I have to buy a new Digital Camera every three years. Film Cameras lasted me 7 years. Why?
2007-10-01 07:45:23 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Consumer Electronics ➔ Cameras
I shoot 800 pictures per wedding every weekend. I do wedding photo journalism (90%) and 10% formals.
2007-10-01 07:47:13 · update #1
I have Nikon D80...D70...D50.
2007-10-01 07:47:47 · update #2
What made you buy a new camera every 3 years? Was there a mechanical failure, or did your expectations change?
Am I still using a camera from the year 2004? No, because the oldest DSLR I have is a D70, which was announced in August of 2004, but I personally bought mine in 2005, when it was already "outdated".
You or your clients decided to change cameras because you wanted a higher level of technology. I no longer listen to 8-track or cassette in my car, because I prefer CD's and am waiting for a stereo with an iPod input or satellite radio.
From the cameras that you named, I would say you might be better served by a D200 or D300. These models are much more robust in construction than the D80, D50, D40, and such. Many reviewers see them as junior versions of the D2 and D3.
2007-10-01 10:11:01 · answer #1 · answered by George Y 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well the "prosumer" digital cameras like the d80, d70, d50 etc aren't designed for extraordinarily high volume shooting (which it appears you do). For that, something like a D200 or D2h is much better. Although those midrange models have equivalent image quality, they just aren't built to be as durable.
Still, it's an interesting question. Old mechanical cameras like the Nikon FM2 usually lasted 10-15 years (with periodic servicing) It makes you wonder why electronics don't last as long. Anyway, if you're gonna crank out 800 mages every weekend, you'll need a pro model that's designed to handle that type of load.
I find that the major reason to buy new digital cameras isn't that the old ones don't work anymore, but simply because technology advances and much better stuff becomes available for less. The sensors and metering are so much better now than 7 years ago. Since I shoot infrequently, my Fuji S2 Pro has lasted me for 5 years, but I'm the first to admit it's a relic...
2007-10-01 08:23:12 · answer #2 · answered by C-Man 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The Nikon D80, D70, D50, etc are consumer level cameras, They have plastic bodies and are not designed to take the kind of wear and tear and use that a working professional dishes out.
If you want a a professional grade camera from Nikon, you need to step up to a prosumer model like the D200 or the D300 which will be out in November. These camera have metal bodies, weatherproof seals, and are built to handle the level of use a working professional requires.
The other thing to keep in mind also is that digital technology has been moving so fast that what is state of the art today is yesterday's news within 12 to 18 months.
2007-10-01 11:47:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
1) people photograph far more with digital than they did with film.
2) you're buying the wrong cameras. The D50 is not designed for professional level shooting in the amounts of shutter actuations you provided in your question, nor are the D80 or D70. You should be using the D200, D2-series, or the older D1h/D1x, which have shutters designed for extended numbers of actuations. Effectively, you're buying a Honda into a battle zone and wondering why it doesn't take abuse like a tank.
2007-10-01 11:51:57 · answer #4 · answered by anthony h 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I ran into the same thing using point and shoot print film cameras. I bet I changed cameras every two years. I took thousands of pictures though. Sounds like you do too. You and I do to a camera in two years, what the average snap shot shooter would do in five to eight years. Everything today has a life expectancy, depending on conditions & use. We live in a disposable society. We can build sky scrapers, but have a hell of a time building reliable cars. Go figure....
2007-10-01 09:27:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because you've fallen for the marketing hype. Don't you think you had to "upgrade" with film cameras? They came out with newer models with "better" features also. Why do you think they are still in business. Can you honestly say you've become a better photographer by buying the latest greatest camera? Have your clients complained that they can see the difference between any of the shots you've done with your "old" vs. "new cameras"? Can half your clients spell resolution?
Your digital SLR would have lasted just as long. It's not the camera..It's the photographer.
2007-10-01 13:33:02 · answer #6 · answered by Bob 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I have never experienced any short comings with my Canon cameras and, I only shot 150 to 300 (or soo) pictures when my Wife & I cover a wedding. On the 22nd of Sept., a total of 340 pics.
2007-10-01 08:11:48 · answer #7 · answered by gretsch16pc 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have a NIKON D50 and am at 5975 on the pic counter
I got in in January '07
I photograph the railroad.
The rat
2007-10-01 08:47:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Who says you "have to" buy a new digital camera every three years?
2007-10-01 11:55:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Digicams are usually made out of cheap plastic materials, and the electronics are verrrry sophisticated, and these things have builtin ages, just like your grandpa.
How do you think the digicam is able to do what it does, with very little input from you? Electronics.
2007-10-01 08:15:14 · answer #10 · answered by mar m 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋