
11-14-2008, 12:26
Of those owned and used for over 1 year: 100% (still only one camera, I have to admit).
Edit: TWO years (which is what I originally wrote, then absent-mindedly changed. The M8 is just coming up for 2 years and is still working, so for 1 year, it's only 50%. All I can say in mitigation is that I think of the M8 as an M-series and therefore expect it to work... Sorry.
Cheers,
R.
Morca007
11-14-2008, 12:26
Our Fuji S1 had a massive mainboard failure and became a doorstop.
None have - these include the Coolpix 7900 (owned for 3+ years), a Nikon D70 (owned for 3+ years then sold and still going strong) and a D300 (owned for 1 year. All have accompanied me on my travels off the beatn track.
The only cameras that ever failed me were a Leica R4 (had to be replaced), an M6 (ditto fate) and an F100 (minor problem repaired under warranty). The only lens failure (zoom function froze after 3 years) was the 17-80 Kit lens that came with the D70.
I just hope this "luck" continues
Roger Hicks
11-14-2008, 12:33
Another question:
How many of your computers have failed?
For me: probably 50%, sooner or later (out of maybe 15 in the last 25 years). And even if they don't fail, they often can't run the new software needed for imaging programs.
Cheers,
R.
Yammerman
11-14-2008, 12:41
I've had three repairs but I suspect child involvement in the compact failures
Sony Compact wouldn't zoom any more in an act of madness I had 3.2 mega pixel camera repaired. I can see it unused on the shelf now.
Nikon D70 in 2003 failed after a month with a sticky shutter
Richoh GRD dead screen after 6 months.
Computers started failing after I stopped building them myself.
dazedgonebye
11-14-2008, 12:43
I've had 2 point and shoots die on me. In their defense, they both took falls to hard surfaces that could have done in any camera...except maybe a Koni-omega.
None. I have had a lot, and everyone I don't still own (that's all but one) was sold working perfectly.
My D200 was a bit of a 'wearer' (two sets of grips in three years) but otherwise no problems.
The modern lenses seem more troublesome. I had an AF unit pack up once, I think thats quite common. Plus one of the connections in another lenses mount sometimes sticks down causing a break in communications. Not broken, but not working properly either.
Ted.
This is a trick question!
You need to have a digital camera before "your digital camera fails."!
I got it.
I had a Konica-Minolta Maxxum 5D that developed a case of clicking auto-focus and shutter death. Apparently a common problem with those cameras. Of course it died a couple of months out of warranty. I sold it for parts along with some pretty good old Minolta lenses and jumped ship to Nikon. No problems since.
Karl
Al Kaplan
11-14-2008, 12:52
Usually the phone part stops functioning before the camera part, but if I extend my phone contract I get a new phone and a new camera...free!
ZeissFan
11-14-2008, 13:03
I had the Coolpix 700, 800 and 950. Of those, the 950 won't work in certain modes. The 800 and 700 still work well.
My wife has a Canon something-or-other, which she grew to hate because of the shutter lag. Battery life is miserable.
I had a Sony Mavica CD-500. Very nice camera, but very slow startup times, especially as the mini-CD got full. I eventually sold it to get this:
Sony Cyber-shot 828 -- a very nice camera. It has a great lens with a real zoom ring, but a not-so-great sensor that is noisy at anything above ISO 100. But it still works.
More recently, a Kyocera 4100 that gives bizarre colors in very bright or high contrast scenes. An Olympus E-Volt 500. Nice camera, although somewhat flimsy in construction. High ISO performance is mediocre.
And most recently, a Pentax K10D -- a really nice camera with excellent features, amazing backward compatibility and great feature set and excellent build (which contributes to its weight).
photogdave
11-14-2008, 13:06
Nikon D70: Shutter works intermittently. Out of warranty, so I just use it for IR experimentation. Never liked it anyway.
Panasonic LC1: My favorite digital. Completely died one day and the repair shop the Panasonic jobs out to said it needed a new main board at $700. I pulled some strings and kissed some butts and got the part for free but had to pay the shop labor. When I got the camera back the AF was mysteriously broken. Same shop says it needs a new lens assembly - for $700! I have it at another shop for a second opinion...
Pentax Optio 43WR: Still working flawlessly after four years. I have taken this thing WAY beyond its recommended limits and it hasn't let me down. I keep hoping it will break so I have an excuse to buy the new version with wide zoom, but no luck yet!
Ive had 3 failures 2 minoltas (part of a global sensor semirecall) both fixed for free and a Canon 300d that developed a power supply fault. to be fair the first minolta that failed did so after 50k exposures and it was repaired for free 2 years out of warrenty. I bought the second one as a broken cam hoping that I could get it fixed for free I did and then sold it for a nice profit. But Ive also had film cameras die on me so its all down to luck
Jason808
11-14-2008, 13:25
I had a 2MP Canon Powershot A60 that I loved but it just quit after about 2 years. It cost more to fix it than a new Minolta Z10, so I just junked the Canon.
I have a D70s where the image looks like a 16-color GIF in playback on the rear LCD, but it's good enough to check composition and it seems to give me a decent check of focus. I don't mind it though, since it keeps me from "chimping" and I check the histogram for exposure. I love the 1/500 flash sync and I think the color is terrific, so I still use the camera on a regular basis.
Two of the three digital cameras I have owned broke. I threw out one that did not break since it was less than one megapixel. Most all of my cameras have broken at one time or another, film or digital. Digitals get thrown out when they break though. My Voitlander R has never broken, but the film re-wind is horrible.
spysmart
11-14-2008, 13:55
E-3 after only 8 months and 25K activations.
http://www.donaldingram.com/ForumImages/E3deadshutter.jpg
Also had the shutter fail on a Minox TLX within the same period from new.
The M6 is still going fine after 15 years - except for the common frame counter failure about 10 years ago.
One. A Lumix FX-01. I sprayed it pretty good with saltwater on a trip to the beach and it never regained consciousness! :D
rogue_designer
11-14-2008, 14:01
I've had a Canon digital Elph die on me. Electronic shutter/circuit board issue.
I recently lost a Sony W-50, it fell about 18 inches onto carpet and stopped working. I haven't cared enough about it to send it in for repairs.
D1, D1X from the studio had to have all new batteries and logic boards after several power management issues. At least one of the 1X's was written off as a total loss.
None. In my experience they're all very reliable. I've had my previous 5ds rained on, beer spilt on, sea water sprayed on, dropped, kicked, and they don't really ever let me down.
If I wanted an all out reliability camera that could withstand just about any element it would be an Olympus E-3.
sojournerphoto
11-14-2008, 14:28
None. We once had an Olympus mju zoom fail, but that used film.
peripatetic
11-14-2008, 14:32
5 digital cameras, all still going strong. 5 yrs, 4yrs, 3yrs (sold that one), 2yrs, 2yrs.
3 film cameras, one died (Yashica SLR), others fine.
Computers come and go.
Never, last one that broke was a film one when a drunk friend could not hold to it at 5am ... I think I was 23 ...
eli griggs
11-14-2008, 14:48
Our little Canon 85a(?) simply died (sensor went out) without being dropped, wetted or suffering any kind of insult or misadventure.
I need a small 5-8 MP digi for chores and I'd like to get my wife a dslr for her pleasure, she was pretty good at getting above average results with the Canon, but unless we win a lottery or that unknown rich relative drops a bundle on me in a will, I'm not willing to put much money in a digicam for myself.
If I were to spend a few hundred plus dollars on any personal camera today, it'd be a second Barnack or Canon F1, second or N AE model.
Cheers
Another question:
How many of your computers have failed?
For me: probably 50%, sooner or later (out of maybe 15 in the last 25 years). And even if they don't fail, they often can't run the new software needed for imaging programs.
Cheers,
R.
I have had two iMacs, a G4 tower, a Powerbook all from these past 8 years died on me months after Apple Care expired. I won't buy a Mac without also getting Apple Care and now not so sure if I want another Mac at all. Never had any trouble with digital cameras, the exception being the M8,
photogdave
11-14-2008, 15:17
I have had two iMacs, a G4 tower, a Powerbook all from these past 8 years died on me months after Apple Care expired. I won't buy a Mac without also getting Apple Care and now not so sure if I want another Mac at all. Never had any trouble with digital cameras, the exception being the M8,
Every mac I've ever owned: iMac G3, G4 Tower, G5 Tower and now MacBook, have worked without a problem. The first two, as well as every Apple I've ever used at work, were replaced when in full working order. They were simply updated to something newer.
Every PC I've owned: Dell, Panasonic Toughbook, and everyone I know who has owned a PC has had them crash repeatedly, been sent back for repair, needed to be completely replaced etc. etc.
But I know there are plenty of people who have had the exact opposite experience. So I don't think any of this really amounts to anything!
Every mac I've ever owned: iMac G3, G4 Tower, G5 Tower and now MacBook, have worked without a problem. The first two, as well as every Apple I've ever used at work, were replaced when in full working order. They were simply updated to something newer.
Every PC I've owned: Dell, Panasonic Toughbook, and everyone I know who has owned a PC has had them crash repeatedly, been sent back for repair, needed to be completely replaced etc. etc.
But I know there are plenty of people who have had the exact opposite experience. So I don't think any of this really amounts to anything!
Part of the problem is that I am in Hong Kong and Apple Service is run out of a sanitarium work release program. They don't get properly repaired while under warranty and then the problem gets worse until Apple Care run out. This is a far cry from say the service you get at the Apple Shops anywhere in the US.
bmattock
11-14-2008, 15:55
One, kind of.
Digital Camera List:
Olympus DL-220
Nikon E995
Pentax Optio 330
Ricoh RDC-5300
Olympus D40Z
Kodak C530
Kodak C663
Polaroid x530
Kodak P850
Pentax *ist DS
Of these, I lost the Optio 330 (that hurt), and the D40Z (which was a refurb to begin with) eats batteries like crazy unless I use overvoltage CRV3 rechargeables. Everything else is fine.
The Pentax has over 100K shutter activations, purchased in 2004. No problems.
Pursuant to Roger's question - one of my PC's power supplies blew up a couple weeks ago. Not 'blew up' as in 'quit working' but blew up as in it went BANG and smoke came out. It was powered off at the time, too. I salvaged all the drives - no data lost, but I am afraid to power up the mobo and etc with a new power supply - they may be toast and take out a new power supply just to be spiteful. I'll probably toss the lot, except for the drives.
Migracer
11-14-2008, 16:08
I still have and use my Panasonic PV 2590 that I have owned since 1999. I have taken over 10,000 images with this camera. It has survived many rainstorms, snowstorms, 120 degree track days, dropped countless times has made a lot of money for me. A Canon D30 that i never liked and kept only to impress while secretly shooting with the Panasonic and film cameras. A 5mp Polaroid that I bought for $10.00 on ebay. and my new 8mp Panasonic FS3. NOT A SINGLE FAILURE AMONG THEM. Being the frugal buyer I just bought another new FS3 with a stuck lens for $13.00. I am looking to steal either a Panasonic LC5 or LC80. I have big hands and the sub compacts are not comfortable for my big mitts. Computers have never failed, they have become obsolete or the hard drives wore out, I never turn them off.
i had a minolta fail out of 5 digitals.
CK Dexter Haven
11-14-2008, 16:30
No problems with any of the 4 digital P&S or two dSLRs. None, though, was used very heavily. And, like everything else i use, they were treated well.
I've had two Sony cameras with sensor failure, and a Pentax *istDL had a shutter problem (would not use a shutter speed faster that 1/125 irrespective of how the controls were set) after only three months use. That one was fixed under warranty, but it took them three attempts over several months. Bottom line for me is that I always have a backup camera if I'm travelling away from home.
I have owned 4 digital cameras, and all are still working.
Olympus 2020Z, purchased 2000
Canon Powershot Pro 1, purchased 2004
Canon 20D, from 2005
Canon 40D, purchased 2008. Already an obsolete POS, but takes great photos:)
One. A Lumix FX-01. I sprayed it pretty good with saltwater on a trip to the beach and it never regained consciousness! :D
My wife killed an FX-01 taking it to the beach too. It was pretty windy and sand got into it.
Other than that, zero issues with digital. Unless you count the Elph dying after ~6 years of being banged around. :)
MrRanger
11-14-2008, 17:02
I've had 2 digitals - a Nikon CoolPix 4600 that I have had for about 5(?) years and a Sony A300 DSLR that I got for Christmas last year. So far, no problems (knock on wood!).
Mike :D
Never had a failure problem with my Nikon and Canon digital cameras.
One. A Lumix FX-01. I sprayed it pretty good with saltwater on a trip to the beach and it never regained consciousness! :D
My FX-01 decided it could not recover from flying off the roof of a car moving at 40 mph. Jeez - what a piece of junk (I kid! :D).
I still have our original digital P&S (Nikon Coolpix 775) and it still works - the kids use it. The only disappointment so far has been the replacement for the FX-01 - the Lumix FX37. I have not used this one enough yet to be certain, but so far it looks like every shot has the same noise you would see at ISO 1600. Lemon? Time will tell.
Computers are another story. These things take maintenance - like replacing hard drives and power supplies before they fail. And though I've never had a CPU failure I've had to replace perfectly good boxes because new versions of OS or software were too slow or would not run - much more annoying than not having 14.7mpx. Recently I've been replacing noisy power supplies, cooling fans and hard drives with quieter stuff just because I can. Now I'm looking forward to replacing the hard drives in my laptops with solid-state units.
narsuitus
11-15-2008, 10:44
Three out of five of my digital cameras have failed. My first one no longer works on batteries. Since is still works on AC power, I have it permanently attached to a copy stand and a wall outlet.
The built-in flash on my second one, does not work. Therefore, I use it only for available light shots.
The third one broke when I fell off a table onto a carpeted floor. Even though it was in a case when it fell, the shock was enough to cause complete failure. It cost me over $100 to get it fixed. In contrast, I had a manual/mechanical film camera fall from waist high onto a concrete floor and the camera continued to work for a week before it completely failed.
ruby.monkey
11-15-2008, 10:58
None so far.
climbing_vine
11-15-2008, 11:17
I've had four digitals, none of which have ever failed (one broke an LCD when armed Greek airport pocket checkers flung it into a tray and it bounced off something hard and sharp, but I ordered the part and replaced it myself in five minutes).
Out of the probably three dozen film cameras that have passed through my hands, the only ones that didn't see serious "spontaneous" problems were a Canon PowerShot (which had electronics issues after the twelfth time I soaked it hiking down a storm drain, so I won't hold that against it), and my Pentax k1000 in college which I sorely wish I'd kept.
climbing_vine
11-15-2008, 11:21
Also, I work in tech in one of the largest universities on the globe, and the failure rate of computers (absent outright abuse, and for meaningful values of the word "failure") is lower than all but the very simplest film cameras--like an Argus C3. heh. Fact is, gears and rangefinders get bolloxed up relatively easily--firmware doesn't. Sorry. it's a fact. There's a reason that mission-critical duties in any shop are controlled digitally when possible. Not with steam engines or clockworks.
Silva Lining
11-15-2008, 11:33
Also, I work in tech in one of the largest universities on the globe, and the failure rate of computers (absent outright abuse, and for meaningful values of the word "failure") is lower than all but the very simplest film cameras--like an Argus C3. heh. Fact is, gears and rangefinders get bolloxed up relatively easily--firmware doesn't. Sorry. it's a fact. There's a reason that mission-critical duties in any shop are controlled digitally when possible. Not with steam engines or clockworks.
Thats an interseting point. I wonder how much easier modern processes are as opposed to historical ones. One presumes things get quicker and easier to do, however I have noticed that this is not always he case.
Changing channel on the television for example, used to be a matter of physically pressing a button or tuning with a dial. took about 1 second. Now with my HD TV and Cable box I have to first find the right controller. Then dail in the number for the channel. Then dial it in again as it has selected the wrong channel because it in-explicably ignored the first digit I pressed, then type it in again, as it has now remembered the first digit I pressed, but included it out of sequence and selected a different wrong channel. On average it takes 15 seconds to change channel. This of course includes the times when the Cable box is in a catatonic state and has to be hard rebooted. Which then means the TV doesn't select the HDMI connection and therefore can't display the EPG propoerly, so I have to find the other controller and select HDMI before I can begin the whole process again. :(
climbing_vine
11-15-2008, 11:40
[RANT] Changing channel on the television for example, used to be a matter of physically pressing a button or tuning with a dial. took about 1 second. Now with my HD TV and Cable box I have to first find the right controller.....
Absolutely agree. This is also why many, not all, p&s cams (whether film or digital) are nightmares. The tech is willing, but the interface is weak.
Once upon a time, mechanical works also had awful interfaces (read up on what you had to do to control an early car). They got better over time. Digital interfaces of all kinds are beginning to evolve as well, but many have a long way to go.
John Lawrence
11-15-2008, 12:05
Well the D40 I've got has never failed - but then I only used it five times before I found out it wasn't for me. Whether it will still be working in seventy-five years time (like my Leicas) is another matter...
John Robertson
11-15-2008, 12:19
Three compacts, one Leica Digilux2 and two Canon. Electronic death, not worth repairing.
Thrice bitten, now permanently shy.
I still have a Canon Sureshot A460, cost £70 new discounted, bin when fails.
Minilux also failed, not sure about Leitz electronics.
P.S. anyone know how to remove the lens from this, would make a good negative lupe.
Roger Hicks
11-15-2008, 12:40
There's a reason that mission-critical duties in any shop are controlled digitally when possible. Not with steam engines or clockworks.
There's also a reason why computers are replaced so frequently, BEFORE they fail. You've never had a power supply blow up, a hard disk crash, a floppy drive fail...?
Cheers,
Roger
Too Many! One Olympus, Two Sony's, Two Fuji's, One canon. Granted, most of these were P&S or Prosumer level. Currently have a Sigma 18-125mm DLSR (oly mount) lens in for failed aperture. Out of warranty... repair estimate $144. New from Amazon to replace $175. Originally a $500 lens ($600 Plus MSRP manufacturer).
However, after 3 decades of film, and early adopter on consumer digital, I have never had this kind of failure rate with film cameras. To top it off, only one of the failures was during a warranty period. None of these items were abused in any way. I am careful with my gear.
johnastovall
11-15-2008, 12:53
Five digitals, Nikon 950 Coolpix, Canon 20D, Canon 5D, Leica M8 and GR-DII and never a failure or problem. The 5D and M8 have almost daily usage.
I salvaged all the drives - no data lost, but I am afraid to power up the mobo and etc with a new power supply - they may be toast and take out a new power supply just to be spiteful. I'll probably toss the lot, except for the drives.
15 Years of hardware teching on pc's... Have never seen a power supply fail as a result of other internal problems. Power supplies have failsafes built in to be the "sacrificial device" in power failures. The PS usually fails before other devices in the system. However that doesn't mean a capacitor can't blow on a MOBO or a RAM chip fail of it's own accord. But my experience has been that those failures never feed back into a PS failure.
I've worked in a service shop environment. I 've taught community college "Build Your Own Computer" classes and for the last decade been self employed on hardware, software and networking. Never replaced a Power Supply with a new one that was subsequently damaged by other components in the system. Other component shorts in the system will simply not let the power supply power up... not damage it.
My experience so far.
8 digital cameras, 6 dslrs, 2 P&S, the oldest being a Powershot A70 (approx 7 years old) and all are still working. The A70 is missing paint on all corners, scratched up everywhere and still working.
My 300D DReb had the shutter replaced and mirror fixed, but both were mechanical failures but it's been thru extreme heat and cold and _lots_ of shutter actuations.
climbing_vine
11-15-2008, 16:16
There's also a reason why computers are replaced so frequently, BEFORE they fail. You've never had a power supply blow up, a hard disk crash, a floppy drive fail...?
Cheers,
Roger
Indeed I have. I fail to see what that has to do with the question of statistical profiles, however.
literiter
11-15-2008, 17:01
I don't have a professional digital camera, just some crappy little point and shoots. My experience is only with film.
Friends of mine shoot weddings using digital cameras, Canon and Nikon. They are not worried about the longevity of their digital equipment, in fact I think they are eagerly anticipating the advent of new stuff.
Every digital camera I have had, has failed.
Several P&S cameras and a dSLR.
Gabriel M.A.
11-15-2008, 19:15
The only digital camera I've owned that has failed me: a Nikon Coolpix 4xx. Not kidding, really.
bmattock
11-15-2008, 19:19
15 Years of hardware teching on pc's... Have never seen a power supply fail as a result of other internal problems. Power supplies have failsafes built in to be the "sacrificial device" in power failures. The PS usually fails before other devices in the system. However that doesn't mean a capacitor can't blow on a MOBO or a RAM chip fail of it's own accord. But my experience has been that those failures never feed back into a PS failure.
I've worked in a service shop environment. I 've taught community college "Build Your Own Computer" classes and for the last decade been self employed on hardware, software and networking. Never replaced a Power Supply with a new one that was subsequently damaged by other components in the system. Other component shorts in the system will simply not let the power supply power up... not damage it.
My experience so far.
Well, here's the deal. I was (I am sure) working near the rated capacity of my P/S, if not altogether past it. One of my case fans had started making funny noises recently, probably a bad bearing. The machine began to act funny - USB would work alternately, once the PC locked up entirely (I run Linux, that typically just doesn't happen) and so I felt it was perhaps not feeling altogether well.
After one bad bout of not wanting to read an external drive from the USB port, I shut it down. Plugged in, but turned off.
Half an hour later, BAM! The P/S went kerflooey. You can believe that or not, but if we're comparing chops, I've been wrenching on PC's since I used to overclock 8086 XT chips by actually soldering in new oscillator chips, so I'm not exactly new at this.
When the P/S went bang, I looked up (naturally) and witnessed the fan on the CPU (clear case cover) spin around at a velocity it had never before attained - it was clearly sounding like one of those hard-core real science gyroscopes spinning up, like WHHHHHHIZZZZZZ. Then it died down and stopped. Mind you, the PC was off, the CPU fan should have been on.
That's why I fear my failing P/S took the mobo with it. It clearly sent a surge through, something had to power the CPU fan. What did it damage? I dunno. Not really sure I want to sacrifice new components to find out which of the old ones can be saved.
bmattock
11-15-2008, 19:24
Indeed I have. I fail to see what that has to do with the question of statistical profiles, however.
I doubt very seriously that this thread was started to gather information, but rather in yet another attempt to 'prove' that digital is bad and film is good, blah, blah, blah. As long as it didn't become contentious, and since my experience with digicams was rather the opposite of what was clearly hoped, I joined in. I await the climax and subsequent denouement.
I have to say that there are a lot of people posting in this thread about their cheap digital point and shoots failing.
My advice - don't buy cheap junk. The nikon coolpix line is cheap junk. It's made by sanyo and it's built to last a few years tops. Same with canon point and shoots, and ALL OTHER point and shoots, bar a few. They have weak little extending lens mechanisms, crap electronics and by the time you buy them they're outdated with a new model..
Just don't base your opinions of digital cameras on what cheap junk does. A nikon d3 will probably last longer in harsher environments than a leica M, same with the canon 1d and probably the olympus e3. You so much a drop an M and it's highly likely it will go out of alignment or you'll break something in the rangefinder mechanism. You drop a d3 and nothing happens.
It's all relative, especially when people are comparing 300$ nikon coolpix to leicas and metal rangefinders.
bmattock
11-15-2008, 21:04
I have to say that there are a lot of people posting in this thread about their cheap digital point and shoots failing.
Actually, I don't have a problem with my cheap digital cameras failing. Of course, I tend not to drop cameras. Not that I haven't, but I try very hard not to.
My advice - don't buy cheap junk. The nikon coolpix line is cheap junk. It's made by sanyo and it's built to last a few years tops. Same with canon point and shoots, and ALL OTHER point and shoots, bar a few. They have weak little extending lens mechanisms, crap electronics and by the time you buy them they're outdated with a new model..
a) My Coolpix 995 is pretty long in the tooth, still works a treat. Wife uses it all the time, I can't get her to take a newer/smaller one - she loves it.
b) I encourage buying cheap junk. Buying things that will last a long time applies to non-obsolescing, stable, technology. Buying cheap junk is smart when the junk in question lasts about as long as it is still viable technologically.
c) Besides, referring back to 'a', even cheap junk tends to work rather better than one would expect, given how cheaply they're made.
You drop a d3 and nothing happens.
Except that it gets older, and less capable with respect to newer models.
It's all relative, especially when people are comparing 300$ nikon coolpix to leicas and metal rangefinders.
It's all relative, all right - relative to a price/performance curve. I tend to buy technology 2 generations back from the bleeding edge, which is generally well-understood, bugs worked out, and dead cheap. Not fast compared to the latest, no - but I'll be buying that, eventually, too. I stay on the un-bloody side of that edge if I can. Cheap is generally another way to remain in that curve.
If you have lots of money and want the best, well then, there it is. If you're a pro and must have the best, same thing.
For the rest of us mooks, cheap is good. I dig cheap.
eli griggs
11-15-2008, 21:21
I have a Canon TL from 1968, a low end example of Canon offerings and it has and continues to give as good a service as any Canon professional F1 (any variety) I've ever owned, without regard for what it can't do and the F1 can. This is what I expect from Canon, then and now!
When I bought my Canon 85a, I expected, if nothing else, all the experience and natural trouble-shooting that comes from producing many tens of thousands of these cameras and all those that have come before, to have translated into a quality, long lived product, regardless of the intended market. Faster, small chip sets and better sensors were sure to come along, but the camera should have kept on working none-the-less of what became current.
If I am expected to buy "top of the line" from Canon, or any maker before I receive a reliable quality product then somewhere, something is gone badly amiss.
Such logic only make excuses for companies that have no respect for their main stay customers or value to offer in their most basic goods. Shoddy products are shoddy no matter what the maker may or may not offer in a high dollar line-up.
This situation with digital cameras is rather like the American car industry building bare-bones gas hogs when consumers wanted small, comfortable and well appointed cars like those made in Japan. Only now it seems there is no one interested in Japan or elsewhere, in providing value to customers unhappy with the norm. I don't care what their excuse is, you shouldn't have to pay through the nose to get a decent digital camera.
bmattock
11-15-2008, 21:33
I have a Canon TL from 1968, a low end example of Canon offerings and it has and continues to give as good a service as any Canon professional F1 (any variety) I've ever owned, without regard for what it can't do and the F1 can. This is what I expect from Canon, then and now!
When I bought my Canon 85a, I expected, if nothing else, all the experience and natural trouble-shooting that comes from producing many tens of thousands of these cameras and all those that have come before, to have translated into a quality, long lived product, regardless of the intended market. Faster, small chip sets and better sensors were sure to come along, but the camera should have kept on working none-the-less of what became current.
If I am expected to buy "top of the line" from Canon, or any maker before I receive a reliable quality product then somewhere, something is gone badly amiss.
Such logic only make excuses for companies that have no respect for their main stay customers or value to offer in their most basic goods. Shoddy products are shoddy no matter what the maker may or may not offer in a high dollar line-up.
This situation with digital cameras is rather like the American car industry building bare-bones gas hogs when consumers wanted small, comfortable and well appointed cars like those made in Japan. Only now it seems there is no one interested in Japan or elsewhere, in providing value to customers unhappy with the norm. I don't care what their excuse is, you shouldn't have to pay through the nose to get a decent digital camera.
That is yesterday's thinking.
Yes, I have a Canon FX, and I agree, it is a superior mechanical device.
However, it cost quite a bit in 1964 dollars - more, I think, than the typical digicam does today in equivalent dollars.
In addition, providing a 'value' in form of a necessarily-expensive (because it costs money to produce) digital camera when the technology is still moving forward at a rapid pace is foolish. Unlike my Canon FX, which happily makes use of the much-better 35mm film available today, you cannot exchange sensors and associated electronics in a digital camera so easily - so you end up with a well-built, expensive, out-of-date camera.
I realize the M8 fans are thrilled with the notion of building a 100-year camera that will be utterly obsolete in 4 years, but other than those folks, it just does not make sense.
Shoddy products are shoddy because consumers demand more for less, and faster introduction to new technology. It is an endless loop, because there is only so much efficiency to be squeezed out of the system, and we're already seeing the strain of it on every aspect of our technology, economy, and culture. But if you must place blame, look in a mirror, chum. Consumers drive this economy, that's you and I. Manufacturers sell us what we demand. Like government, we get the cameras we clamor for. We apparently like crappy cameras. Well, I do, anyway, for the reasons I've stated.
If you do not, I suggest you keep your film cameras (as will I) and stay away from digital technology. This ride is not about to slow down until it explodes.
Igor.Burshteyn
11-15-2008, 21:33
The only digital camera in our family belongs to my daughter - Pentax Option something p&s. It developed some fault - screen image is rotated 180 degree - after 1year of _tough_ usage by 6 years old. Other than this it works. Actually this is a compliment to this p&s build quality - I believe even weather-sealed, heavy armored professional camera wouldn't last longer being exposed to children :>
Lani Kai
11-15-2008, 22:01
I've had...
Fujifilm FinePix F410--dropped at least once, still working fine but doesn't get used at all anymore
Fujifilm FinePix F45 fd--No problems here, although the dent on one corner suggests that someone has dropped it
Canon EOS Digital Rebel--Bought new, had for 11 months, no problems
Canon EOS 20D--bought used, no problems while in my possession
Canon EOS 30D--bought new, no problems while in my possession
Canon EOS-1D--bought used, 90,000+ clicks and no problems while in my possession
Canon EOS-1D Mark II--bought used, one of the circuit boards shorted out and had to be replaced. Recently sold with 115,000+ clicks and perfectly functional
Canon EOS-1D Mark III--my current digital camera. No issues.
I've fixed a good number of point-and-shoot digital cameras. Power switch failures seem very common and they are typically easily fixed. One time I opened a Nikon CoolPix to find that the connector ribbon from the power switch to the circuit board had fallen out, and I just plugged it back in. I bet some repair shops would charge $150 to fix that. I also fixed a Canon PowerShot that had a lens error by throwing it off the second floor balcony. I had opened it up and was unable to fix it, so I figured I'd give it a good thrashing, and then it started working.
eli griggs
11-15-2008, 22:10
bmattock, I'll disagree; shoddy products are shoddy because the maker drops the ball and no one is there to pick it up. Most customers don't care because they are being continually educated to accept newer/better is only 4 to 6 months away and in the meantime you must have shinny new distractions as part of your perpetual upgrade.
I don't know if there will ever be a significant backlash against all these garbage-can heirlooms that they're so good at making and, yes, we're so good at buying, but I do know that my 'yesterdays thinking' is working quite well, thank you very much, and still lets me know when something is rotten in bar coded plastic wrap. Crap is crap and shame on them for selling it.
Cheers
I have a Canon TL from 1968, a low end example of Canon offerings and it has and continues to give as good a service as any Canon professional F1 (any variety) I've ever owned, without regard for what it can't do and the F1 can. This is what I expect from Canon, then and now!
When I bought my Canon 85a, I expected, if nothing else, all the experience and natural trouble-shooting that comes from producing many tens of thousands of these cameras and all those that have come before, to have translated into a quality, long lived product, regardless of the intended market. Faster, small chip sets and better sensors were sure to come along, but the camera should have kept on working none-the-less of what became current.
If I am expected to buy "top of the line" from Canon, or any maker before I receive a reliable quality product then somewhere, something is gone badly amiss.
Such logic only make excuses for companies that have no respect for their main stay customers or value to offer in their most basic goods. Shoddy products are shoddy no matter what the maker may or may not offer in a high dollar line-up.
This situation with digital cameras is rather like the American car industry building bare-bones gas hogs when consumers wanted small, comfortable and well appointed cars like those made in Japan. Only now it seems there is no one interested in Japan or elsewhere, in providing value to customers unhappy with the norm. I don't care what their excuse is, you shouldn't have to pay through the nose to get a decent digital camera.
Film cameras are plastic/metal boxes with a basic (usually mechanical on this forum) shutter mechanism made of metal gears and springs and washers. From an engineering standpoint they're very easy to make strong, even for cheap. You get cheapish metal body, make it rigid, and make a simple, noisy, reliable shutter mechanism. Thats basically it.
A digital camera is COMPLETELY different. For $300 (for instance) you're getting a highly complex little cluster of electronics and black magic, an expensive little silicon wafer and all sorts of automated algorithms and programming, and a highly complex retracting zoom lens with aspheric elements and electronics making groups of glass elements move to correct low shutter speed shaking. How exactly would you expect manufacturers to make this sort of stuff lightweight, reliable and durable for cheap? Comparing such a thing to an old metal Canon SLR is completely different. An old metal canon SLR should be compared to a new canon SLR, of which I've thrashed the crap out of mine, and they have NEVER let me down.
The reason the cheap point and shoots aren't particularly reliable or durable is because they're basically a whole lot of "bleeding edge tech" (as Bill put it) shoved into a tiny little plastic body (to save weight, which every reviewer in the world condemns like some sort of satanic attribute) and sold for what you can barely even buy a decent photography bag for.
Except that it gets older, and less capable with respect to newer models.
The best part about where the technology is at the moment, is that you can buy a 4 year old canon 5d and it is on par with the latest offerings, even after those 4 years. It still records more detail than the d3 and very close to the 1dsmkIII. The d3 has slightly better noise, and in 4-5 years time I doubt that the d3 will be regarded as a poor image maker, in fact I bet people - pros - visionaries will still be using them. So that would mean that the 5d would still be good in that time as well.
Digital technology is just a baby. It's only just starting to mature. I bought my 2nd 5d a few weeks ago. It's an old design, but I can still take groundbreaking pictures with it. It and the d3 will still be fantastic in another 5 years.
You know all this already though - thats why you buy the older technology. It's only going to get better for you as well, as current cameras are starting to plateau a bit.
Roger Hicks
11-16-2008, 00:10
Indeed I have. I fail to see what that has to do with the question of statistical profiles, however.
Likewise, I fail to see what statistical profiles have to do with the fact that computers have to be constantly replaced, on a very short time-base, before they break.
I've never had a problem with a Nikon F that stopped me taking pictures with it; I have once had a problem with a 40-year-old M2 that stopped me taking pictures with it; and (on grounds of solid experience) I don't trust a computer beyond about 3 years, or 5 at the outside.
Cheers,
Roger
Migracer
11-16-2008, 04:44
Hmmm… Roger you are a master at asking a simple questions that evolves into philosophical, mechanical, electrical and various other disciplines along the way.
I bow to you.
To Climbing Vine: do you suppose you might be able to take the posted results of this survey and crunch the numbers?
My guess is that for the most part the digitals are reliable. A few individuals have total failures on all their digital products. (Roger, This falls into the a new category) The Mechoelrctrophilosophical consequences to these individuals is life changing.
(A separate auricle to come on this, I feel a Pulitzer coming ).
How many of us Senior members remember the failure rate of EVERY scheme attempted to automate (for the masses) exposure settings? Even my Spotmatic succumbed to an obsolete battery. How about motor drives?
The film camera evolution ended not with the last 35mm SLR’s but with the point and shoot 35’s that paved the way for the new and small digitals for the masses. The key words here are “the masses”. Being a member of this forum puts us in a minority, How many “Elfs” do you suppose Canon sells for every SLR ?
Some of us are closet anti technologist (I love the English language). We do not wish to push the envelope or our luck, “if it worked for granddad it’s good enough for me”. Others just enjoy the “Steam era clock work” technology that is a marvel of gears, levers, springs, the minds that were able to design these complicated machines, and that almost a full century later still work !
For some of us it is about the equipment, the connections between the feel of a finely machined lens barrel and the threads or bayonet of the body (I bet Freud Has a few things to say on this).
To me it is all the above and then some. The bottom line is the image. Sometimes for me the film gives a look that suits what I am shooting other times it is the digital that gets the nod. Each has its strong points and idiosyncrasies, we are fortunate to be in a time where we have both.
The digital cameras of today are at the evolution point that plate cameras were in the 1800’s. I have no delusions that in 100 years there will even be batteries or SD cards for “those old cameras” or film for the trusty old 35’s.
I am just a shooter that gets to enjoy another day in the Sun.
climbing_vine
11-16-2008, 07:44
Likewise, I fail to see what statistical profiles have to do with the fact that computers have to be constantly replaced, on a very short time-base, before they break.
Well, you're simply misinformed on that count. Which is why statistics are more important than anecdotes when you're making broad claims.
I've never had a problem with a Nikon F that stopped me taking pictures with it; I have once had a problem with a 40-year-old M2 that stopped me taking pictures with it; and (on grounds of solid experience) I don't trust a computer beyond about 3 years, or 5 at the outside.
And, I have never had one of my own computers have a serious issue of any kind. My family still runs three machines that have passed through my hands: an Apple ][ that's closing in on 30 years old, and a Performa that's about 14, and a G3 that's 10. So, again, I refer you to my response to your first quote.
Talking about computers that actually *need* to be replaced constantly before they inevitably break is like talking about disposable cameras, not a Nikon F.
It's apples and oranges. I respect your camera hardware knowledge, Mr Hicks, but you're being silly here. Frankly. It's deliberate distortion of argument.
Cheers to you as well, however. Nothing personal.
-Brian
Roger Hicks
11-16-2008, 09:17
Well, you're simply misinformed on that count. Which is why statistics are more important than anecdotes when you're making broad claims.
-Brian
Dear Brian,
Sorry, which count am I misinformed upon?
Have you read The Black Swan?
For the broad claims you're making about computer reliability vs. camera reliability, you may have an argument, though I'd want to see figures before conceding. Edit: You didn't actually quote any statistics, but merely asserted them. What ARE your statistics on the reliability of cameras and computers?
For broad claims in general, statistics based around the Gaussian curve (which is what I assume you are talking about) are in many situations worthless -- as LTCM's mathematical models of economics well demonstrated.
Cheers,
Roger
NickTrop
11-16-2008, 09:44
Not sure if there are statistics on it - it's all anecdotal, but missing is that a lot of the old mechanicals can be either self-repaired or repaired at a sensible price. As a result, they've survived decades. When digital anything breaks - it breaks. Not worth fixing, into the landfill with it. My Panasonic works fine. Bought it in 2004. Way obsolete at merely 2 megapixels, but to my eye it takes fine pics to 5x7. No bokeh though, only 4 stops, and it's no good, really, after ISO 200.
Nothing wrong with digitals, but I doubt they'll operate 40 years from now like a lot of the old mechanical rfs and slrs. In those days those crazy manufacturers considered these as "investments" (they weren't) to "last a lifetime". You bought a camera - agonized over your decision, bought the best one you could afford, and that was it. For a long time.
Silly manufacturers. They hired their first Wharton or Harvard MBA grads (guessing :) And that was it. Planned obsolescence, cycle new products every three years or so...
|
-doomed-
11-16-2008, 09:45
I have yet to have one of my digitals fail .
My 20d has been through at least two other owners before me and still always gives the results i am after.
I used a fuji finepix a340 before that and i used that thing hard , i dropped it numerous times , left it in a hot car ,generally did not follow any of the manufacturers reccomendations , i sold it not to long ago because i never use it anymore .
I am new to film so i cant say how or when any of this gear will fail , but i think that everthing breaks eventually , some is easier to repair and some you just buy new .
I have yet to have any of my digital cameras fail on me.
NickTrop
11-16-2008, 09:47
Oh - do camcorders count? They never last. At least not mine. I have a Canon Optura with a stuck shutter. I found a work-around (it needs to run for about 5 minutes in "play" mode) before the shutter unsticks. Common problem. Read about that fix on the web - works. Glad because that cost me good money and it's a good MiniDV. I refused to buy another one.
|
David Goldfarb
11-16-2008, 10:00
My brand new Canon A-1 failed within 48 hours some time in the early 1980s, as electronic gadgets tend to do, if they're going to fail. I got a warranty replacement.
My New F-1 shutter once got stuck when a frayed thread from a film cartridge became lodged in it, but that was repairable, and I still use the camera. I don't regard that as a failure on the camera's part.
My Time magazine machine of the year for 2000, Nikon Coolpix 990, purchased for around $1000 with grant money I had to spend before it ran out, is still working fine over 7000 exposures later, 99% of them images of documents, 0.25% other copy work (like digitizing prints for the web), 0.25% images of stuff I've sold on the internet, 0.25% pictorial photographs.
I had a Minolta Dimage A1 fail. There was recall on the defect. Dave
climbing_vine
11-16-2008, 10:58
For the broad claims you're making about computer reliability vs. camera reliability, you may have an argument, though I'd want to see figures before conceding. Edit: You didn't actually quote any statistics, but merely asserted them. What ARE your statistics on the reliability of cameras and computers?
For broad claims in general, statistics based around the Gaussian curve (which is what I assume you are talking about) are in many situations worthless -- as LTCM's mathematical models of economics well demonstrated.
Not true, if by "many situations" you're trying to imply "most situations" or even "a sizable number of situations".
The Gaussian distribution fails in certain specific arenas (as any misapplied tool will), and LTCM's models of economics had a lot less to do with the Gaussian distribution than wishful thinking and imaginative conning; and their failure had a lot less to do with their mathematical models than running a smoke-and-mirrors pyramid scheme via leverage.
This is all beside the point. Taleb's theories are interesting but mostly not yet rigorously demonstrated; and his Black Swans have very little, if any, bearing on comparative failure rates of established consumer products.
The failure rate of desktop computers, according to Gartner, has fallen below 5% first-year, peaking at just over 10% at year four. I cannot, unfortunately, find at the moment comparable stats for film cameras, but the last I remember seeing in the late 90s (involving, like Gartner's computer stats, the sector as a whole, not just high- or low-end) were about the same or slightly better.
So, I am going to drop the assertion that computer failure rates are less. But the start here was that you were trying to make a point that computers fail all the time, and quickly (you asserted that they must be replaced every three years to avoid impending doom, which is simply a falsity), and therefor link that to digital cameras being less reliable than film cameras.
I'd like to see you retract the one total falsehood, and then make your argument, if there is one.
Roger Hicks
11-16-2008, 11:59
Not true, if by "many situations" you're trying to imply "most situations" or even "a sizable number of situations".
The Gaussian distribution fails in certain specific arenas (as any misapplied tool will), and LTCM's models of economics had a lot less to do with the Gaussian distribution than wishful thinking and imaginative conning; and their failure had a lot less to do with their mathematical models than running a smoke-and-mirrors pyramid scheme via leverage.
This is all beside the point. Taleb's theories are interesting but mostly not yet rigorously demonstrated; and his Black Swans have very little, if any, bearing on comparative failure rates of established consumer products.
The failure rate of desktop computers, according to Gartner, has fallen below 5% first-year, peaking at just over 10% at year four. I cannot, unfortunately, find at the moment comparable stats for film cameras, but the last I remember seeing in the late 90s (involving, like Gartner's computer stats, the sector as a whole, not just high- or low-end) were about the same or slightly better.
So, I am going to drop the assertion that computer failure rates are less. But the start here was that you were trying to make a point that computers fail all the time, and quickly (you asserted that they must be replaced every three years to avoid impending doom, which is simply a falsity), and therefor link that to digital cameras being less reliable than film cameras.
I'd like to see you retract the one total falsehood, and then make your argument, if there is one.
'Sizable number of situations': yup, I'm comfortable with that. As Taleb points out, how many of the important events in your own life are Black Swans: the person you married, where you live, your job...?
'Mostly not yet rigorously demonstrated': well, that's his point, really. What definition of 'rigour' were you looking for?
'his Black Swans have very little, if any, bearing on comparative failure rates of established consumer products': this was cheerfully conceded in my last post, with the rider that I'd like to see your figures before conceding that computers are more reliable than cameras -- figures you admit you do not have.
'the start here was that you were trying to make a point that computers fail all the time, and quickly (you asserted that they must be replaced every three years to avoid impending doom, which is simply a falsity),'
What I actually said was, 'I don't trust a computer beyond three years, or five at the outside.' This is not the same as saying that they must be replaced every three years. I cheerfully accept that some may last a good deal longer. I'm just saying that I don't trust them to do so, and with your own figures of 5% in year 1 and 10% in year 4, I'd say this is a rational level of mistrust, given the possible consequences of failure. I'll even accept that the distribution of failures is almost certainly Gaussian. So?
What is the falsehood you would like me to withdraw?
And if you haven't seen the argument so far, where do you think I have failed?
Cheers,
Roger
Tuolumne
11-16-2008, 13:13
I think you need to compare the failure rate of embedded systems to digital cameras, not general purpose computers. Embedded systems probably have a much lower failure rate than a general purpose computer. At least they don't have any rotating media which is usually the first thing to fail. For example, when was the last time a computer in your car, microwave or washing machine failed? I would guess it is not a very frequent event, as these systems tend to run trouble free for years.
/T
climbing_vine
11-16-2008, 13:44
I think you need to compare the failure rate of embedded systems to digital cameras, not general purpose computers. Embedded systems probably have a much lower failure rate than a general purpose computer. At least they don't have any rotating media which is usually the first thing to fail. For example, when was the last time a computer in your car, microwave or washing machine failed? I would guess it is not a very frequent event, as these systems tend to run trouble free for years.
/T
Agreed, which is part of where I was heading vis a vis the silliness of Roger's "But computers break all the time!"
Roger Hicks
11-16-2008, 14:11
Agreed, which is part of where I was heading vis a vis the silliness of Roger's "But computers break all the time!"
"Silliness" . . . "Deliberate distortion" . . . come on, let's have an answer to the points I actually made, not to your straw men.
My original point was not drawing a parallel between computers and cameras. That was your interpretation, and Tuolumne's (I assume: he is now on my ignore list, and I am successfully resisting the temptation to see what new insults he has devised). I apologize for not making myself more clear.
My intended point was that computers (without which a digital camera is of very limited usefulness) are not very reliable. I cheerfully concede what I take to be Tuolomne's point about embedded computers, that they are indeed vastly more reliable than what one might call 'general purpose' computers.
I still await any rebuttal of what I have actually said, rather than ad hominem attacks, which I actually quite welcome: it shows there is no answer to the arguments, and that the attacker has no alternative but to go for the person, rather than the statement.
Cheers,
Roger
climbing_vine
11-16-2008, 14:19
"Silliness" . . . "Deliberate distortion" . . . come on, let's have an answer to the points I actually made, not to your straw men.
My original point was not drawing a parallel between computers and cameras. That was your interpretation, and Tuolumne's (I assume: he is now on my ignore list, and I am successfully resisting the temptation to see what new insults he has devised). I apologize for not making myself more clear.
My intended point was that computers (without which a digital camera is of very limited usefulness) are not very reliable. I cheerfully concede what I take to be Tuolomne's point about embedded computers, that they are indeed vastly more reliable than what one might call 'general purpose' computers.
Either this is still silly, or you're having a hard time writing today, because you just claimed that you weren't trying to draw the parallel and then drew it again.
I still await any rebuttal of what I have actually said, rather than ad hominem attacks, which I actually quite welcome: it shows there is no answer to the arguments, and that the attacker has no alternative but to go for the person, rather than the statement.
Yes, yes, yes. We've all heard this one. I called the argument silliness. Not an ad-hominem, as you well know. As for the distortion... well, I'll refer you to what I said in my previous paragraph, as it falls into the same category. Either you are communicating very poorly (a possibility you admitted to your credit above), or are engaged in glib distortions. I'll leave open the possibility that it's the former.
As for answering the points you made, your only solid assertion so far is about computers having to be replaced "constantly, on a very short time-base [implied after to be three years] before they break", which is, again, obviously not true. What is your point, otherwise? I can't figure it out, since the only sensible and obvious interpretation is apparently not what you were going for....?
Roger Hicks
11-16-2008, 14:30
[QUOTE=climbing_vine;933554]Either this is still silly. . . QUOTE]
At this point, I leave it to others to decide which of us is being more silly.
Cheers,
Roger
climbing_vine
11-16-2008, 14:35
climbing vine,
You'll never win any argument with Roger. He's too arrogant and opinionated to let that happen.
That's why he's on my ignore list, but I see all his "silliness" here because he is quoted so often.
I was less trying to win anything than figure out what he thought his point was, but oh well. :)
Roger Hicks
11-16-2008, 15:01
I was less trying to win anything than figure out what he thought his point was, but oh well. :)
Ah, my apologies. There were multiple points, and I was reasonably clear in my own mind about what they were, though apparently I failed to communicate this to you. Please allow me to attempt to clarify.
My first point was that computers are not outstandingly reliable, and that after 3 to 5 years one may reasonably expect a failure, possibly catastrophic. This is not the same as saying that it is certain; merely that one would be extremely unwise to take account of it, given the magnitude of possible consequences. Addendum: Of course, my definition of 'outstandingly reliable' may differ from yours -- though on your own figures, I'd stick by my assertion that they aren't.
With sufficient data storage redundancy, the effects of this failure can be minimised. I rather favour Drobo.
My second point (conceded in view of your arguments) was that 'statistical profiles' may indeed be adequate to predict equipment failures, with the rider that you failed to adduce the necessary statistics to prove that computers were more reliable than cameras: a point you in turn conceded.
This is a separate point from conflating the reliability of digital cameras and computers.
My third point is that for many kinds of 'broad assertions' -- quite possibly the majority of important ones, in real life -- Gaussian statistical analyses are of limited usefulness.
Which of the above do you find objectionable?
Once again, I must apologize for not distinguishing the three points more clearly, but at that, I'd say that dismissing any (or all) of them as merely 'silly' does not advance your own arguments a great deal.
If the above amounts to being arrogant and opinionated, I cheerfully put my hand up.
Cheers,
Roger
I've only owned one digital camera and I've only had it for less than 18 months--Canon 30D. It works fine. I hated it at first but now I like it well enough that I've ordered a second digital. This time a Canon G10.
Computers? In an ill-advised swap, I got a refurbished HP that crashed in about 9 months. I've only had three computers so I've had a 1/3 failure rate.
I've owned about 50 film cameras in the past 35 years. Of those I've had numerous mechanical and meter problems but only two cameras that simply were total crap and failed to function--a Nikon F3 and a Nikon FM. I'm not picking on Nikon. I've owned 8 or 9 Nikon SLRs over the years and these were the only ones that were unreliable.
Benjamin Marks
11-16-2008, 15:15
Here's a data point from my personal experience: All of the computers I have owned, with the exception of my original 1985 IBM PC luggable (no HD, 256K of RAM and an orange, 9-inch built in screen) a Toshiba laptop I used in the late '90's and sold before it broke have failed catastrophically. Rough estimate: 7 machines. One of the five digital cameras I have owned failed (a 1997 Sony Mavica). Of all of the film cameras I have used, only three have partially or completely failed: an M6 and an R4, both as a result of electronics that suddenly went poof and an M2, whose shutter curtain had the temerity to rip after 50 years of service. I'm not sure what to make of all of this, but I will tell you that I keep three separate sets of HDs these dayes, each with a relatively complete set of back up data. Resume argument, please.
Ben Marks
If your computers are breaking - buy a mac. Even if at some point something goes wrong with it, you'll love it so much that you won't mind forking out to fix it.
Seriously.
Migracer
11-17-2008, 02:42
As en engineer we adopted the test criteria of Time Before Failure. I worked on both electrical and mechanical in the aircraft and automotive industries. All specifications for components are rated this way.
The embedded components do have a very low failure rate, heat is their enemy, so operational time is how they are rated in general they become obsolete before failure.
Time Before Failure for rotating masses (as pointed out by Climbing Vine) have a much shorter TBF. Components on critical mission (aircraft) track every component and require replacement with in a safe window before the stated TBF.
My first home computer was a Comodore 12 followed very shortly after by the Comodore 20. We got our first IBM PC in 1981 I just recently disassembled that one for recycling, it become obsolete after just two years, but we kept it working long past that point with hard drive upgrades, power supply replacements and several CPU and memory upgrades. Since then with eight children I was kept busy doing up grades and maintenance on the family and business computer fleet. The only failures on the Computers I have had have been hard drives, power supplies and CD/DVD drives and they all gave me ample warnings that I ignored. My home computers I do not consider critical and they have been for the most part the ones we removed from our shop where the mission is critical. ALL OF YOU IN THIS DISCUSSION ARE RIGHT :bang:
Roger Hicks
11-17-2008, 03:03
As en engineer we adopted the test criteria of Time Before Failure. I worked on both electrical and mechanical in the aircraft and automotive industries. All specifications for components are rated this way.
As well as MTBF, I always remember something my father told me decades ago. In the event of failure, look at the electromechanical interface first: switchgear, plugs, soldered joints...
Cheers,
R.
Migracer
11-17-2008, 03:20
I have acquired over the years everything from cameras to aircraft at bargain price due to mis diagnosis, by either the owner or a tech, more often than not it was a simple interface failure not a catastrophic mechanical failure.
Several have failed while in use. All were known issues with the particular camera.
Nikon D2h, metering problem fixed under warranty.
Nikon D2x, focusing problem fixed under warranty.
Olympus E1, sensor grunge. Olympus ended up replacing the sensor on this camera as it could no longer clean itself.
Olympus E3, went in for focusing adjustment. While in service they damaged my lens that was sent in along with the camera. Took them three return trips to correct the problems they caused. (This was for a 150mm f/2 lens)
Funny, but all my 'consumer grade' cameras, D70, E510, various point and shoots never have given me any problems.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.