Do digital cameras get obsolete fast?

[teko]

I'm wondering how many of you guys still actively use your 5-year old (or older) cameras?

I feel back in film days, people buy/upgrade a lot less camera. My dad used his Canon AE-1 for almost 20 years before it got stolen (or maybe he's just cheap? :P). But now in the digital age, a few years into the future, our cameras feel much older. New features and better technology emerge so fast.

I ponder if my new camera can last me at least 5 years... How often do you guys upgrade your cameras (not just the lenses)?

[griptape]

Film has been film for a long time. When it comes to digital, the sensor is the same as the film. And sensors have only recently come anywhere close to film (and only in extremely high end cameras), and are still improving at the rate of the rest of technology. With a roll of film, any camera will expose that film the same way, and the only limitation is the lens. With a sensor, even though the lens plays a huge role, the sensor is still a limitation.

[TenD]

But at the same time I defy you to tell the difference between a shot taken with a "modern" sensor and one taken with a 5 year old sensor. The same shot, the same lighting, the same lens, and I am willing to bet you won't be able to tell the difference.

My 10D still performs as well as my 5D and my Rebel XT. I am in no hurry to run out an get a 40D. I'll put my photos up against a 40D any time.

[teko]

I just got the D40. If I'm not mistaken it was released in end of 2006. Hopefully, I can make use of it for another 4 years before I feel it's getting outdated.

I wonder how often you guys upgrade your cameras?

[T06]

Mate it's called "NAS" for the Nikonians, it's a terrible thing that hit's with no prior warning almost like the two note terror theme music to Jaws when the sharks fin is first sited. Then it stalks you until finally you can't fight it anymore & you must make a purchase. Guess what? You end up buying something that you really didn't need & the return for money spent is quite pathetic, although you do have peace of mind & that can be priceless.:D One exception to the rule is good glass, then again if you don't know how to make the better lenses work for you the law of averages kick you in the gonads once more.:confused::mad::mad::eek:

[DonSchap]

One of the things people tend to forget is that plastic ages ... and when it does, it shatters and snaps. It's kind of a similar problem I'm having with my 10-year old RV handles and such. They used to be flexible and durable ... today, they are so many pieces ... with simlar or even less use. Call it dry-rot from the oil-base evaporating to the atmosphere. An annoying side-effect. Makes plastic styrene models brittle, after a couple years and polyethylene rip in half, with little effort.

Where this comes into play is that most camera bodies were made with metal shells and metal knobs and parts. Film was your media of transport ... and the newer and newer films kept your camera "up to date", so to speak. Today ... plastic! Nearly every consumer one and some pro models, too.

As was previously stated ... the digital camera body and its associated sensor are your "film." No production camera has an intercahngeable sensor, yet. Novel I dea, though. To upgrade it requires a whole new camera body, plain and simple. Sure, some firmware upgrades can enhance functionality, but the bottom line is still that the sensor stays for life, however long or short that may be. So, in essence, it has built in obsolescence ... which you cannot hide from.

Despite "TenD's" claim of getting excellent quality images from his 6.3 MP camera, the fact is that when you start cropping down an image to frame it or blowing it up for larger prints, 6.1 MP images fall apart faster to pixelation than 12.2 or 14.2mP will. It's just the way it is.

Anyway ... be it plastic failure, sensor design or more features ... when you go digital ... you have what you have, for the life of the camera. Obsolete in the hands of the holder.

[T06]

For christ sake Don, cut that sh_t out. You keep on talking sense like that & everyone here won't have someone to pick on & call a moron.:D;)

[Spookonthe8ball]

Just think of digital cameras like computers. In the early days of computers a large hard drive was very expensive. When we hit a whopping 2 gig :eek:for a main drive we thought that was phenominal. Then faster/cheaper processors came along and changed all of that. I feel computers have pretty much leveled out in the last couple of years. Nowdays most mid priced units can handle our photography needs with little time wasted processing the digital data. I think cameras have just recently caught up to the level of our computers. Cameras that process 6 plus megapixels are still pretty much in the race. They produce wonderful pictures and are fast enough in most cases to compete in this ever changing market. I see cameras leveling off for the consumer in the 8 to 12 MP range. I hope the photographers like us drive the market to better IQ instead of more mp. Imagine a camera sensor that has each pixel able to produce a million colors and software to manage it. ISO 3200 might be standard on a 2012 point & shoot that looks like ISO 100 from the old 2008 cameras. The old pixel might be called something else. Where this will go is anyones guess.
Spook

[Turn]

I say thats a load of bs

Camera's don't have the same short lifespan like consoles or gamer computers. and still usable

the thing that ages them is the material like someone said before

[Spookonthe8ball]

I hear ya Turn, I just bought the Canon 70-200 L chip for my new LXI. I realize there is no actual lens, but can anyone explain why The ISO falls off to 6400 when I use laser flash at 7000 ISO when I shoot in total darkness?
Spook

[Rhys]

I still have my Nikon 995 from 2002, my Nikon 3100 from 2003 and my Canon S1 IS from 2004. They're all 3 megapixels and will do an excellent 8.5x11 (A4) print. Yes... I still do use them all. The S1 IS is coming with me to Disneyland this year.

[DonSchap]

Personally ... I've decided to shoot pictures with my five-month-old A700 ... I figured I had ponied up the cash for this brand new toy .... it's going to get number one use. I'm not saving it for a rainy day, okay? Same thing will happen with the A900, to improve possibilities. The older cameras are fine as back ups and hand me downs to family or friends ... but, I'm not dedicating my life to them.

Obsolete perhaps ... but like "TenD" ... you still might be able to wring something worthwhile out of it. But just about anything has to be better than wandering back down "chemical alley", in the darkroom. The smell from the basement can be horrific, sloshing paper around in developing trays and whatnot.

[Visual Reality]

Outdated? Yes.

Obsolete? No.

Two very different things.

[T06]

There's always another view, thats why so many different people can be good photographers.;) Take it easy.
7 results for: obsolete
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ob·so·lete [ob-suh-leet, ob-suh-leet] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, verb, -let·ed, -let·ing.
–adjective
1. no longer in general use; fallen into disuse: an obsolete expression.
2. of a discarded or outmoded type; out of date: an obsolete battleship.
3. (of a linguistic form) no longer in use, esp., out of use for at least the past century. Compare archaic.
4. effaced by wearing down or away.
5. Biology. imperfectly developed or rudimentary in comparison with the corresponding character in other individuals, as of the opposite sex or of a related species.
–verb (used with object)
6. to make obsolete by replacing with something newer or better; antiquate: Automation has obsoleted many factory workers.
[Origin: 1570–80; < L obsolétus, ptp. of obsoléscere to fall into disuse, perh. equiv. to ob- ob- + sol(ére) to be accustomed to + -éscere -esce]

—Related forms
ob·so·lete·ly, adverb
ob·so·lete·ness, noun

—Synonyms 2. antiquated, ancient, old.
—Antonyms 1, 2. new, modern.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.


6 results for: outdated
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
out·dat·ed [out-dey-tid] Pronunciation Key
–adjective
no longer in use or fashionable; out-of-date; outmoded; antiquated.
[Origin: 1610–20; out- + date1 + -ed2]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
out·date [out-deyt] Pronunciation Key
–verb (used with object), -dat·ed, -dat·ing.
to put out of date; make antiquated or obsolete: The advent of the steamship outdated sailing ships as commercial carriers.
[Origin: 1640–50; prob. back formation from outdated]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
out·date (out-dāt') Pronunciation Key
tr.v. out·dat·ed, out·dat·ing, out·dates
To replace or make obsolete or old-fashioned.

(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
out·dat·ed (out-dā'tĭd) Pronunciation Key
adj. Out-of-date; old-fashioned.



1616, "grown obsolete," from out + date (q.v.). Out-of-date is attested from 1628.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This
outdated

adjective
old; no longer valid or fashionable; "obsolete words"; "an obsolete locomotive"; "outdated equipment"; "superannuated laws"; "out-of-date ideas"

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

[Visual Reality]

To me "outdated" can still be very usable, just like when it was new. However there may be better, more advanced options available. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

"Obsolete" to me means something that is no longer viable in today's world due to advancements in technology. You may as well give in and upgrade.

[DonSchap]

Guys, guys ... A Model "A" is a car ... but I'm not seeing any on the highway. Everything is relative. You can still shoot images with a "Brownie" Camera ... even the highly touted SX-70 Land Camera. Depends on what you want and the needs required.

If something works ... it works. We have to leave it at that ... but, in contrast ;) ... speed of function is usually the desired response. Photographic history reveals all sorts of processes, that required copious amounts of time. Each effort basically was aimed at improving ease and improving the speed of results or throughput. Why? It all boils down to the "Time is Money" rationale. The less time working on one item ... more time producing many.

Today's digital world is still looking for that hyper-realistic shot from a handheld, portable camera. Industry seems to believe it is based in a high-density/noise-free sensor. Every year ... how much more can we pack on a sensor? PMA revealed three cameras exceeding the 12.2MP convention. Anything obsolete? Nah ... we're at a lull until some NEW technology arrives. Hey, they're working on it.

Film is becoming obsolete, to be sure. It is more work than it seems to be worth for the novice, no doubt. Can film still deliver the goods? Heck yeah!

Again ... it all depends on the need ... the cost ... and most of all, the desire.

[downtrodden]

while all of this talk is very excellent, a lot of it really fails to answer the OP's question.

OP; your digi cam will last you as long as you're happy with the results you get from the camera. as pointed out, a 10D takes just as good of a picture as a 40D in most circumstances! the new cameras only make a difference with the ease of taking said picture. ideally thew new generation of cameras have feautres that should make photography easier on the photographer. IE: live view, more autocus points or more accurate autofocus, better battery life *although sometimes the battery life in the newer generation can actually be shorter :O *

The advances in sensor techonology over the past 10 years has been huge. Digital has come leaps and bounds from it's infancy, but the growth has slowed a lot in the past few years. Now better programming affects the image's quality more than the lastest and greatest sensor...

So if you buy a 40D now or an XSi, or a D300- there should be no reason for you to upgrade for several years, unless a hot new feature comes out that you decide you just have to have... but if you take a breath and go "I don't HAVE to have this feature, my photography has been great for years without it" then you'll realize the answer to your original question...

[JTL]

Outdated? Yes.

Obsolete? No.

Two very different things.Bingo! ;)


_____

[AlexMonro]

The thing that frustrates me most is that often, when manufacturers withdraw an old model and bring out its replacement, the replacement is worse in many respects than the model it replaces, or they fail to bring out any adequate replacement at all.

For example, I've been thinking of getting a "carry at all times" compact. For me, the ideal would be the Fuji E900 - reasonably wide angle (32mm equiv), optical viewfinder, Super CCD sensor, AA batteries. But Fuji withdrew it a few years ago, and there's no comparable replacement.

Other examples are the recently withdrawn (though still avaiable from some retailers) Fuji S6000 / S6500 ultrazoom, and to show that Fuji aren't the only ones to do this, the late, great, Sony DSC-R1 APS-C sensor ultrazoom bridge.

[JTL]

The thing that frustrates me most is that often, when manufacturers withdraw an old model and bring out its replacement, the replacement is worse in many respects than the model it replaces, or they fail to bring out any adequate replacement at all.

For example, I've been thinking of getting a "carry at all times" compact. For me, the ideal would be the Fuji E900 - reasonably wide angle (32mm equiv), optical viewfinder, Super CCD sensor, AA batteries. But Fuji withdrew it a few years ago, and there's no comparable replacement.

Other examples are the recently withdrawn (though still avaiable from some retailers) Fuji S6000 / S6500 ultrazoom, and to show that Fuji aren't the only ones to do this, the late, great, Sony DSC-R1 APS-C sensor ultrazoom bridge.Ooooo! Fuji! One of my favorite subjects to rant about! Are iditots running that company, or what? Look what the did with the F31fd! Fuji is so stupid it makes my blood boil. They literally could have made themselves the only P&S game in town, but blew it! I'd like to run that place for a year...I'd have all of the other manufacturer's begging for mercy!

[cdifoto]

No such thing as current technology. It's an oxymoron.

My primary camera was released in 2004.

[erichlund]

Obsolete is when something starts to become unuseable because the technology is no longer generally supported. For instance, film is trending toward obsolescence, because newer technology is replacing it, and it's getting more difficult to find sources for film products.

An older digital camera is not obsolete, because the technology still works and is still fully supported. It becomes outdated, as someone said. It still works the same as before, and the tools available get even better at getting the last ounce of quality out of the images, but the quality is not as good a newer products. This is because the technology is rapidly evolving.

Film got to the point where any change was incremental at best. There was very little change. That's not the case with digital cameras. There is still a lot of room for improvement in the technology, so we will continue to see new products that outperform older products.

I had a Coolpix 990 (broken), a D70 (stolen) and now a D200. The D200 provides clearly better images than the 990, and somewhat better than the D70. In good light, a small print from all three would look very close to the same, but none of the 990 prints at letter size look as good as the D70 and D200. The D200 gives me more latitude to crop than I had with the D70, and a touch more low light performance. I can clearly see the advantages I've gotten as I stepped up from each previous model, so I don't buy the statements that the images are the same across succesive models. OTOH, each of my successive levels has been not just newer, but a step up in type, so some of that is to be expected. Still, the sensors improve with each new model, so you should be able to get better results, even if you stay on the same level and just get the newer product.

There's one caveat to all this, if your photography doesn't challenge the limits of the technology, then upgrading may show no improvement at all. You'll generally get good results from any camera if all you do is take nice, well exposed, daylight shots and print them to postcard size. My wife's Canon S70, a nice point and shoot that's a little dated, does just fine for the simple tasks that she asks of it. She doesn't need or want anything newer.

[Visual Reality]

Agree with Eric...basically what I was trying to say on page 1.

[erichlund]

I might add that one reason this discussion comes up is the rapid advance in technology, and the fact that people that read a hardware site like this tend to be the type that are interested in new technology. Hence, you have the disease of technology lust. The only real cure is to take a break from sites like this. Just go out an shoot. You'll be amazed that without all the new stuff pounding at your brain, the camera you have will, surprisingly, get better over time. (Well, actually, that's you, the camera is just the same).

[Spookonthe8ball]

Good post Eric. I was beating around the bush earlier, just trying to point out that no matter what you buy, It's going to be replaced with something newer and maybe better. If your current camera is producing images to your satisfaction, there is no reason to upgrade to a new one, or a newer system.
So what if it takes 3 minutes to download card A if card B does it in 60 seconds. If the pictures are there no one will know the difference.
Spook

[cdifoto]

So what if it takes 3 minutes to download card A if card B does it in 60 seconds. If the pictures are there no one will know the difference.
Spook

I prefer a stack of card As. Piss break for the first one, brew coffee for the 2nd, pour coffee for third, etc. You really can't get anything done in 60 seconds. :D

[Visual Reality]

I might add that one reason this discussion comes up is the rapid advance in technology, and the fact that people that read a hardware site like this tend to be the type that are interested in new technology. Hence, you have the disease of technology lust. The only real cure is to take a break from sites like this. Just go out an shoot. You'll be amazed that without all the new stuff pounding at your brain, the camera you have will, surprisingly, get better over time. (Well, actually, that's you, the camera is just the same).
I often run into the exact same thing. I have to make myself go on a hiatus and purposefully stop keeping up with the new tech. It makes you happier with what you have because you aren't constantly thinking about what's better.

[fotogmarc]

In total agreement with the obsolete vs outdated discussion.

After spending a load of money for a Canon G3 and being happy with it for several years, I replaced it with a Canon SD 600. The SD had much better image quality (less than half the price and nothing to do with 4mb vs 6mb). It most likely has to do with the Digic processor.

For my first Dslr (Oly E500) I wanted to keep the price down as I'm anxiously awaiting new technology to come out, not just more mb on a CCD or CMOS sensor, but perhaps perfecting the Foveon sensor or some other breakthrough. Though if it doesn't happen in the next year or two I'll probably upgrade.
Do I still use the G3? Sometimes, but not often.
8-10mp Dslr's are still quite useful and should be for a number of years, but when the newer 14+ mb cameras start coming out it'll be hard to resist the tempation.
The stock photo companies are also an indicator of how outdated a camera may be. Some now require images to be 10mb or more.
Most people are content printing 81/2 X 11 prints or viewing on the monitor, so 5 yr old cameras will be adequate, but as 13" and 17" printer prices keep coming down our desire to hang these prints goes up.

Just throwing some more discussion. :)

[T06]

In total agreement with the obsolete vs outdated discussion.

After spending a load of money for a Canon G3 and being happy with it for several years, I replaced it with a Canon SD 600. The SD had much better image quality (less than half the price and nothing to do with 4mb vs 6mb). It most likely has to do with the Digic processor.

For my first Dslr (Oly E500) I wanted to keep the price down as I'm anxiously awaiting new technology to come out, not just more mb on a CCD or CMOS sensor, but perhaps perfecting the Foveon sensor or some other breakthrough. Though if it doesn't happen in the next year or two I'll probably upgrade.
Do I still use the G3? Sometimes, but not often.
8-10mp Dslr's are still quite useful and should be for a number of years, but when the newer 14+ mb cameras start coming out it'll be hard to resist the tempation.
The stock photo companies are also an indicator of how outdated a camera may be. Some now require images to be 10mb or more.
Most people are content printing 81/2 X 11 prints or viewing on the monitor, so 5 yr old cameras will be adequate, but as 13" and 17" printer prices keep coming down our desire to hang these prints goes up.

Just throwing some more discussion. :)
You're right. Its' human nature to want more & better things. I'm hanging off buying another printer from what I've seen in Oz in the last 12 months, bit of luck & it'll be 24" for under a grand. Suppose by then it'll be outdated & I'll have to get it calibrated so's it won't become obsoleted.

[teko]

I guess I should have used 'outdated' instead of 'obsolete' :P.

Thanks for all the comments and explanations.