Expected life expectancy of our cameras

[JanetKP]

Does anyone have any data on the expected life of our digital cameras? I know we can experience mechanical and/or electronic problems, but assuming the moon is always in the right heaven, I'm wondering how many shots we can take before our digitals give up the ghost through pure overuse.

My first digital was a Sony Mavica, and within 2 years of purchase, the darn LCD gave out. I said good bye to $300+.

I have a 20 year old SLR canon which just needs batteries to keep on rolling - or it would if I ever used it again.

At least I'm using my old Vivitar flash gun on my digital canon. Now that I am the proud owner of a wide angle lens (thank you Santa), I was pleased to be able to use it because the wide angle lens blocks the built-in flash.
(^J^)

[checklg]

Two years doesn't seem very long. I'd hope for at least 5 years, but the deciding factor in the lifespan may end up being the maturity of the available technology. You may end up replacing as what you've got is no longer compatible with other devices.

Looking at more mature technologies, I've got a Rolei 35 LED that was bought in 1976, has no warranty and works fine. Similarly, other mature technologies (binoculars and telescopes) may come with up to a 25 year warranty.

So maybe it's a case of future proofing your investment. You can always look at extended warranty on new equipment and that typically gives you a three to four year lifespan. Beyond that the extended warranty people talk about replacement with "an equivalent model".

Regards,
Graham.

[csd]

I bought a nikon coolpix 880 about 4 years ago. Since I have bough another camera it is now used by my kids but its still ticking. I took the thing with me everywhere (beaches, snow, etc.) took over 3,000 pictures a year with it - and it is still ticking. Now my 5 year old uses it - and its still ticking.
I hope I can get 4 years out of the Minolta A1 I just bought - we'll see.

[ohenry]

I think the SLR's with fewer electronics to go bad would last much longer than today's computer driven cameras. I know my Nikons were 15 years old when I finally gave film up in favor of digital. I doubt my dSLR's will have the longivity of my analog cameras. I know that my current cameras half-life is short, but not for the quality of the camera, but my desires for better :lol:

[gibsonpd3620]

I purchased a Oly C3000Z in Dec 2000. When I upgraded I gave the camera to one of the kids and it is still shooting pics. My C4040 is a6 months old and still going strong.

[Blues]

I bought a Nikon CoolPix 775 in 2001. It gave up the ghost during our 6 week car trip of the US, exactly 2 years from purchase date. Cost to repair - $200. Cost of brand new equivalent replacement - $200.

Although I had previously thought that Nikon built quality cameras, it has really turned me off from buying another digital Nikon. The digital that I just bought to replace it is a Minolta Dimage Z1. And I did something I almost never do - bought a 5 yr extended warranty.

[jabtas]

I bought a Kodak DC210 January 1999 and this is still going strong, albiet with it's second owner.

[Aviator 327]

I got a Sony Mavica FD-75 about two and a half years ago and have never had a problem with it . I have been looking at the Canon digicams the past few weeks and am thinking about upgrading.

[gibsonpd3620]

Aviator 327

You might want till wait till after PMA in early feb. Canon is planning to bring out 20 new models of digicams. If nothing else, this should drive the prices down of current cameras.

[cowboy43]

Bought my Nikon D-100 in Feb 03 just went by 10,000 shots and still going strong. KNOCK ON WOOD.