PDA

View Full Version : Cycles?



Rex914
02-16-2005, 11:13 PM
This is something I'm not entirely clear about. Is it true that DSLR's can only take a certain amount of pictures before they risk dying? Is this what it means when people say "cycles?"

How many cycles can the Canon's go through before their time is up? Are they guaranteed to faze off at that point or is there still a decent chance that you can still pull off quite a few shots?

Samuel Lo
02-17-2005, 12:37 AM
This is something I'm not entirely clear about. Is it true that DSLR's can only take a certain amount of pictures before they risk dying? Is this what it means when people say "cycles?"

How many cycles can the Canon's go through before their time is up? Are they guaranteed to faze off at that point or is there still a decent chance that you can still pull off quite a few shots?


The fact that I know is the life cycle of the shutter, that means the shutter have to be replace after a certain nember of open and shut operation, e.g. 100,000 times. But I never come across with any camera that have to retire because of this, even my 20+ year-old Nikon F2!

Does any expert heard of it?

Ant
02-17-2005, 01:03 AM
Well I'm no expert but, yes, I've heard of it.

Cameras are normally rated for how many shutter operations they can be expexted to reasonably perform. I've heard something like 50,000 for my D70, although the manufacturers seem a little reticent about openly disclosing the exact figures.

It's become far more of an issue with digital SLRs as opposed to the film ones because the average photographer can easily and cheaply shoot far more with digital than you ever could with film, and hence far more shutter operations.

Having said that it's not an exact science. My D70 is very unlikely to give up the ghost after it's exact 50,000th shutter operation. I might get 70,000 or even 100,000 out of it. On the other hand I might get unluck and have it give up at 40,000.

I really wouldn't worry about it too much, given our modern society's propensity for constant change and upgrade you'll probably be hankering to buy a new DSLR before the old one gives up.

dwig
02-17-2005, 09:28 AM
The fact that I know is the life cycle of the shutter, that means the shutter have to be replace after a certain nember of open and shut operation, e.g. 100,000 times. But I never come across with any camera that have to retire because of this, even my 20+ year-old Nikon F2!

Does any expert heard of it?

I spent ~20 years managing pro-orientated camera stores. Over the years, I saw countless SLRs whose shutters had worn out, beyond hope of any practical repair, simply from use. These were mostly low to mid line cameras that had sleeve bearings on the focal-plane shutter spindles. The Canon FT, FTb, TL, TLb, TX family was the most notorious, largely because they were the easiest to prove wear was the cause of their shutter problems, although I saw many Pentax's (all types w/ cloth curtains) and Minolta SRT's also. The true pro Nikons (F, F3, F3) all used ball or roller bearings and didn't typically wear out, even after extensive use, unless they were subjected to abnormal dirt and grit.

Lest you think I'm "saying bad things" about your beloved camera models, please understand that these 3 lines were all very well built "amatuer" models that had a high likelyhood of being used for many years without breaking and being replaced. It's their good design (users liked them and got good results) and quality manufacturing that kept them in use for decades. I saw a tourist with a Minolta SRT just the other day here in Key West, at least a quarter of a century old and still in use. Its that these models simply weren't made using some more expensive designs (roller bearings, special hardened alloys, ...) and heavy users would wear them out.

Samuel Lo
02-17-2005, 10:15 AM
I spent ~20 years managing pro-orientated camera stores. Over the years, I saw countless SLRs whose shutters had worn out, beyond hope of any practical repair, simply from use. These were mostly low to mid line cameras that had sleeve bearings on the focal-plane shutter spindles. The Canon FT, FTb, TL, TLb, TX family was the most notorious, largely because they were the easiest to prove wear was the cause of their shutter problems, although I saw many Pentax's (all types w/ cloth curtains) and Minolta SRT's also. The true pro Nikons (F, F3, F3) all used ball or roller bearings and didn't typically wear out, even after extensive use, unless they were subjected to abnormal dirt and grit.

Lest you think I'm "saying bad things" about your beloved camera models, please understand that these 3 lines were all very well built "amatuer" models that had a high likelyhood of being used for many years without breaking and being replaced. It's their good design (users liked them and got good results) and quality manufacturing that kept them in use for decades. I saw a tourist with a Minolta SRT just the other day here in Key West, at least a quarter of a century old and still in use. Its that these models simply weren't made using some more expensive designs (roller bearings, special hardened alloys, ...) and heavy users would wear them out.

Yup, I saw an used Nikon D1 in a shop today and it's very, very cheap, but nobody seems to want to buy it. D1 appear in 1999, am I right? so you're right, most likely all DSLR will replaced before they wear out.

D70FAN
02-17-2005, 10:29 AM
Yup, I saw an used Nikon D1 in a shop today and it's very, very cheap, but nobody seems to want to buy it. D1 appear in 1999, am I right? so you're right, most likely all DSLR will replaced before they wear out.

Samuel. How much was the D1? It was, and still is, a heck of a camera (even at 2.66MP).

Samuel Lo
02-17-2005, 10:37 AM
Samuel. How much was the D1? It was, and still is, a heck of a camera (even at 2.66MP).

Oh, it's US$900. An used D1x is $1,650. But people choose to buy a new D70, it's around $700.

Samuel Lo
02-17-2005, 10:39 AM
Samuel. How much was the D1? It was, and still is, a heck of a camera (even at 2.66MP).

Yes, D1 as well as D1x was built like a tank, but it weight like a brick!

Rhys
02-17-2005, 11:16 AM
In terms of shutter life, I know the roll-up titanium foil shutter on the F3 was supposed to last for 100,000 exposures.

My FMs were ex press cameras. I bought them, 15 years ago, from the editor of the local newspaper who'd used them when he first started out as a photo journalist. They still have the original aluminium shutters. I have no idea how many photographs I have taken with them.

Personally, I'd always buy new in terms of electronics. I've had secondhand electronics and usually found that I'd bought trouble. Even the new stuff isn't exactly trouble-free which is really why I bought Nikon FMs as opposed to F3s or F4s.

ktixx
02-25-2005, 02:14 PM
I have read that the Canon 1Ds has a shutter life of 150,000 cycles and the 1Ds Mark II has an estimated life of 200,000 cycles.

Shutter cycles of 1Ds Mark II & 1Ds: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/Canon_1Ds_mark_II.html

The Canon 20D supposidly has a shutter life of 100,000 cycles, whereas the Rebel XT (and I am assuming also the 300D) has a life of 50,000 cycles.

Shutter cycles of 20D and 350D: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/eos_digital_rebel_xt_vs_20d.html
These ratings were not from canon directly however I am assuming they are accurate. I have also googled the Nikon D70 and supposidly the shutter life is 40,000 frames (taken off another forum)

Ken

Rhys
02-25-2005, 02:25 PM
I have read that the Canon 1Ds has a shutter life of 150,000 cycles and the 1Ds Mark II has an estimated life of 200,000 cycles.

Shutter cycles of 1Ds Mark II & 1Ds: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/Canon_1Ds_mark_II.html

The Canon 20D supposidly has a shutter life of 100,000 cycles, whereas the Rebel XT (and I am assuming also the 300D) has a life of 50,000 cycles.

Shutter cycles of 20D and 350D: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/eos_digital_rebel_xt_vs_20d.html
These ratings were not from canon directly however I am assuming they are accurate. I have also googled the Nikon D70 and supposidly the shutter life is 40,000 frames (taken off another forum)

Ken

Hmm... 100,000 cycles....
I reckon I take somewhere around 2,500 photos anually. That means a 100k camera would work for about 40 years. Of course this is utter poppycock because it's electronic. Nothing electronic will last more than 5 years, these days and more often than not, only 2 years.

I debate the value of these DSLRs on the grounds that they're constantly out of date and being replaced by newer, better models. That combined with the short lifespan of electronic cameras anyway tends to turn them (in my eyes) into $99.99 throw-away cameras that cost a darned sight too much.

ktixx
02-25-2005, 06:01 PM
Hmm... 100,000 cycles....
I reckon I take somewhere around 2,500 photos anually. That means a 100k camera would work for about 40 years. Of course this is utter poppycock because it's electronic. Nothing electronic will last more than 5 years, these days and more often than not, only 2 years.

Wouldn't you say It all depends on the users? I know that I am one of those people that will take the shot 4 times just to make sure I got it correct :p . With digital it doesn't matter because I am not actually wasting anything except for my battery.


I debate the value of these DSLRs on the grounds that they're constantly out of date and being replaced by newer, better models. That combined with the short lifespan of electronic cameras anyway tends to turn them (in my eyes) into $99.99 throw-away cameras that cost a darned sight too much.

I agree with the fact that DSLR's are expensive, but due to the fact that they produce a much better quality picture (larger sensor than point and shoots, better performance at higher ISO's, and better lens quality and selection) There is a reason for them. Professional photographers who need the best quality image go with DSLR's I don't think they are doing it to be stylish :p I realize that you were saying you "debate the value" purly for yourself and not for pro's or other consumers, but for the amerature (or even semi-pro) who would like to make some money on the size DLSR's are a necessary piece of equipment.

Ken

Samuel Lo
02-27-2005, 09:10 PM
Hmm... 100,000 cycles....
I reckon I take somewhere around 2,500 photos anually. That means a 100k camera would work for about 40 years. Of course this is utter poppycock because it's electronic. Nothing electronic will last more than 5 years, these days and more often than not, only 2 years.

I debate the value of these DSLRs on the grounds that they're constantly out of date and being replaced by newer, better models. That combined with the short lifespan of electronic cameras anyway tends to turn them (in my eyes) into $99.99 throw-away cameras that cost a darned sight too much.

It really depends. My camera help me to make money, so quality and reliability is very important, buying camera is just an investment. I shoot about 2000 - 3000 pictures per month, so there is about 24,000 - 36,000 per year. My Nikon D100 is 3-year old, which means it have been taken about 72,000 - 108,000 pictures, and it is still in good condition and I don't think it will be replaced shortly. So I think camera must be taken out to shooting, not sitting inside the cabinet; just like human, more exercise will turn in better shape.

Ray Schnoor
02-28-2005, 07:41 AM
Nothing electronic will last more than 5 years, these days and more often than not, only 2 years.

My electronics seem to work well past this time. I am still using the same TV I bought in 1995 and the same VCR that I purchased probably around 1988. I would still be using the same CD player that I bought probably 1988 if I didn't replace it with a DVD player 2 years ago.


... the short lifespan of electronic cameras anyway tends to turn them (in my eyes) into $99.99 throw-away cameras that cost a darned sight too much.

I am still using all of the digital still cameras I have ever purchased, the oldest of which was probably around 1998(Fuji/Nikon DS 560 25-50 shots/week). I also take maybe 50-100 photos/week each on a Nikon Coolpix 990 and 995.

Yes, the new cameras are better and more powerful, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I am going to throw away my old cameras which still do the job.

Rex914
03-01-2005, 10:11 PM
Definitely not true (in regards to the comment on electronics not lasting long). We're still using Sony TV's and other electronics that have lasted literally decades. Maybe that's back when Sony did make everything like they were tanks. Even our computers have had a great track record for staying operational. Granted they are dated, they work fine and that's what counts right? No harm to the environment there...

If there's something that's harming the environment more than anything else, it's those cell phones. But let's not go there...