Lenshacker Posted March 30, 2015 Share #61 Posted March 30, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) It will probably be easier to buy a used digital camera that has had little use and is still working rather than getting an old digital camera repaired. Those special edition M8's will not hold value, nothing gets older/faster than digital. You'll probably be able to find a pristine camera rarely out-of-the-box in 10 years that still works. You will be one of the few people that wants such an old digital camera. My 1997 Nikon E3 DSLR still works, as does the the 1993 DCS200. They are both rare, less than 100 of the E3's were made. Close to worthless, would not get 5% of the original selling price. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 Hi Lenshacker, Take a look here Digital Leica Lifespan?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Archiver Posted March 31, 2015 Share #62 Posted March 31, 2015 At least we've reached a point where we do not expect a digital Leica to last as long as a mechanical one. I agree with the poster who said there are two or three aspects to consider in the longevity of an electronic product: the lifespan of the parts; the time that parts are available and can be replaced; and the longevity of support systems like computers, batteries and memory cards. A digital camera isn't going to fare too well without batteries or memory cards. As for how long, more specifically, a M9 or M240 will last: if I can get at least ten years out of my M9, I will be happy. I paid AUD$9300 for mine, so ten years = $930 per year as the cost of ownership. Considering that I'm already halfway there, it is doing pretty darn well. If the sensor coating starts to corrode, I'll send it in for replacement and probably have it upgraded to M9-P, assuming that such an option will be available in that contingency. This would make it essentially a new camera, and ready for another ten years, with any luck. In fact, I am guessing that the M9 will continue to function after I have moved to another Leica model. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 31, 2015 Share #63 Posted March 31, 2015 Do any of our members believe that soon the camera itself will be disposable, and lenses the most valuable, long term investment? . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted March 31, 2015 Share #64 Posted March 31, 2015 Not in my lifetime. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 31, 2015 Share #65 Posted March 31, 2015 Do any of our members believe that soon the camera itself will be disposable, and lenses the most valuable, long term investment? . I do not think tools can be an investment at all, especially photographic tools, unless you are a knowledgeable collector who is able to pick out the model that will bring some millions in fifty or hundred years time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted March 31, 2015 Share #66 Posted March 31, 2015 At least we've reached a point where we do not expect a digital Leica to last as long as a mechanical one. I agree with the poster who said there are two or three aspects to consider in the longevity of an electronic product: the lifespan of the parts; the time that parts are available and can be replaced; and the longevity of support systems like computers, batteries and memory cards. A digital camera isn't going to fare too well without batteries or memory cards. As for how long, more specifically, a M9 or M240 will last: if I can get at least ten years out of my M9, I will be happy. I paid AUD$9300 for mine, so ten years = $930 per year as the cost of ownership. Considering that I'm already halfway there, it is doing pretty darn well. If the sensor coating starts to corrode, I'll send it in for replacement and probably have it upgraded to M9-P, assuming that such an option will be available in that contingency. This would make it essentially a new camera, and ready for another ten years, with any luck. In fact, I am guessing that the M9 will continue to function after I have moved to another Leica model. Sensor corrosion is one thing, but I find in general that electronics are far more durable and reliable then mechanical devices. The real question raised is whether electronic spare parts will be available. I don't believe its economic to remanufacture analogue parts to a specific specification required for running the rangefinder, for example. Most of the so called manual repairs are adjustments, washers or lubrication. Interestingly I read an article that the average age of the M6 is reaching a point where more and more are having critical problems which are more major and soon would make some uneconomic to repair. I wonder what percentage of M3s have fallen by the wayside ? No way of getting these stats unfortunately. On the other hand I believe custom small batch, even one off, electronic components will be able to be manufactured in the future at a small cost. In fact the name of the game in electronic manufacturing will be customisation. We should all meet in 20 years and talk about stuff we have that is still working. I probably won't be Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 31, 2015 Share #67 Posted March 31, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Will quite a few of us be in working order in twenty years time? Personally I cannot guaranty it... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archiver Posted March 31, 2015 Share #68 Posted March 31, 2015 Of the many digital cameras I have owned through the last 12 or 13 years, only three have given me any trouble. The first two were from Ricoh - the GRD III's lens/sensor block stopped working properly and needed to be replaced after at least three years and tens of thousands of images. Not sure if this was a mechanical (moving part) fault or electronic. The second Ricoh was the GXR - the body unit simply refused to power up one day, regardless of what I did with it. No moving parts at all, just the electronic thingies inside went poof one day. The third, unfortunately, was the shutter recock mechanism in my M9, which failed after about eight months. The recock mechanism was replaced under warranty and has held true in the four following years. I'm wondering if a digital camera's lifespan should be measured in shutter count and not years. In a year or so, I smashed out tens of thousands of images with my M9, which is an almost unheard of figure for a film camera, unless owned by a professional sports shooter. Reaching similar numbers with a film camera would take the average shooter a lot longer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manoleica Posted March 31, 2015 Share #69 Posted March 31, 2015 Until and unless a digital cannot be repaired they just go on and on. One thing for sure when a newer model appears the older versions Do Not Stop Working or offer inferior performance to the day before.. The marketing gurus spend weeks nay months writing script to convince us that life as we know it ends unless we Upgrade.. The real question is, will our driving improve with the latest offer from the big6? Will our photography be any better with the latest megapixel marvel? - Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted March 31, 2015 Share #70 Posted March 31, 2015 As a side remark I would like to point out that the film SLR I have used for the last quarter of a century or so sported three processors. Even most "analog" cameras include digital technologyand have been doing so for some time. I do not think tools can be an investment at all, especially photographic tools, unless you are a knowledgeable collector who is able to pick out the model that will bring some millions in fifty or hundred years time. Depends. If the tool appears in your balance sheet and is written off in a yearly schedule, it is technically speaking an investment: you spent money and expect a return on the money spent,spread over a few or many years. Do you treat your drills, workbench, microscopes as expenses? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattMaber Posted March 31, 2015 Share #71 Posted March 31, 2015 Theres no way 30 years is a realistic life span for a digital camera. Even ignoring parts not being available, and that electronics can just go for no apparent reason, wear not really being relevant (besides buttons and switches which are probably more temperamental than mechanical analog equivalents). Yeah sure you could say if its still working then the resolution is irrelevant, but thats just nor realistic, especially given film is restricted only but the quality of the film and the scanning technology. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torontoamateur Posted March 31, 2015 Share #72 Posted March 31, 2015 I ran my M9 for 35,000 shots and it was still going strong. I decided to go to the M240 for the video. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted March 31, 2015 Share #73 Posted March 31, 2015 Theres no way 30 years is a realistic life span for a digital camera.Even ignoring parts not being available, and that electronics can just go for no apparent reason, wear not really being relevant (besides buttons and switches which are probably more temperamental than mechanical analog equivalents). Yeah sure you could say if its still working then the resolution is irrelevant, but thats just nor realistic, especially given film is restricted only but the quality of the film and the scanning technology. As I said above, even analog cameras are digital devices, and there must be quite a few out there which are close to thirty years old if not more. Given that today's digital cameras outresolve film, I can see no reason why a digital camera should not be useable for that length of time. Supplies and the "ecosystem" might pose problems, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted March 31, 2015 Share #74 Posted March 31, 2015 ...especially given film is restricted only but the quality of the film and the scanning technology. Scanning? Another can of worms. For longevity, maybe best to consider contact printing….and a pinhole camera. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted March 31, 2015 Share #75 Posted March 31, 2015 As I said above, even analog cameras are digital devices, and there must be quite a few out there which are close to thirty years old if not more. Given that today's digital cameras outresolve film, I can see no reason why a digital camera should not be useable for that length of time. Supplies and the "ecosystem" might pose problems, though. Yes, some film cameras are full of electronics, but as we're talking Leica here, and purely from a object v object point of view, I think you would agree that an M-A bought today would probably outlast an M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted March 31, 2015 Share #76 Posted March 31, 2015 Yes, some film cameras are full of electronics, but as we're talking Leica here, and purely from a object v object point of view, I think you would agree that an M-A bought today would probably outlast an M. Yes, quite. Are there any cameras with tubes and discrete electronic components? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenshacker Posted March 31, 2015 Share #77 Posted March 31, 2015 Yes, quite. Are there any cameras with tubes and discrete electronic components? Vidicon tubes. Plenty of them still working. Several with transistors and capacitors, Polaroid Pack cameras and the Nikkormat EL and similar used discrete electronics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Bird Posted March 31, 2015 Share #78 Posted March 31, 2015 What in this digital last as long things used to? Such is the price of progress. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 31, 2015 Share #79 Posted March 31, 2015 Yes, some film cameras are full of electronics, but as we're talking Leica here, and purely from a object v object point of view, I think you would agree that an M-A bought today would probably outlast an M. Not sure. The R3 and M6 got hammered for dodgy electronics and I have had to bin an R8 and R9 - irreparable electronics fault due to lack of parts... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted April 1, 2015 Share #80 Posted April 1, 2015 What in this digital last as long things used to? Such is the price of progress. I believe that Leica understands the volatility of its digital M series and also knows that limits are a critical element of art and craft. Choosing to make the M-A is a brilliant statement in that respect, and I will bet that it brings many M-A purchasers into Leica's digital domain so they can have the best of each, with the digital being an exciting risk and the M-A a secure, lifetime anchor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.