Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

So why is the 5D $3200?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 1:21:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

About its Full Frame sensors, Canon says:

"The relative manufacturing ease of making them larger is one advantage of
CMOS sensors. Refined semiconductor manufacturing and accumulated expertise
are other reasons for Canon creating its original 35mm-film-sized CMOS
sensor. The Canon CMOS allows a freedom in lens selection and use, creative
options, and an image quality rarely seen in digital photography."

http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/cmos/fullframe-e/index.html

More about : 3200

Anonymous
September 13, 2005 1:21:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dave R knows who" <kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> wrote in message
news:IjmVe.13311$p%3.57058@typhoon.sonic.net...
> About its Full Frame sensors, Canon says:
>
> "The relative manufacturing ease of making them larger is one advantage of
> CMOS sensors. Refined semiconductor manufacturing and accumulated
> expertise are other reasons for Canon creating its original
> 35mm-film-sized CMOS sensor. The Canon CMOS allows a freedom in lens
> selection and use, creative options, and an image quality rarely seen in
> digital photography."

"relative manufacturing ease"

We have no basis for comparison with a FF CCD chip, do we? does Fuji make
one? If so, what do they cost?

>
> http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/cmos/fullframe-e/index.html
>
>
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 1:21:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:21:44 +0000, Dave R knows who wrote:

> About its Full Frame sensors, Canon says:
>
> "The relative manufacturing ease of making them larger is one advantage of
> CMOS sensors. Refined semiconductor manufacturing and accumulated
> expertise are other reasons for Canon creating its original
> 35mm-film-sized CMOS sensor. The Canon CMOS allows a freedom in lens
> selection and use, creative options, and an image quality rarely seen in
> digital photography."
>
> http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/cmos/fullframe-e/index.html

For the same reason the Canon D30, when it debuted 5 years ago, was
$3000 US. It's NEW technology!!!! The first model! And there are enough
people out there who will pay to be the first on their block to have one,
whether they need it or not.

Stefan
Related resources
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 11:17:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Right now, the cost per unit area of a sensor is between cubic and
exponential with respect to area. This menas that the full frame sensor
is between 12.3X and 16.1X times as expensive as the 1.6 crop smaller
sensors, even though these sensors are only 2.56 times as big.

With the whole line of dSLRs based on the DIGIC-II chip and associated
logic, the electronics themselves are subject to the economies of scale
based on the entire product portfolio, whiel the 1.0 crop camera
sensors are subject to the economies of scale only for their 2%-5% of
the market scale.

The fact that we are now being offered a 5D full frame camera at only
$3200 is an emesnse boon to the dSLR lovers of the world, and I salute
Canon for bring this item to market. However for anyone on any kind of
budget, the 1.6 crop cameras will always outsell the FF cameras by 10:1.
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 12:53:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dave R knows who" <kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> wrote:
> About its Full Frame sensors, Canon says:
>
> "The relative manufacturing ease of making them larger is one advantage of
> CMOS sensors. Refined semiconductor manufacturing and accumulated
> expertise are other reasons for Canon creating its original
> 35mm-film-sized CMOS sensor. The Canon CMOS allows a freedom in lens
> selection and use, creative options, and an image quality rarely seen in
> digital photography."
>
> http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/cmos/fullframe-e/index.html

It's US$3200 because they can sell as many of them as they can make at that
price.

David J. Littleboy
davidjl@gol.com
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 12:53:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" wrote
> It's US$3200 because they can sell as many of them as they can make at
> that price.
>

What doesn't make sense is that Canon did not (at least not at time of first
public release) classify/rate the 5D as a Professional level dSLR, but
rather a high-end Intermediate. With the price tag I would have thought only
Pros would be interested. If it isn't Pro level will Professionals bother
with it?

Take care,
Linda
September 13, 2005 12:53:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:

>
> "David J. Littleboy" wrote
>> It's US$3200 because they can sell as many of them as they can make at
>> that price.
>>
>
> What doesn't make sense is that Canon did not (at least not at time of
> first public release) classify/rate the 5D as a Professional level dSLR,

Because it isn't?


> With the price tag I would have
> thought only Pros would be interested.

You would be thinking wrong..

--

Stacey
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 12:53:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:38:13 -0300, "Linda Nieuwenstein"
<buzzball@REMOVETHIS-allstream.net> wrote:

>
>"David J. Littleboy" wrote
>> It's US$3200 because they can sell as many of them as they can make at
>> that price.
>>
>
>What doesn't make sense is that Canon did not (at least not at time of first
>public release) classify/rate the 5D as a Professional level dSLR, but
>rather a high-end Intermediate. With the price tag I would have thought only
>Pros would be interested. If it isn't Pro level will Professionals bother
>with it?
>
>Take care,
>Linda
>
Different peoples' perception of what a "pro" is will differ.
Myself, I figure a pro is more than just someone who makes money; he's
also someone who is able to solve problems.
If the 5D will solve a Pro's problem, he will certainly use it. Does
that make it a Professional model?
My guess is, yes.
Does that mean Canon will label it as a professional model? That's up
to Canon. I seriously doubt the pro cares how Canon labels it.


--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 3:30:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <JbpVe.617$hW.489@tor-nn1>,
Linda Nieuwenstein <buzzball@REMOVETHIS-allstream.net> wrote:
>
>"David J. Littleboy" wrote
>> It's US$3200 because they can sell as many of them as they can make at
>> that price.
>>
>
>What doesn't make sense is that Canon did not (at least not at time of first
>public release) classify/rate the 5D as a Professional level dSLR, but
>rather a high-end Intermediate. With the price tag I would have thought only
>Pros would be interested.

Plenty of us (amateurs) bought the D30, which was just as expensive.

I'll be buying a 5D - it's exactly the camera I've been waiting for. Spot
metering, interchangable focus screens, and a big sensor - hurrah!
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 6:20:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" wrote
>
>>It's US$3200 because they can sell as many of them as they can make at
>>that price.
>>
>
>
> What doesn't make sense is that Canon did not (at least not at time of first
> public release) classify/rate the 5D as a Professional level dSLR, but
> rather a high-end Intermediate. With the price tag I would have thought only
> Pros would be interested. If it isn't Pro level will Professionals bother
> with it?

Many pros already use non-professional digital models, so I expect that
the 5D will be no different.

Prices are set by what the market will pay, not on how much the item
costs to design and manufacture. Sometimes this is a good thing for the
consumer, sometimes not.
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 9:09:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 06:10:54 +1000, Pix on Canvas wrote:
>
> > Interestingly, I still use a 25 year old film camera for much of my
> > critical work. Try doing this with a DSLR in 25 years time and it
> > probably won't even switch on!
>
> It would stand a much better chance if it had a battery handle
> that accepts AA batteries. But in 25 years your computer may no
> longer have USB ports nor CF compatible non-USB card readers. :) 

In 25 years, I won't give a rat's tuchus what anyone's computer has.
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 10:01:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill Funk" <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote in message
news:mtqci1tr36o2a4161a74g7s3enetij0thi@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:38:13 -0300, "Linda Nieuwenstein"
> <buzzball@REMOVETHIS-allstream.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"David J. Littleboy" wrote
>>> It's US$3200 because they can sell as many of them as they can make at
>>> that price.
>>>
>>
>>What doesn't make sense is that Canon did not (at least not at time of
>>first
>>public release) classify/rate the 5D as a Professional level dSLR, but
>>rather a high-end Intermediate. With the price tag I would have thought
>>only
>>Pros would be interested. If it isn't Pro level will Professionals bother
>>with it?
>>
>>Take care,
>>Linda
>>
> Different peoples' perception of what a "pro" is will differ.
> Myself, I figure a pro is more than just someone who makes money; he's
> also someone who is able to solve problems.
> If the 5D will solve a Pro's problem, he will certainly use it. Does
> that make it a Professional model?
> My guess is, yes.
> Does that mean Canon will label it as a professional model? That's up
> to Canon. I seriously doubt the pro cares how Canon labels it.

Heck, "Pros" have been know to do just fine with a Rebel.
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 10:01:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:01:19 GMT, Dave R knows who wrote:

>> Does that mean Canon will label it as a professional model? That's up
>> to Canon. I seriously doubt the pro cares how Canon labels it.
>
> Heck, "Pros" have been know to do just fine with a Rebel.

I vaguely recall some discussion here several months ago about a
"pro" (possibly working for Nation Geographic) that switched to
using several of the smaller higher end P&S cameras. Might have
been several Canon G6's. While I don't recall the exact location
either, if it wasn't in Iraq, it was was somewhere having similar
conditions. Hot, dirty/dusty, dangerous.
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 10:01:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:01:19 GMT, "Dave R knows who"
<kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> wrote:

>> Different peoples' perception of what a "pro" is will differ.
>> Myself, I figure a pro is more than just someone who makes money; he's
>> also someone who is able to solve problems.
>> If the 5D will solve a Pro's problem, he will certainly use it. Does
>> that make it a Professional model?
>> My guess is, yes.
>> Does that mean Canon will label it as a professional model? That's up
>> to Canon. I seriously doubt the pro cares how Canon labels it.
>
>Heck, "Pros" have been know to do just fine with a Rebel.
>

I can understand that! :-)

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 10:01:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR <caught@22.com> choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons
to spell out:

> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:01:19 GMT, Dave R knows who wrote:
>
>>> Does that mean Canon will label it as a professional model? That's up
>>> to Canon. I seriously doubt the pro cares how Canon labels it.
>>
>> Heck, "Pros" have been know to do just fine with a Rebel.
>
> I vaguely recall some discussion here several months ago about a
> "pro" (possibly working for Nation Geographic) that switched to
> using several of the smaller higher end P&S cameras. Might have
> been several Canon G6's. While I don't recall the exact location
> either, if it wasn't in Iraq, it was was somewhere having similar
> conditions. Hot, dirty/dusty, dangerous.

That was probably this:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6...

--
__ A L L D O N E! B Y E B Y E!
(__ * _ _ _ _
__)|| | |(_)| \ "...and then, the squirrels attacked."
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 10:01:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:rhaei1l8mj6phsjofcuk2p2r2o3tvsnvc0@4ax.com...

> I vaguely recall some discussion here several months ago about a
> "pro" (possibly working for Nation Geographic) that switched to
> using several of the smaller higher end P&S cameras. Might have
> been several Canon G6's. While I don't recall the exact location
> either, if it wasn't in Iraq, it was was somewhere having similar
> conditions. Hot, dirty/dusty, dangerous.

National Geographic is one of the smaller printed formats photogs shoot for.
And when considering that the vast majority of photo-journalist types shoot
for 8" x10 1/2" magazine page size, you come to understand that resolution
isn't an overwhelming concern to them.

One of the guys who shoots the SI Swimsuit Issue each year does all his
shots (at least through last years issue) with a 3.1 MP P&S. And why not, he
isn't getting printed any bigger than page size and at the very best,
magazine print quality. Man, if you get the light right and print it to a
small enough page the low resolution isn't going to be detrimental enough to
overcome your thoughtful successful composition.

But for those of us who want to enlarge our better or more appreciated
shots, and print or have them printed on good paper, with photo ink, on a
high quality printer.......we should not be fooled into thinking the P&Ss,
just because certain pros use them for certain situations, will satisfy our
need.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 12:37:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:50:46 -0600, David Keller wrote:

> But for those of us who want to enlarge our better or more
> appreciated shots, and print or have them printed on good paper,
> with photo ink, on a high quality printer.......we should not be
> fooled into thinking the P&Ss, just because certain pros use them
> for certain situations, will satisfy our need.

Of course. Only a fool would think that P&S cameras could
duplicate the higher quality possible with many of the better DSLRs.
But everyone has their limits, and for most people, going beyond
DSLRs to MF and LF would be too costly and impractical. For others,
even modest 6mp and 8mp DSLRs represent overkill. As you pointed
out, pros know how to select the proper tool for the job, whether
it's a "limited" 3mp camera or a P&S. I'll venture to guess that
the N.G. photographer would use an SLR or DSLR for some other more
suitable, less "hostile" assignments. I think most people in this
ng take a reasonable position on this, but there are exceptions.
One being a self professed "pro" that ridiculed another working pro
for using a DSLR considered less worthy than her Canon DLSR (I think
the other was a Maxxum 7D) and because the backup bodies weren't
also 7Ds). The largest prints I've made with either SLRs or digital
P&Ss have been 8"x10", and for this, even with some cropping, both
types of cameras produce comparable results. But then it doesn't
really matter because I'm not a pro. :) 
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 12:53:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 13 Sep 2005 17:09:49 -0700, Charlie Self wrote:

>>> Interestingly, I still use a 25 year old film camera for much of my
>>> critical work. Try doing this with a DSLR in 25 years time and it
>>> probably won't even switch on!
>>
>> It would stand a much better chance if it had a battery handle
>> that accepts AA batteries. But in 25 years your computer may no
>> longer have USB ports nor CF compatible non-USB card readers. :) 
>
> In 25 years, I won't give a rat's tuchus what anyone's computer has.

Because you won't, or because you won't be able to . . . :) 

Nor will most people. But by then the few that still appreciate
their now 50 year old film cameras stand a much better chance of
being able to use them than other fans of their 25 year old DSLRs.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 10:10:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

SMS wrote:
> Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
>
>> "David J. Littleboy" wrote
>>
>>> It's US$3200 because they can sell as many of them as they can make
>>> at that price.
>>>
>>
>>
>> What doesn't make sense is that Canon did not (at least not at time of
>> first public release) classify/rate the 5D as a Professional level
>> dSLR, but rather a high-end Intermediate. With the price tag I would
>> have thought only Pros would be interested. If it isn't Pro level will
>> Professionals bother with it?
>
>
> Many pros already use non-professional digital models, so I expect that
> the 5D will be no different.
>
> Prices are set by what the market will pay, not on how much the item
> costs to design and manufacture. Sometimes this is a good thing for the
> consumer, sometimes not.

A camera made for "Professionals" is seldom suitable for "Enthusiasts".
Canon are attempting to gain a wider appeal by describing it for a
broader market.

The 5D is not classified as a Pro camera because of it's reduced shutter
life when compared to a "Pro" model camera from Canon. My decision to
buy or not is based on durability.

The idea of 100,000 clicks being the expected life of a shutter/mirror
assemble would leave a hard working Professional to replace their camera
every year. Some I know of do that with their 1Ds.

The concept that you will have to replace a $3500 USD body every year
adds to operating cost when the industry is generally seeing falling
prices or at best, stagnant ones.

Interestingly, I still use a 25 year old film camera for much of my
critical work. Try doing this with a DSLR in 25 years time and it
probably won't even switch on!

--
Douglas,
My name is but a handle on the doorway to my life.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 10:10:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pix on Canvas wrote:

> The 5D is not classified as a Pro camera because of it's reduced shutter
> life when compared to a "Pro" model camera from Canon. My decision to
> buy or not is based on durability.

Yet you'll see many professionals using the Canon 20D at things like
weddings at Bar Mitzvahs, and it also has a much lower life expectancy
for the shutter than the 1Ds.

> The idea of 100,000 clicks being the expected life of a shutter/mirror
> assemble would leave a hard working Professional to replace their camera
> every year. Some I know of do that with their 1Ds.

This is true, though the reality is that it will likely work for a lot
longer than 100K cycles.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 10:10:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 06:10:54 +1000, Pix on Canvas wrote:

> Interestingly, I still use a 25 year old film camera for much of my
> critical work. Try doing this with a DSLR in 25 years time and it
> probably won't even switch on!

It would stand a much better chance if it had a battery handle
that accepts AA batteries. But in 25 years your computer may no
longer have USB ports nor CF compatible non-USB card readers. :) 
September 14, 2005 10:10:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pix on Canvas wrote:

> Interestingly, I still use a 25 year old film camera for much of my
> critical work. Try doing this with a DSLR in 25 years time and it
> probably won't even switch on!

Why not?

- Len
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 10:10:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <43273272$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Pix on Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>Interestingly, I still use a 25 year old film camera for much of my
>critical work. Try doing this with a DSLR in 25 years time and it
>probably won't even switch on!

Well, I'm not a professional, but I regularly use a 45ish year old
Rolleiflex 3.5E for stuff I want to come out well. I also have an Ikoflex II
which I've dated to about 1938 (must have been one of the last cameras
exported from Nazi Germany for the British market) and have taken some
lovely shots on it. It still works as well as the day it left the factory -
shutter is nice and snappy and the (uncoated) Tessar f/3.5 is spotless.

I'm in my 30s now - if looked after properly, I fully expect that both these
cameras will still be working when I'm dead. I agree that the modern stuff
stands just about no chance of displaying similar longevity. Progress isn't
always an improvement.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 10:10:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pix on Canvas wrote:

> The idea of 100,000 clicks being the expected life of a shutter/mirror
> assemble would leave a hard working Professional to replace their
> camera every year. Some I know of do that with their 1Ds.
>
> The concept that you will have to replace a $3500 USD body every year
> adds to operating cost when the industry is generally seeing falling
> prices or at best, stagnant ones.

So when you get a flat tire, do you throw away the ENTIRE car and buy a new
one so that you have a tire that works????
Methinks you'll get the point...
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 10:10:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:34:39 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> far too hastily wrote:

>>> The idea of 100,000 clicks being the expected life of a shutter/mirror
>>> assemble would leave a hard working Professional to replace their
>>> camera every year. Some I know of do that with their 1Ds.
>
>> The concept that you will have to replace a $3500 USD body every year
>> adds to operating cost when the industry is generally seeing falling
>> prices or at best, stagnant ones.
>
> So when you get a flat tire, do you throw away the ENTIRE car
> and buy a new one so that you have a tire that works????
> Methinks you'll get the point...

Only if he's gullible enough to swallow your illogical bait. The
failure of a camera's shutter/mirror assembly would be comparable to
the failure of a car's transmission or engine. A tire is a
consumable item, and might be comparable to the failure of a
camera's lithium-ion battery. Even this isn't a fair comparison
because a new battery might represent up to 5% of the cost of the
camera, while a new tire would represent less than 0.5% of the cost
of a new car. We can always count on you make a foolish case.

Additionally, are you so dense as to think that anyone wanting to
get rid of a car or camera after tire or battery problems would
throw it away? Of course not. They'd most likely sell it, or use
its trade-in value to reduce the cost when upgrading to another car
or camera. What might be done after the failure of a shutter/mirror
assembly is another matter, because if there was no warranty
covering its replacement or repair, the owner would have to weigh
the cost to repair with the current value of what is now not only a
used camera, but one whose list price has probably greatly declined
since the original purchase. At that point, whether the camera
would be repaired, placed in a footlocker, sold on eBay or placed
under Gallagher's mallet would depend on factors you haven't
bothered to consider.

Methinks if you're true to form you won't get the point.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 10:10:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:ue5fi1ts2665b0068hlbpc5d64q2mdaqb7@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:34:39 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> far too hastily wrote:
>
>>>> The idea of 100,000 clicks being the expected life of a shutter/mirror
>>>> assemble would leave a hard working Professional to replace their
>>>> camera every year. Some I know of do that with their 1Ds.
>>
>>> The concept that you will have to replace a $3500 USD body every year
>>> adds to operating cost when the industry is generally seeing falling
>>> prices or at best, stagnant ones.
>>
>> So when you get a flat tire, do you throw away the ENTIRE car
>> and buy a new one so that you have a tire that works????
>> Methinks you'll get the point...
>
> Only if he's gullible enough to swallow your illogical bait. The
> failure of a camera's shutter/mirror assembly would be comparable to
> the failure of a car's transmission or engine. A tire is a
> consumable item, and might be comparable to the failure of a
> camera's lithium-ion battery. Even this isn't a fair comparison
> because a new battery might represent up to 5% of the cost of the
> camera, while a new tire would represent less than 0.5% of the cost
> of a new car. We can always count on you make a foolish case.
>
> Additionally, are you so dense as to think that anyone wanting to
> get rid of a car or camera after tire or battery problems would
> throw it away? Of course not. They'd most likely sell it, or use
> its trade-in value to reduce the cost when upgrading to another car
> or camera. What might be done after the failure of a shutter/mirror
> assembly is another matter, because if there was no warranty
> covering its replacement or repair, the owner would have to weigh
> the cost to repair with the current value of what is now not only a
> used camera, but one whose list price has probably greatly declined
> since the original purchase. At that point, whether the camera
> would be repaired, placed in a footlocker, sold on eBay or placed
> under Gallagher's mallet would depend on factors you haven't
> bothered to consider.
>
> Methinks if you're true to form you won't get the point.
>
If you had a car that was otherwise in excellent working order, and the
motor went on the fritz, it would still make more sense to replace the
engine than to dump the whole car and start over again. I know several
photographers who've gone through a shutter or two, but won't give up their
cameras, whether Nikon or Canon.
Douglas' point was similar, replace the whole camera because the shutter
failed. And his implication that this was a uniquely Canon issue was off
the mark, too.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 10:10:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
> "ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
> news:ue5fi1ts2665b0068hlbpc5d64q2mdaqb7@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:34:39 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
>> number here)@cox..net> far too hastily wrote:
>>
>>>>> The idea of 100,000 clicks being the expected life of a
>>>>> shutter/mirror assemble would leave a hard working Professional
>>>>> to replace their camera every year. Some I know of do that with
>>>>> their 1Ds.
>>>
>>>> The concept that you will have to replace a $3500 USD body every
>>>> year adds to operating cost when the industry is generally seeing
>>>> falling prices or at best, stagnant ones.
>>>
>>> So when you get a flat tire, do you throw away the ENTIRE car
>>> and buy a new one so that you have a tire that works????
>>> Methinks you'll get the point...
>>
>> Only if he's gullible enough to swallow your illogical bait. The
>> failure of a camera's shutter/mirror assembly would be comparable to
>> the failure of a car's transmission or engine. A tire is a
>> consumable item, and might be comparable to the failure of a
>> camera's lithium-ion battery. Even this isn't a fair comparison
>> because a new battery might represent up to 5% of the cost of the
>> camera, while a new tire would represent less than 0.5% of the cost
>> of a new car. We can always count on you make a foolish case.
>>
>> Additionally, are you so dense as to think that anyone wanting to
>> get rid of a car or camera after tire or battery problems would
>> throw it away? Of course not. They'd most likely sell it, or use
>> its trade-in value to reduce the cost when upgrading to another car
>> or camera. What might be done after the failure of a shutter/mirror
>> assembly is another matter, because if there was no warranty
>> covering its replacement or repair, the owner would have to weigh
>> the cost to repair with the current value of what is now not only a
>> used camera, but one whose list price has probably greatly declined
>> since the original purchase. At that point, whether the camera
>> would be repaired, placed in a footlocker, sold on eBay or placed
>> under Gallagher's mallet would depend on factors you haven't
>> bothered to consider.
>>
>> Methinks if you're true to form you won't get the point.
>>
> If you had a car that was otherwise in excellent working order, and
> the motor went on the fritz, it would still make more sense to
> replace the engine than to dump the whole car and start over again. I know
> several photographers who've gone through a shutter or two,
> but won't give up their cameras, whether Nikon or Canon.
> Douglas' point was similar, replace the whole camera because the
> shutter failed. And his implication that this was a uniquely Canon
> issue was off the mark, too.

The "echo" of ASAAR's above post (via skip) is a PERFECT example of why my
patience with him died, and why he now resides *quietly* in my KLINK
ile. --He will argue ANYTHING! If there is ANY possible way to battle
against a point, he will do it. Never mind whether it is right, wrong or
indifferent...he'll find a way to argue it. He has a special skill at
missing the forest for the trees.
The term for this is "oppositionism." We've peacably conversed on many
occsasions, but it tends to come back to a basic level of stubbornness that
eats away at his ability to remain fair-minded.

Shutters aren't the engine.
An imaging sensor?
-Perhaps.
The camera's main Digic II processor and board fried?
-Perhaps.
A shutter? Nah.
Shutter are quite replaceable, and mostly are based on mechanical failure.
They are FAR from being the most expensive part in a DSLR.
Simple point: They are worth fixing.
-But just in case there are any folks out there ready to pitch their
high-end DSLR because their mirror/shutter busted, I should like to kindly
offer to "dispose of it" for you as a service. ASAAR--When your DSLR dies
of shutter failure...you know where to find me, but you'll have to send via
e-mail. :)  -Because as Sergeant Carter used to say to Gomer...
....On the NG: "I CAN'T HEEEEEAR YOOOOU!"
:) 
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 10:10:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 21:15:27 -0700, Skip M wrote:

> If you had a car that was otherwise in excellent working order, and the
> motor went on the fritz, it would still make more sense to replace the
> engine than to dump the whole car and start over again. I know several
> photographers who've gone through a shutter or two, but won't give up
> their cameras, whether Nikon or Canon.

I agree, sort of. As I said, it depends on many factors not
covered by "otherwise in excellent working order". If the car was
only a couple of years old I'd probably agree. If it was 10 years
old and though in excellent working order, many expensive major
subsystems could be nearing the point where they'd need to be
replaced. But cars are a good example, because many people hold no
allegiance to their cars, and automatically replace them. Some
after 1 year, some after 2, others after 3 years, etc. If an engine
failed and needed to be replaced (without benefit of a warranty to
cover expenses), many people might think it well worth replacing the
engine. But if the engine died after 2 1/2 years and was owned by
someone that regularly replaced the car every 3 years, they might
not think it's worth the effort replacing the engine, and would
trade it in 6 months earlier than usual and let the auto dealer
handle the necessary repair (which they'd pay for, indirectly).
Perhaps you didn't read my reply carefully enough. I didn't say
that a new shutter mandated getting a new camera. I said it would
be up to the camera's owner to determine whether replacing the
shutter would be cost effective. And obviously for many people it
would be, but for others it wouldn't. It depends not just on the
cost of the repair, but on the current value of the camera as well
as the cost of a new camera. If a repair costs $300 and after
repair the camera is worth over $1000, it would make sense to repair
the camera. But if it's a "lesser" camera, and an improved model
might be available for $700, some might deem it worth spending the
additional $400 and ending up with a better camera. The old broken
one might even fetch $100 or more on eBay.

> Douglas' point was similar, replace the whole camera because
> the shutter failed.

I don't see that his point was similar at all, and it's one that I
disagree with. Even if after a year the $3500 5D had a value less
than $2500, that wouldn't justify replacing it just because the
shutter wore out. I'm sure that any pros using that camera to take
100,000 shots per year would necessarily have several bodies, and
the temporary loss of one while its shutter was being replaced
wouldn't be a hardship. If Douglas feels the need to get rid of his
cameras whenever they need minor repairs, I'd gladly pay him a
handsome fee to dispose of his "valueless" junk.

> And his implication that this was a uniquely Canon issue was off
> the mark, too.

If Douglas implied that there was any "uniquely Canon issue" I
missed it. He did give an opinion as to why Canon's 5D isn't a
"pro" camera (shorter shutter life) but said nothing about whether
other camera manufacturer's do or don't rate their cameras
similarly. Was that the issue?
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 10:10:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 21:46:06 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> The "echo" of ASAAR's above post (via skip) is a PERFECT example
> of why my patience with him died, and why he now resides *quietly*
> in my KLINK ile. --He will argue ANYTHING! If there is ANY possible
> way to battle against a point, he will do it. Never mind whether it is
> right, wrong or indifferent...he'll find a way to argue it. He has a special
> skill at missing the forest for the trees.
> The term for this is "oppositionism." We've peacably conversed on
> many occsasions, but it tends to come back to a basic level of
> stubbornness that eats away at his ability to remain fair-minded.

There's much truth in what you say, but unfortunately it perfectly
describes your messaging style, not mine. As may be noted by anyone
reading your message in another thread, you essentially said "if you
disagree with my point, you'll end up in my kill-file". You were
wrong, probably knew it, but were too stubborn to admit it and chose
the coward's way out. That's a very Bush thing to do. (pun intended)


> Shutters aren't the engine.

True. But as you so often are known to moan, "We weren't talking
about that". No need to introduce engines at this point. You
compared the failure of a shutter with the failure of a tire. And
it made for an asinine comparison because the shutter is a far more
expensive (percentage-wise) component than tires. And tires, like
headlights and brake shoes and pads are consumables. Many people
can expect to replace them one or more times during the life of the
car. Shutter mechanisms are not comparable. In your attempt to
make not replacing a shutter mechanism seem foolish, you resorted to
an absurd comparison. I'm sure that even though it may not always
be well advised, many people have probably replaced cameras whose
shutter failed. Even so, the worst that could be said might be that
such a decision wasn't wise. But for someone to get rid of a car
because it needed a new tire, one might reasonably say that that was
an idiotic decision. As was your point.


> An imaging sensor?
> -Perhaps.
> The camera's main Digic II processor and board fried?
> -Perhaps.
> A shutter? Nah.
> Shutter are quite replaceable, and mostly are based on mechanical failure.
> They are FAR from being the most expensive part in a DSLR.
> Simple point: They are worth fixing.

And it's a point that I agreed with. Sometimes. It may often be
worth fixing but sometimes it isn't. As usual your tunnel vision
leaves you making silly points.


> -But just in case there are any folks out there ready to pitch their
> high-end DSLR because their mirror/shutter busted, I should like to
> kindly offer to "dispose of it" for you as a service. ASAAR--When your
> DSLR dies of shutter failure...you know where to find me, but you'll
> have to send via e-mail. :)  -Because as Sergeant Carter used to say to
> Gomer...
> ...On the NG: "I CAN'T HEEEEEAR YOOOOU!"
> :) 

Oh yes you can, as your reply proves. And while I'm not familiar
with Sergeant Carter, (though I do know of Nabor's Gomer) I suspect
that comparing yourself to Sergeant Carter was quite apt. <g>

You may or may not have noted by now that I made a similar offer
to relieve Douglas of his "junk" in another reply. But whether you
like it or not, I can certainly hear you! If by adding me to your
kill file the thought ran through your mind that "You don't know
what you'll be missing. You won't have mjmorgan(lowest even number
here) to kick around anymore" you'd be sadly mistaken. <g>
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 11:41:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Pix on Canvas" <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> The 5D is not classified as a Pro camera because of it's reduced shutter
> life when compared to a "Pro" model camera from Canon. My decision to buy
> or not is based on durability.
>
> The idea of 100,000 clicks being the expected life of a shutter/mirror
> assemble would leave a hard working Professional to replace their camera
> every year. Some I know of do that with their 1Ds.
>
> The concept that you will have to replace a $3500 USD body every year adds
> to operating cost when the industry is generally seeing falling prices or
> at best, stagnant ones.

Replacing a perfectly good body when all it needs is a new shutter seems
pretty silly; I doubt anyone does that.

> Interestingly, I still use a 25 year old film camera for much of my
> critical work. Try doing this with a DSLR in 25 years time and it probably
> won't even switch on!

And "25 years" is pretty silly, too. Any camera with any electronics in it
at all won't be reliably usable after 10 years, simply because parts aren't
available. Mechanical cameras for which parts are available by salvaging
from dead ones, or that are valuable enough to pay someone's time to hand
machine replacements for failed parts, may remain usable by amateurs. But if
you are talking about shooting 100,000 frames a year, you need a new camera.

Anyway, if you buy a digital camera, you are seriously out of touch with
reality if you don't expect a significantly better one to be available five
years later. Heck, that's the good news. By the time my requirements have
become more stringent, instead of having to move to 4x5, there'll be
something digital that'll meet those requirements.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 11:41:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:D g7kln$rls$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
>
> And "25 years" is pretty silly, too. Any camera with any electronics in it
> at all won't be reliably usable after 10 years, simply because parts
> aren't available. Mechanical cameras for which parts are available by
> salvaging from dead ones, or that are valuable enough to pay someone's
> time to hand machine replacements for failed parts, may remain usable by
> amateurs. But if you are talking about shooting 100,000 frames a year, you
> need a new camera.
>

I don't know about that, David, my Canon AT-1 still works pretty well, circa
1980...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 1:00:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>>
>> And "25 years" is pretty silly, too. Any camera with any electronics in
>> it at all won't be reliably usable after 10 years, simply because parts
>> aren't available. Mechanical cameras for which parts are available by
>> salvaging from dead ones, or that are valuable enough to pay someone's
>> time to hand machine replacements for failed parts, may remain usable by
>> amateurs. But if you are talking about shooting 100,000 frames a year,
>> you need a new camera.
>
> I don't know about that, David, my Canon AT-1 still works pretty well,
> circa 1980...

So does my 1950s Rolleiflex*. But we're not shooting 100,000 frames a year
with these cameras. That's 55 rolls of film (for you; 165 for me) a week:
we're not shooting that much in a year. Heck, if my 'flex lasted another 165
rolls of film, it would last my whole life.

The whole "mechanical cameras last for ever" mantra strikes me as completely
at odds with physical reality: we see a few older cameras functioning and
assume that all of them would be able to handle 100,000 frames a year (which
was the premise of this section of this thread). That's completely nuts.

*: Grumble, that twit Chris Brown has the 'flex I want, a 3.5E. I have an
older Tessar version that just doesn't have the pop of, say, modern Fuji MF
lenses. Sigh. But the 'flex I have is in excellent mechanical condition
(shutter speeds seem OK, at least at 1/50 and 1/125 (1/250 is probably flaky
and I wouldn't even try to fire it at 1/500)) and has a Maxwell screen.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 1:00:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:D g7p7o$sn7$2@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> And "25 years" is pretty silly, too. Any camera with any electronics in
>>> it at all won't be reliably usable after 10 years, simply because parts
>>> aren't available. Mechanical cameras for which parts are available by
>>> salvaging from dead ones, or that are valuable enough to pay someone's
>>> time to hand machine replacements for failed parts, may remain usable by
>>> amateurs. But if you are talking about shooting 100,000 frames a year,
>>> you need a new camera.
>>
>> I don't know about that, David, my Canon AT-1 still works pretty well,
>> circa 1980...
>
> So does my 1950s Rolleiflex*. But we're not shooting 100,000 frames a year
> with these cameras. That's 55 rolls of film (for you; 165 for me) a week:
> we're not shooting that much in a year. Heck, if my 'flex lasted another
> 165 rolls of film, it would last my whole life.
>
> The whole "mechanical cameras last for ever" mantra strikes me as
> completely at odds with physical reality: we see a few older cameras
> functioning and assume that all of them would be able to handle 100,000
> frames a year (which was the premise of this section of this thread).
> That's completely nuts.

You're right there, though. I was just throwing that out in the mix. My
old Exactas are somewhat inaccurate, shutter speed-wise, and those old cloth
shutters have seen better days...


>
> *: Grumble, that twit Chris Brown has the 'flex I want, a 3.5E. I have an
> older Tessar version that just doesn't have the pop of, say, modern Fuji
> MF lenses. Sigh. But the 'flex I have is in excellent mechanical condition
> (shutter speeds seem OK, at least at 1/50 and 1/125 (1/250 is probably
> flaky and I wouldn't even try to fire it at 1/500)) and has a Maxwell
> screen.

Somebody always has something somebody else wants. Dallas has an Angenieux
zoom that I'd love to have, even though it would require me to buy a Nikon
film body just to use it (and it'd be worth it, too!) Gordon Moat has a
couple of folders I'd like to play with, too...
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 1:28:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <dg7p7o$sn7$2@nnrp.gol.com>,
David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
>The whole "mechanical cameras last for ever" mantra strikes me as completely
>at odds with physical reality: we see a few older cameras functioning and
>assume that all of them would be able to handle 100,000 frames a year (which
>was the premise of this section of this thread). That's completely nuts.

'Tis true, they aren't subjected to the sort of punishment that, say, a
sports photographer puts a modern SLR through. OTOH, even the most lovingly
looked after DSLR will probably have died of bit-rot by the time they reach
their 40th birthdays.

>*: Grumble, that twit Chris Brown has the 'flex I want, a 3.5E.

If it makes you feel better, it has a mark in the lens (doesn't affect the
pictures though), and it's a bit sluggish at 1 second when it hasn't been
used for a while. It does have the optional split focusing screen though,
which is handy.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 1:30:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:seqei15j7gqu7drhka9ns5gj8t8i3ngd9e@4ax.com...

> One being a self professed "pro" that ridiculed another working pro
> for using a DSLR considered less worthy than her Canon DLSR (I think
> the other was a Maxxum 7D)

The vast majority of my shooting occurs underwater, and I don't know if this
statement bleeds over to the topside shooters as well, but in the underwater
realm....***Everyone*** is a "pro" :^) People who aren't particularly good
at the medium, but represent themselves as "pro" and have a few credits to
their name are actually making something of a living teaching others how to
shoot and running liveaboard trips to far-flung destinations.

I suspect there is somewhat of a more strict division between pros and
amatuers for topside shooters. But in the short time I have been reading
this ng I have seen any number of people who talk like they are pros :^)

> The largest prints I've made with either SLRs or digital
> P&Ss have been 8"x10", and for this, even with some cropping, both
> types of cameras produce comparable results.

Precisely why P&S or weak glass work quite well for magazine format. 8x10
just isn't quite large enough to render a serious deficiency for shooting at
3.1MP when run at magazine print quality. It still comes down to knowing how
to render your intent with composition and light.

I mean I'm not one of those..."a camera is only a lightbox"...proclaimers
(cameras are much more than that), but shooting for whatever printed medium
is your intent and then composing and using light to the best advantage for
that chosen print size or type is critical. Like you, I suspect those pros
who shoot certain jobs with a P&S aren't using that same camera for their
poster work, unless the deficiencies of the camera and glass are part and
parcel of their goal.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 1:50:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:00:40 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

>> I don't know about that, David, my Canon AT-1 still works pretty well,
>> circa 1980...
>
> So does my 1950s Rolleiflex*. But we're not shooting 100,000 frames a year
> with these cameras. That's 55 rolls of film (for you; 165 for me) a week:
> we're not shooting that much in a year. Heck, if my 'flex lasted another 165
> rolls of film, it would last my whole life.
>
100000 frames seems to be a little more than 55 rolls - more like 2700+
and 12 ex 120 seems to be around 8000 rolls. :-(

--
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 1:50:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:50:24 +0000 (UTC), Neil Ellwood wrote:

>> So does my 1950s Rolleiflex*. But we're not shooting 100,000 frames
>> a year with these cameras. That's 55 rolls of film (for you; 165 for me)
>> a week:
>> we're not shooting that much in a year. Heck, if my 'flex lasted
>> another 165 rolls of film, it would last my whole life.
>
> 100000 frames seems to be a little more than 55 rolls - more like 2700+
> and 12 ex 120 seems to be around 8000 rolls. :-(

It may seem that way, but it's easy to get tripped up when apples
(years) are compared with oranges (weeks). <g>
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 5:46:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:34:39 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> far too hastily wrote:
>
>>>> The idea of 100,000 clicks being the expected life of a shutter/mirror
>>>> assemble would leave a hard working Professional to replace their
>>>> camera every year. Some I know of do that with their 1Ds.
>>
>>> The concept that you will have to replace a $3500 USD body every year
>>> adds to operating cost when the industry is generally seeing falling
>>> prices or at best, stagnant ones.
>>
>> So when you get a flat tire, do you throw away the ENTIRE car
>> and buy a new one so that you have a tire that works????
>> Methinks you'll get the point...
>
> Only if he's gullible enough to swallow your illogical bait. The
> failure of a camera's shutter/mirror assembly would be comparable to
> the failure of a car's transmission or engine.

Replacing shutter assemblies in these things is pretty straightforward and a
lot cheaper than buying a new body. (The two references I found (10D/20D)
mentioned US$200; nowhere near the big deal you make it out to be.)

Also, 100,000 shots is a lot of shots; 2000 shots a week, every week. Maybe
a busy wedding pro would get close to that, but the work of processing that
many shots in a week would be problematic. And unlike the 8.5 fps 1Dmk2,
it's only a 3 fps camera, so one isn't out machine-gunning at sporting
events with it. It's a 12MP camera and the RAW files (and even jpegs) are
going to be enormous, so that puts further constraints on cranking up
exposure counts.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 5:46:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:34:39 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
>> number here)@cox..net> far too hastily wrote:
>>
>>>>> The idea of 100,000 clicks being the expected life of a
>>>>> shutter/mirror assemble would leave a hard working Professional
>>>>> to replace their camera every year. Some I know of do that with
>>>>> their 1Ds.
>>>
>>>> The concept that you will have to replace a $3500 USD body every
>>>> year adds to operating cost when the industry is generally seeing
>>>> falling prices or at best, stagnant ones.
>>>
>>> So when you get a flat tire, do you throw away the ENTIRE car
>>> and buy a new one so that you have a tire that works????
>>> Methinks you'll get the point...
>>
>> Only if he's gullible enough to swallow your illogical bait. The
>> failure of a camera's shutter/mirror assembly would be comparable to
>> the failure of a car's transmission or engine.
>
> Replacing shutter assemblies in these things is pretty
> straightforward and a lot cheaper than buying a new body. (The two
> references I found (10D/20D) mentioned US$200; nowhere near the big
> deal you make it out to be.)
> Also, 100,000 shots is a lot of shots; 2000 shots a week, every week.
> Maybe a busy wedding pro would get close to that, but the work of
> processing that many shots in a week would be problematic. And unlike
> the 8.5 fps 1Dmk2, it's only a 3 fps camera, so one isn't out
> machine-gunning at sporting events with it. It's a 12MP camera and
> the RAW files (and even jpegs) are going to be enormous, so that puts
> further constraints on cranking up exposure counts.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

All good points, David (and good info on the $200), but ASAAR is just mad at
me for kill-filing him a few days ago... If you or Skip had written the
car comparison as I did, I doubt he'd be carrying on with things like
"gullible" and "illogical bait," etc.
According to those echoes of him via your post, that particular plonk is
looking better all the time...
:) 
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 5:46:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 13:46:09 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

> Replacing shutter assemblies in these things is pretty straightforward
> and a lot cheaper than buying a new body. (The two references I
> found (10D/20D) mentioned US$200; nowhere near the big deal you
> make it out to be.)

My assumed cost was about $300, based only on what I recall from
one or two past messages. That's nowhere near the "big deal" you
imply. If the cost to repair the shutter is only $200, all of my
point remain unchanged. You seem to have missed what I was getting
at, which is that repairing the shutter is justified for many DSLRs.
I only extended it to show that for some much less expensive DSLRs,
or for some once expensive but now near-valueless DSLRs, it might
not be cost effective to repair or replace the shutter.


> Also, 100,000 shots is a lot of shots; 2000 shots a week, every week.
> Maybe a busy wedding pro would get close to that, but the work of
> processing that many shots in a week would be problematic. And unlike
> the 8.5 fps 1Dmk2, it's only a 3 fps camera, so one isn't out
> machine-gunning at sporting events with it. It's a 12MP camera and the
> RAW files (and even jpegs) are going to be enormous, so that puts
> further constraints on cranking up exposure counts.

I've seen ng posts from a glamour photographer that exceeded
Douglas' yearly shot count (although I can't guarantee that he used
a single camera), but your point is well taken. Very, very few 5Ds
will not be many years old by the time they've gone through 100,000
shots. I think that here, Douglas was stretching a point to bolster
his weak case.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 5:46:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 21:53:22 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:


> All good points, David (and good info on the $200), but ASAAR is
> just mad at me for kill-filing him a few days ago... If you or Skip had
> written the car comparison as I did, I doubt he'd be carrying on with
> things like "gullible" and "illogical bait," etc.

Your ego is popping up its ugly head again. I haven't complained
about you KFing anyone, and find the more you KF the pleasanter the
ng becomes. You're may be correct about your last point, but not
for the reason you're assuming. They don't have your history of
ridiculous, illogical assertions (among other faults), so I simply
would have disagreed, showing where and why. But even when I have
disagreed with points they've made in the past, it has almost always
been due to a misunderstanding of what I or they have said. They've
never to my knowledge made the kind of absurdly simplistic, apples
vs. oranges comparisons you so often make. To think them capable of
arguing that a car with a bad tire is in any way comparable to a
camera with a broken shutter/mirror mechanism, as you did, it to
demean their intelligence.

One is a trivial matter that can be handled by the owner at little
expense (relative to the cost of the car, but still less than the
cost of repairing a shutter), either by himself or by any
convenient, local service station, and can be accomplished within
minutes. Replacing a shutter costs more (far more relative to the
cost of the camera), takes much longer, so instead of being without
the use of the car for an hour or so, you'd be without the use of
the camera for days or weeks.

And as I said, the value of the camera and its condition is a
factor. Most people would want to repair a Canon 20D. They might
be far less inclined to spend several hundred dollars repairing a
no-longer-new Canon EOS 300D or even the much older Nikon D1.
Despite the fact that it may have been purchased for $5000, the
current value is much less, and with only about 2.5mp, the several
hundred dollars needed to repair it might be much better applied to
a D70 or D50. Your absurd auto-based analogy is just plain tired
and needs to be retired. :) 
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 9:39:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:D g89v2$1gb$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>

>
> Replacing shutter assemblies in these things is pretty straightforward and
> a lot cheaper than buying a new body. (The two references I found
> (10D/20D) mentioned US$200; nowhere near the big deal you make it out to
> be.)
>
> Also, 100,000 shots is a lot of shots; 2000 shots a week, every week.
> Maybe a busy wedding pro would get close to that, but the work of
> processing that many shots in a week would be problematic. And unlike the
> 8.5 fps 1Dmk2, it's only a 3 fps camera, so one isn't out machine-gunning
> at sporting events with it. It's a 12MP camera and the RAW files (and even
> jpegs) are going to be enormous, so that puts further constraints on
> cranking up exposure counts.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
Typically, at an 8 hr. wedding, I'll shoot approx. 500 images, for a point
of reference. We occasionally shoot 2 weddings in a week, so we're looking
at 1000 shots a week, plus any auxiliary work we might do, which may total a
couple hundred more (100 each) per week. So you're looking at 50,000 to
55,000 per year, or a little less than 2 years worth out of the shutter.
But the 20D's shutter is rated at 50,000, isn't it? And we've exceeded that
in the year that we've had them, and the shutters haven't failed. Yet...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 10:16:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
> news:D g89v2$1gb$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>>
>
>>
>> Replacing shutter assemblies in these things is pretty
>> straightforward and a lot cheaper than buying a new body. (The two
>> references I found (10D/20D) mentioned US$200; nowhere near the big
>> deal you make it out to be.)
>>
>> Also, 100,000 shots is a lot of shots; 2000 shots a week, every week.
>> Maybe a busy wedding pro would get close to that, but the work of
>> processing that many shots in a week would be problematic. And
>> unlike the 8.5 fps 1Dmk2, it's only a 3 fps camera, so one isn't out
>> machine-gunning at sporting events with it. It's a 12MP camera and
>> the RAW files (and even jpegs) are going to be enormous, so that
>> puts further constraints on cranking up exposure counts.
>>
>> David J. Littleboy
>> Tokyo, Japan
>>
>>
> Typically, at an 8 hr. wedding, I'll shoot approx. 500 images, for a
> point of reference. We occasionally shoot 2 weddings in a week, so
> we're looking at 1000 shots a week, plus any auxiliary work we might
> do, which may total a couple hundred more (100 each) per week. So
> you're looking at 50,000 to 55,000 per year, or a little less than 2
> years worth out of the shutter. But the 20D's shutter is rated at
> 50,000, isn't it? And we've exceeded that in the year that we've had
> them, and the shutters haven't failed. Yet...

I think the 20D is rated at 100,000...and the Rebel XT/350 at 50,000.
For perspective, the very hearty 1N was only rated at 100,000 if I remember
correctly.
-Mark

Maybe someone has an official source for the ratings, but I haven't found
one yet.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 11:00:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Chris Brown" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>>
>>The whole "mechanical cameras last for ever" mantra strikes me as
>>completely
>>at odds with physical reality: we see a few older cameras functioning and
>>assume that all of them would be able to handle 100,000 frames a year
>>(which
>>was the premise of this section of this thread). That's completely nuts.
>
> 'Tis true, they aren't subjected to the sort of punishment that, say, a
> sports photographer puts a modern SLR through. OTOH, even the most
> lovingly
> looked after DSLR will probably have died of bit-rot by the time they
> reach
> their 40th birthdays.

I still don't buy it. It seems to me that claiming that camera that is
essentially never used "lasts longer" than a camera that will take far more
photographs over its lifetime is bogus.

By the time a well-used dSLR has reached its third birthday (and/or wears
out its second shutter), it will have taken an order of magnitude more
images than both our 'flexes combined will have taken in however many years
they last.

The expected lifetime of a mechanical film camera _in frames actually shot_
is a lot shorter than the expected lifetime of the shutters in dSLRs.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 11:00:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <dg8sdu$6a9$1@nnrp.gol.com>,
David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>I still don't buy it. It seems to me that claiming that camera that is
>essentially never used "lasts longer" than a camera that will take far more
>photographs over its lifetime is bogus.

It depends on your goal/requirements. If somebody takes 100 frames a month
and the camera becomes useless after 5 years (for one reason or another)
then it doesn't matter that somebody else may take 100000 shots in the same
time frame.

>By the time a well-used dSLR has reached its third birthday (and/or wears
>out its second shutter), it will have taken an order of magnitude more
>images than both our 'flexes combined will have taken in however many years
>they last.

>The expected lifetime of a mechanical film camera _in frames actually shot_
>is a lot shorter than the expected lifetime of the shutters in dSLRs.

That basically means that the target customers for those cameras are the
people who take a huge number of images per year.

Other people may look for different properties (for example how easy it will
be to get batteries for the camera after ten years).


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 11:15:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Neil Ellwood" <carl.elllwood2@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:00:40 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
>>> I don't know about that, David, my Canon AT-1 still works pretty well,
>>> circa 1980...
>>
>> So does my 1950s Rolleiflex*. But we're not shooting 100,000 frames a
>> year
>> with these cameras. That's 55 rolls of film (for you; 165 for me) a week:
>> we're not shooting that much in a year. Heck, if my 'flex lasted another
>> 165
>> rolls of film, it would last my whole life.
>>
> 100000 frames seems to be a little more than 55 rolls - more like 2700+
> and 12 ex 120 seems to be around 8000 rolls. :-(

Yes. If your reading of my note were correct, I'd have been off by a factor
of 50. But look more carefully: you missed the "a week" I carefully put in
there.

But this one's my fault: when I was writing the message the thought crossed
my mind that the parenthetical thing might hide the "a week" bit, and it
did.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 11:51:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Or people who want their wide angle lenses to still be wide angle and
people who want larger pixels to get better resolution (non-diffraction
limited) and lower noise and more dynamic range.
September 15, 2005 1:06:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:25:04 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>Rich wrote:
>> Canon buyer:
>>
>> http://www.advocatesforanimals.org.uk/campaigns/farmed/...
>
>What would you suggest people buy who own tons of Canon glass...a Nikon
>full frame???
>Oops! They don't offer one...
>
>-Or are you just being one of these?:
> http://tinyurl.com/cb4qh
>

I'd suggest full frame mania is driven by Canon marketing and
slobbering old fools stuck in SLR mode.
-Rich
!