He doubts on buying a digital SLR.

[Petzval 1840]

Hello:

I repair my old cameras in a prestigious workshop of repairs of Barcelona, Spain (Europe) and I have friendship with the owner: he has recommended to me not to buy any digital SLR, since the mechanics of all is very weak and that to pay 500 € for a camera of plastic is too expensive.

Please: I ask you for your opinion.

Thank you and Bests Regards: David.

[hexi]

I think that with no doubt any 35mm camera can survive the latest dslr. Why ? its simple : less electronic, les problems. Mechanical items are refixable. Now that said i think a dslr can last maybe 5 years in normal usage so its a 100€ investment per year for a 500€ camera .

[tkbslc]

I enjoy the freedom of "free" film - especially as someone who is still learning and likes to experiment. I paid $600 for my camera, but I have shot 10,000 images in the past 12 months. That would cost MUCH more than $600 to print and develop, not to mention film. If my camera lasts only 3 years it will have paid for itself vs film, several times.

[TheOptimist]

same for me, i shoot digital because it's "free", and one of the greatest advantages of digital is the learning process you have - you shoot and can see and correct the picture right after you made it, that's awesome i think because you don't need to wait for the print to see your mistakes

[Petzval 1840]

Hello.

Thanks for your opinions. I have the following digital compact cameras:

- Sony Cyber Shot 3,2 M pixels.
- Olympus SP 310
- Canon Ixus 70

But it is a shame to make my lenses forgotten M 42 and Pentax K: for it I want to buy a digital Pentax SLR.

Bests Regards: David

[PaulC]

A digital SLR should last for 100,000+ shutter activations. That is rather a lot of photographs. I don't see why the electronics would go wrong if it isn't being used, so why shouldn't a good SLR last 10 or 20 years?

[hexi]

[Attila]

[hexi]

I also think that having both technologies is great. But if you're a good film shooter, i don't see why the same reflexion and taking time to shoot cannot be applied to dslr. When 'il get one, i'll shoot with the same approach as on slr : taking time and not to shoot as a mad just cause its free ( or drunk just for fun ) . Quality is more important that quantity ain't it ?

[Attila]

Even if I love obsolete technology DSLR is a must have tool same than film cameras. Some thing is better on film other one is better on DSLR. I select cameras based on subjects. To not take DSLR same mistake than not shoot on film.

[dnas]

[dnas]

[dnas]

[dnas]

[tkbslc]

[PaulC]

[PaulC]

[dnas]

[alex]

I've had my Canon 10D since 2005, and it wasn't new then. It's a solid piece of work, and though it's 'only' 6Mpx, it does everything I want it to do. The image quality is good, and it's very robust.

I can understand a little of the rationale that says you can shoot 10,000 images in a year in a digital camera, and save a heap over film. That, I think, is a fragile argument. It only makes sense if you'd otherwise have shot 10,000 images on film in a year anyway. That's pretty much a roll every day non-stop. If you're a professional, the case is unarguable, but if you're not shooting that kind of volume, far less so.

Processing 10,000 images a year is a lot of investment in time, and whilst it's your time to dispose of, it's disposed of at the expense of something else you could do. I learned this myself by adopting the new digital owner's scattergun approach to shooting, firing off at everything and using the 'continuous shooting' function until the camera's buffer choked, in the expectation that I'd get at least one useable shot. After a while, I began to realise that I was spending heaps of time at the computer, mostly ditching images I shouldn't have shot in the first place. That time isn't 'free', it has a cost, in that it prevents me doing other things, like rolling on the carpet with my grand-daughter. These days, I use my 10D like a film camera, trying to do as much of the work as possible at exposure time, and as little as possible in Photoshop. I suspect that's not unusual.

Sure, with film I have to wait to see how the shot turned out. But I learned fairly quickly how to expose accurately, and how to focus accurately. It's an undoubted advantage that digital images generally store the exposure time details. All the same, with film I never get to guess. I have a photo notebook and a pencil. Have used it for decades. The early adoption of it is why I learned so quickly how to expose correctly, and I can generally estimate an exposure by eye to within a stop of my meter.

When our daughter was married, there was half an expectation that I'd take the photographs. Naturally, I stood on that plan very quickly. I'm not stupid. In the whole business, the only decision I got to make was about the photography, and I wanted the principal photographs to be on film, on Zeiss glass. We found the right photographer, and he shot it on a Hassy. My daughter, having originally wanted digital, in order to be up there with the latest, was delighted with the photographic outcome, and so was I. It wasn't cheap, but then, neither were the digital photography quotes, so whatever savings the digital photographers were making, they certainly weren't being passed on to the clients. When talking over the costs, our photographer said to us, "In twenty years time, when looking back on this day, what will you remember? The dishes that were served at the reception, or what you see in your photographs?" It was a point expertly made. Our photographs of the day are very special, and I can't remember what they cost now ; neither can I remember what I ate on that day.

Right now, I'm playing with an old Zeiss Simplex folding camera, made in Bakelite. It's nearly eighty years old. It's already outlasted a generation of digital cameras. It will probably outlast my 10D.

[kuuan]

[pbking]

As an electronics engineer, electronics should last for an extremely long time in ideal conditions. Right humidity, temperature...etc.

But I've seen my fair share of things that can just 'go bad', some things will last 10% of their rated time, others 1000%

[Karhallarn]

My D1x is with me half a year, bought used and constructed around beginning of 2002. So the camera is more than 7 years old, has the third owner and works like a charm!

I don't think, it will brake in the next 3 years, so it should last at least 10 years!

It's made of solid metall with very few plastic! So it's the same sturdy bastard as the F5 but with a digital core!

Most of my lenses are much older than the camera and work fine.

Just as an example of a long used digital.

I think that the reason to evaluate a photo more on film before you take it is the cost of film on one hand but also the manual usage, many film shooters are used to. So as I started shooting manual focusing lenses there was a rapid drop in quantity and a nice rise in quality aside from the better lenses...

[visualopsins]