A little rant

[Didache]

Hi all .. just something that has been bothering me lately: Are cameras becoming disposable? What I mean is this: In the good old/bad old days a camera was a serious investment (indeed, they cost a lot more than they do now as a percentage of income). So it was cared for and it lasted. For instance I had a film SLR (Fuji) which saw all four of my kids grow up, which recorded a dozen or more Christmases, which was there for family weddings (and a funeral or two). The same camera recorded my youngest daughter's birth, her first day at school, her first holiday abroad, etc. Eventually it just wore out, but it was loved and was part of the family. Not least, it was the camera I learned how to take half-decent pictures on.

What do we have now? We have a situation where a camera is barely on the shelves before the next super-duper model comes along, with even more pixels and even more features. Cameras have become like computers: they are "out of date" almost as soon as you buy them! I even find myself buying into this - yearning for the latest model of my chosen marque even though my old one is less than a year old.

Believe me, I am not advocating a return to the way things were, and I fully appreciate that digital imaging is still in its relative infancy and so subject to rapid change.

But I can't help but feel we are losing something along the way as we turn the camera into a disposable tool, instead of the loved and trusted friend it can be.

Rant over

Mike

[schrackman]

I imagine the advancement in the technology of digital imaging has something to do with all this. The manufacturers are constantly improving their models every six months or so it seems. I remember it wasn't long ago when people were drooling over the 10D. Now, it tends to pale in comparison to some of the newer models and their features. Back in the day everything was mechanical, and so parts had to last if a manufacturer wanted to have a good reputation. Because technology moved at a slower pace, it made sense to hang on to a well-built camera. These days, however, technology moves too fast.

I'm still using my Canon Digital Rebel after nearly three years, not by choice but because of finances. If I had the cash, I'd be strappin' a 5D on my shoulder for sure.

[almo]

Hi all .. just something that has been bothering me lately: Are cameras becoming disposable? What I mean is this: In the good old/bad old days a camera was a serious investment (indeed, they cost a lot more than they do now as a percentage of income). So it was cared for and it lasted. For instance I had a film SLR (Fuji) which saw all four of my kids grow up, which recorded a dozen or more Christmases, which was there for family weddings (and a funeral or two). The same camera recorded my youngest daughter's birth, her first day at school, her first holiday abroad, etc. Eventually it just wore out, but it was loved and was part of the family. Not least, it was the camera I learned how to take half-decent pictures on.

What do we have now? We have a situation where a camera is barely on the shelves before the next super-duper model comes along, with even more pixels and even more features. Cameras have become like computers: they are "out of date" almost as soon as you buy them! I even find myself buying into this - yearning for the latest model of my chosen marque even though my old one is less than a year old.

Believe me, I am not advocating a return to the way things were, and I fully appreciate that digital imaging is still in its relative infancy and so subject to rapid change.

But I can't help but feel we are losing something along the way as we turn the camera into a disposable tool, instead of the loved and trusted friend it can be.

Rant over

Mike

I won't speak for film cameras, except to say that it has been that way in the consumer market forever.

As for digital, well there is a big difference. With a film camera the single most important element is researched and improved separate of the camera itself. this of course is film. The point is that a camera from the early 20th century can take a picture with the newest film of today and benefit from all the advancement of a 100 years of technological improvement. This is not so with a digital camera. So far only a few manufacturers have offered any kind of processor upgrade. So in todays market, if you want to stay current with image capturing media technology, not to mention improved image quality, you have to get a new camera. This does not necessacarly make the older camera trash. My first 4 digital cameras were all used, and they were all great Just a week ago I got my first new DSLR ever, and in a year or two I am sure I will be ready to replace it.

This is not to say that an older camera can not take a good photo, but if you want the latest image capturing media, well these days that means you have to buy the camera that goes around it as well. Unless you shoot film, in which case you can just buy that.

[almo]

Back in the day everything was mechanical, and so parts had to last if a manufacturer wanted to have a good reputation. Because technology moved at a slower pace, it made sense to hang on to a well-built camera.

Hear, Hear!

That's a good point!

I'm still using my Canon Digital Rebel after nearly three years, not by choice but because of finances. If I had the cash, I'd be strappin' a 5D on my shoulder for sure.

Oh man, I know that song. I sing it everyday...

[yogestee]

Mike,,,here are some images of my 1972 vintage Nikon F that was issued to me in less than pristine condition when a Photography Cadet way back in 1978...It was a hand-me-down...
This camera has copped such a flogging during its 12 or 15 years of servicable life...I remember dropping it off a crane track and bouncing it 35' or so onto a piece of rubber conveyor belting while shooting industrial stuff,,,I put all the pieces back together and the damn thing still worked,,it still works!!!I have used the "F" underground in coal mines,,on top of blast furnaces,,on coke oven gantries where I was wearing heat proof gear so I wouldn't burn to a cinder (my Metz 45CT1 flash almost melted and gave up the ghost)..Try those tricks with your 400D or D70 a see how long they last..
This Nikon has long been retired and lives in the bottom draw of my desk,,,we have been through a lot and I dare not part with it..

Jurgen
Australia

[Rivman]

We have become part of a marketing ploy that has existed for some time, whether we want to or not. Digital cameras just keep getting better, and if you want the latest in technology, that less than a year old model just won't cut it.
The same applies to other items as well, computers, cell phones, HD Flat Screen LCD TVs, Crack berrys, the Ipod, yadda, yadda, yadda.
In the good old days you kept your gear a little longer because there just wasn't anything better out there - in today's technology driven market, the one you bring home is obsolete shortly after you learn how to fly it.

[another view]

Wow - now that's a photographer's camera! Kinda reminds me of Jim Marshall's Leica.

I understand what you're saying. The film cameras I started out on were used and had been around for years before I had them. The first one I bought new was a Nikon F100 - wonderful camera and I thought I'd be set for years with it. I would have been if I hadn't switched to digital. For twice the money, I bought a DSLR with a fraction of the capabilities of the F100. Today it's worth about 1/4 of what I paid for it, and that's a pretty decent resale value for a 3-4 year old DSLR.

I think the F100 would have been around for many, many years even though it had a lot of electronics. It went thru some pretty rough conditions (not by Jurgen's standards...) and was never worse for the wear. So, I'd say this is really a film vs. digital thing. I have a lot of reasons for making the switch to digital, but the camera price vs. resale value is a hard thing to swallow when you look at just that.

[Loupey]

I think this touches on a deeper human condition of the world. Everything with "technology" built in these days is disposable: appliances, electronics, toys, even cars.

Everyone wants Wal-Mart prices and manufacturing keeps pushing back quality and components to keep pace with pricing pressures. B&W TV's for $9.99, DVD players for $19, ... Prices keep falling but so does useful life. The public puts up with it keeping the cycle alive. If a DSLR works great for 5 years, then dies, would most people care or just think that 5 years is "long enough"?

Just last year my mother purchased a new washer/dryer set. The set replaced was the original set my parents bought when they first moved to America over 35 years ago. The delivery people never saw such a thing! My Sony TV was a top model when I bought it right out of college 16 years ago - still works fine. Cars used to last 200,000+ miles. Now many people trade them in before 100k.

We live in a time of instant gratification, mega-depreciation. Can't see things ever changing course.

Just ramblings of someone still in the manufacturing industry. Yeah, the industry that is always "excluded" in the government reports of the economy because it is always declining in the U.S.

[JSPhoto]

Cars used to last 200,000+ miles. Now many people trade them in before 100k.

Actually cars have gotten better and last longer, even warranties are longer than they used to be. I had to do semi yearly tune ups on my older vehicles, but now it's yearly, if at that. Heck, my Dodge 2500 HD has never had a complete tuneup and I bought it new in Nov 1996. It has 150000 miles on the original distribtor cap and rotor and had 139000 on the original plugs and plug wires. It's never failed to start, and still gets the same gas mileage it got the day I bought it. That is due to electronics.

Also, you didn't shoot as much with film cameras, you planned your shots more, with digital you shoot as much as you want and later delete what you don't want and you don't pay for processing bad pictures. So most film cameras never saw the number of photos we take today, hence they lasted longer, digital would last that way too if used the same.
The thing that really kills digital cameras though is heat, as heat deteriorates electrical components, which doesn't occur with mechanical film cameras. Electrical parts also deteriorate over time. I think a resistor has a life of 15-20 years of normal use, so your digital camera that uses top quality components should last 15-20 years of normal use.

The knock I have on electronic components is that manufactures do not make or keep a large parts inventory for long, so after 4-5 years parts are tough to come by.

JS

[megan]

My parents, who were born in The Great Depression, always eked the very last usefulness out of everything. I used the same Holly Hobby lunch box that I got in 1st Grade in 5th Grade, much to my chagrin. I wanted a shiny new [fill in that year's trend here] lunch box, but I had a beat-up, dented, chipped Holly Hobby.

I used my Minolta X-370 purchased in the early 80's pretty steadily until a few years ago.

I still have a turntable and play vinyl and a cd player and play cd's. Can't be bothered with MP3's. I like looking at album art. It keeps photographers employed!

I still use my G-4, which unfortunately will have to be replaced as soon as the software for the new Macs with the Pentium chips gets too far advanced and I need to go beyond CS2.

I still have my first cell phone from April 2001. It still makes and gets calls - just what cell phone should do. Woot.

I guess I'm old fashioned. Rather - I just can't afford to buy into this techie frenzy!

It's tech overload, for sure.

[I_Fly]

I'm not sure I'd call them disposable but would agree that they have a much reduced expected life span. I'm shooting with a 4 year old 1D and expect to keep using it for several more due to finances. In fact, I'm probably going to upgrade lenses before I do the camera. That being said, I do hope it doesn't break because I wouldn't be suprised if Canon stops supporting it because of its age.

I would like to see the camera manufacturers come up with a way to "upgrade" a body, much like you an a computer. You know, replace the sensor or upgrade the OS of the camera to take advantage of advances in programming. Of course, I don't expect it to happen because of economics. Just a dream of mine.

I agree, though, that cars have gotten better. My wife and I have a Toyota and a Honda and at right around 60k to 70K on them, they're barely broken in. I've had Honda's with 250K that still got almost 40mpg. Didn't look good but ran great! I have no intention of replacing either one for many years.

[Loupey]

Don't get me wrong, cars are definitely more efficient than ever. Just making a point of the "disposable" part of the rant

Plastic doors, plastic bumpers, drop-through engines (granted this is a safety feature). If you ever have a major problem, the vehicle is still easier to "total" by the insurance than it is to try to fix it.

As for longer warranties, I bought a 2005 Chevy pickup and was disappointed about the 36k warranty as I drive 25K~40K a year for work. I had to pay extra for extended warranty. Then, amazingly, the following year GM upped the warranty to match the competition (doubt that the manufacturing process changed to warrant the warranty change).

The point is, with technology comes obsolescence - synonomous in fact. I can see the desire/need for the latest and greatest. The computer I used during college (8086 processor) to dial up to OSU mainframe engineering computer still runs. I wouldn't want to still be using it

Yet another one of life's ironies.

[JSPhoto]

I just hit 195000 tonight on my Jeep, good timing, it was in a school parking lot

As for the 1D, they still have parts, and probably will for a while, there are too many of them out there to drop them yet, plus there is a bundle of $$ to make as most of them are just now hitting that 200,000 shutter count. My original 1D should last many more years as it's a backup , and has been since November of 2005, and it had just been serviced at that time so it should last another 6-10 years. I too will probably upgrade lenses before camera bodies, the MKII N should last another 10 years. Of course as parts get harder to replace the price will probably be too high to repair them.

JS

[Didache]

Thanks for all your responses to my little rant! As I said, I really do appreciate that with such new technology, rapid changes are inevitable. I know digital cameras will present ever more features and pixels.

Two observations though:

a) How many of these new features are really necessary? Shake reduction can be useful I suppose, but it is hardly a necessity - photographers managed very nicely without it by adjusting aperture, speed and iso. Where possible, they even (shock horror!) used a tripod. Or, face recognition technology? PULLEEEEEZE!!!! I appreciate that SOME of the new features may be useful but, in my opinion, most of them hardly merit an upgrade. Similarly with pixels. Yes I know that some of you will want to blow things up to poster size, but MOST of us will never get bigger than 10 x 8 or so in which case 6 MP is quite sufficient. In other words, is it REALLY worth an upgrade just to increase from 6 to 10 MP?

b) I really think a lot of this is driven by the manufacturers. It is a cut-throat business these days and, like mobile phones, the manufacturers stay profitable by having people buy into their system (lenses, flash, etc) who they then encourage to upgrade every couple of years. Part of that, I suspect, is built-in obsolescence and the implication that because you only have 6 MP, no shake reduction, and no face-recognition that, somehow, your pictures are going to be inferior. What a load of cobblers! Now, as then, most of the image making takes place in the photographers head and eye.

Cheers
Mike

[I_Fly]

Hey JS,
At the rate I'm using my 1D it should last quite a while then, I'm somewhere around 20,000-25000 actuations. It's my primary camera but I haven't been shooting as much as I would like. This year may change that since I made a resolution to shoot at least one photo every day of the year.

I figure that by the time I need a repair, the price may be prohibitive because of the lack of parts. We'll see. With any luck that'll be years down the road. Who knows what the 1 series will look like then.

[I_Fly]

How many of these new features are really necessary? I appreciate that SOME of the new features may be useful but, in my opinion, most of them hardly merit an upgrade. Yes I know that some of you will want to blow things up to poster size, but MOST of us will never get bigger than 10 x 8 or so in which case 6 MP is quite sufficient.

b) I really think a lot of this is driven by the manufacturers.

Mike

Hey Mike,
I'm with you on most of the extra features. Don't use 'em, don't want to pay for 'em! I would like more MP because I do print 20x30s relatively often. My 1D prints just fine at that size as long as I don't have to crop. In the meantime, it's probably forcing me to improve by doing better at composition. I'd also like lower noise, high iso images but...it's not worth the upgrade yet.

I tend to agree with you that the manufacturers are using a lot of marketing trying to convince us that we all need the latest and greatest to "continue" being a good photographer. I've talked to a couple of photographers that have upgraded equipment (and software) because the marketing has "educated" their customers and the customers think the pros "must" use the latest and greatest or they aren't worth hiring. Sucks doesn't it?

If they can't get you directly, get your customer to put a little economic pressure on.

This is a fun discussion! Thanks for getting it started.

[gahspidy]

A good subject and definetley part of a larger picture. In general, the entire range of consumer electronics have become "disposable" by the fact that newer, better models are coming out so fast. There is an "unseen" problem developing and that is the disposal of all the "unwanted" older products. The trash being thrown out by housholds nowadays include some electronic device of somekind or other, and these types of trash are now contributing to an enormous amount of toxic wastes. Africa has become a big dumping ground for alot of these type wastes. There is starting a push to try to get manufacturers to take back and recycle their older discarded models, but that push is going to be a tough one considering the costs that would be involved to have them set up any type of services as that. We the consumer are driving this force of technology in that we want the bigger memory, or storage capacity, or more MP, or bigger screen etc.
I too like the older days when one was loyal to their equipment and the equipment, when taken care of, was loyal to us as well.

[Loupey]

Another perfect example of this disposable society is with cell phones.

Free phones for switching services or free phones for extending service contracts every two years. Everytime I turn around someone has a new phone and trying to figure it out. Excessive really, but the norm.

I wonder how many perfectly good phones are put to pasture every year?

It's everyone's fault, but its' no one's fault.

[megan]

http://www.chrisjordan.com/
Click on the "Intolerable Beauty" link. His site uses frames, so I couldn't link directly to the image. This is where cell phones go to die... some of them, anyway. Frightening, isn't it?

Megan

[Asylum Steve]

I understand your point, but you should make it clear you're talking about consumer cameras. Pro equipment is literally the opposite. Gear is much more expensive now then it was back in the days of film... :cryin:

My two DSLR bodies alone (one bought used, one at a great sale price) cost roughly $7000US. Ten or fifteen years ago, I don't think my entire arsenal of film bodies (top of the line Canon SRLs), lenses, and studio lighting equipment added up to that much.

Even allowing for inflation, there is no comparison...

[another view]

How many of these new features are really necessary?

None. (period)

Any of you ever seen a photograph that was taken in pre-digital days that just blew your mind? I thought so. Sure, newer features make it easier and probably drive up the success rate for more difficult shots, but they've been able to be done before - and have been done. There are some exceptions - before there was film of any decent speed (we're talking well over 50 years ago - even Tri-X ISO400 came out in '54), it would be tough to stop high speed motion in a lot of conditions. And digital helps because you aren't 99% sure you've got the shot - you've seen it while you're still set up so you know you got the shot. But, that didn't help you get the shot...

Still happy with the 16x24's from 6mp DSLR although I haven't done many of them. No real plans to upgrade at this point. It's a lot of cash to outlay for a new DSLR when I'm not trying to make money with it. Same was true with film - the camera + film/processing = (more or less, YMMV) upfront costs with digital.

[Loupey]

My two DSLR bodies alone (one bought used, one at a great sale price) cost roughly $7000US. Ten or fifteen years ago, I don't think my entire arsenal of film bodies (top of the line Canon SRLs), lenses, and studio lighting equipment added up to that much.

Even allowing for inflation, there is no comparison...

Ah, but as Another View touched on, with a digital camera comes a lifetime supply of film that you prepay for and is a large portion of the d-camera's cost.

I'll bet you shoot more than 4x the number of frames than the average joe photog. So the cost per image is most likely less for you than the normal consumer. Definitely less so than the during the film days.

It's been a while but, what, $10 for film and processing of a 36 exposure (28cents per frame)? So $7,000 is only 25,000 exposures.

[walterick]

Are we talking cameras decaying in their ability to function?

Or are we talking about their technology becoming obsolete?

Two different arguments, methinks.

As has been thoroughly demonstrated here, old cameras seem to last forever. We won't know if new ones do for another 25 years or so. My bet is, new cameras are not becoming crappier in their construction.

Their technology, on the other hand, is a different story. The term "planned obsolesence" (sp?) comes into play here (sorry if someone else mentioned it and I missed it.) As does marketing and sales, which someone already mentioned.

Do you NEED this stuff? Maybe. Do you WANT it? Yes!

That "want" is the marketing guys doing their jobs well.

I shoot with out-of-production film cameras (except my p&s digi) and I love them. The only thing I am WANTING is more opportunities to make beautiful pictures! If I do step up to a DSLR (see my blog for discussion) it will be for convenience. A lot of technology these days is providing us with extra convenience, and nothing more. That convenience is very seductive, but in no ways unavoidable.

I think every photographer is going to have to put a personal cap on the amount of "newness" of the gear they own and start investing in themselves. I find it unfortunate that the marketing industry has us photographers scrambling so hard for new technology, that we forget there's still a human being behind that camera taking pictures. Invest some of that fortune into your own creativity and growth, and you might get a greater return on your investment.

IMO

[I_Fly]

Bingo, you've just put into words something that's been hovering around my sub-conscious. There's nothing "wrong" with my equipment (a 1D, metal mount 50mm 1.8, 75-300 usm is, 28-135 usm is, and 20-35 L), sure some of it is "outdated" but it still works well. I've gotten great images with it. With more investment in "me" i.e. skills, technique, knowledge of my equipment, etc. I would probably reap more benefits than if I upgraded my equipment. (Still doesn't quell my desire for a 100-400L for the extra 100mm and better glass than my long lens).

Now that I think back on it, I only upgraded equipment when shooting film when the equipment couldn't capture the image I was after. Hmmm. More food for thought.

Gotta give the marketing people credit. They apparently are earning their pay!

[another view]

It's been a while but, what, $10 for film and processing of a 36 exposure (28cents per frame)? So $7,000 is only 25,000 exposures.

With the price I was paying for a roll of Provia + processing (film bought by the brick at a good price, usual E6 processing), it took 140 rolls to pay for my Fuji S2. That happened a long time ago... That doesn't include memory cards, Photoshop, etc but that was paid for a long time ago too.

Rick brings up a good point - my Fuji S2 is pretty old in comparison to what's available today, but it isn't any less of a camera than the day I bought it. I don't need to upgrade, but like almost anyone else, some of the newer features (Nikon's iTTL, VR, NEF processing options) would be really nice to have. The "want" hasn't been persuasive enough yet...