reliable digital camera -- one that will last 5 years plus?

albert.mills DeleteThis @googlemail.com wrote:
> Hi, I want to get a digital camera. There are lots that are well rated,
> but these things don't seem very sturdy. I want one that is well rated
> and will last at least 5 years with care. Was thinking of the sd630,
> but it has a an e-18 error sometimes. Any general suggestions are
> cameras in particular? Thanks.


At the rate things evolve in the field of technology you'll want a
new one long before 5 years. My first digital camera was still working
fine after about 3-4 years when I gave it to my son, it'll probably
still be OK when he upgrades.



Eric
 >> Stay informed about: reliable digital camera -- one that will last 5 years plus? 

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:47:16 -0800, albert.mills wrote:

> Hi, I want to get a digital camera. There are lots that are well rated,
> but these things don't seem very sturdy. I want one that is well rated
> and will last at least 5 years with care. Was thinking of the sd630,
> but it has a an e-18 error sometimes. Any general suggestions are
> cameras in particular? Thanks.

mostly, if you pick an 'upscale' model from a major manufacturer I think
you should not have any problems. I've had a Kodak DC210+ for six or eight
years and it still works fine. My wife's Nikon Coolpix 2100 is three or
four years old - no problems. My Minolta S414 is about three years old -
no problems. I recently purchased a Kodak P850 - I expect no difficulties.
BTW the Kodaks were purchased refurbished from the Kodak web site.
 >> Stay informed about: reliable digital camera -- one that will last 5 years plus? 

albert.mills.DeleteThis@googlemail.com wrote:
> Hi, I want to get a digital camera. There are lots that are well rated,
> but these things don't seem very sturdy. I want one that is well rated
> and will last at least 5 years with care. Was thinking of the sd630,
> but it has a an e-18 error sometimes. Any general suggestions are
> cameras in particular? Thanks.

I have a old warhorse Fujifilm F420.

Had it for about 5 years, taken 10's of THOUSANDS of photos with it,
and its never missed a beat.Even dropped on the concrete a few times,
so yeah its scratched the STEEL body a bit and knocked about.

The only *problem* was the 700mah AAA batteries it came with, they are
dead and dont hold charge long enough.Replaced them with Sanyo 1000mah
and now it goes and goes.

I am thinking of upgrading to a Finepix F30fd [a top rated job] but
will keep the F420 for tough assignments.

K202
 >> Stay informed about: reliable digital camera -- one that will last 5 years plus? 

albert.mills.DeleteThis@googlemail.com wrote:
> Hi, I want to get a digital camera. There are lots that are well rated,
> but these things don't seem very sturdy. I want one that is well rated
> and will last at least 5 years with care. Was thinking of the sd630,
> but it has a an e-18 error sometimes. Any general suggestions are
> cameras in particular? Thanks.

I think virtually all the brand name cameras will last fine.
The thing to think about is how to protect your camera. Keep it
in a case. Don't drop it. Don't expose it to water, dirt, freezing
or heating.

If you do need to do those things (for example if you are a
war correspondent) then that's a different story. But for ordinary
use I don't think there should be a problem.

Alan
 >> Stay informed about: reliable digital camera -- one that will last 5 years plus? 

bluezfolk wrote:
> albert.mills RemoveThis @googlemail.com wrote:
> > Hi, I want to get a digital camera. There are lots that are well rated,
> > but these things don't seem very sturdy. I want one that is well rated
> > and will last at least 5 years with care. Was thinking of the sd630,
> > but it has a an e-18 error sometimes. Any general suggestions are
> > cameras in particular? Thanks.
>
>
> At the rate things evolve in the field of technology you'll want a
> new one long before 5 years. My first digital camera was still working
> fine after about 3-4 years when I gave it to my son, it'll probably
> still be OK when he upgrades.
>
>
>
> Eric

You are right with the digicam format.
The only way you may be able to get away partly from this vicuous
circle is to go dslr.
I had my Canon G1 that cost over $1000 in 2001. When its fuse died I
fixed it and last for another 2 yrs. Finally it was over but the lens
is still in top top shape . What can I say. Now I am into my Pentax
dslr (DL & K100D) with around 6 prime lens. I treat the camera body as
comsumer electronics. But lens stays and two of my lens dated back all
the way to the 80s.
That is my two cents

Daniel
Toronto
(gears include K100D, DL, A* 300mm F4, FA28 2.8, FA50 1.4, FA 100mm
Macro 2.8, FA135mm 2.8, Zenitar 16mm 2.
 >> Stay informed about: reliable digital camera -- one that will last 5 years plus? 

<albert.mills.TakeThisOut@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1169156835.342871.175940@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi, I want to get a digital camera. There are lots that are well rated,
> but these things don't seem very sturdy. I want one that is well rated
> and will last at least 5 years with care. Was thinking of the sd630,
> but it has a an e-18 error sometimes. Any general suggestions are
> cameras in particular? Thanks.
>
It really depends on how much you're going to use it, and under what
conditions. If you're just going to take it on vacation, keep it safely in
a bag, and use it rarely, most of the ones from the top mfrs. will do
nicely. If, on the other hand, you're going to shoot a lot, and by a lot, I
mean more than 100 shots a week, then you might want to look into a DSLR.
Most of them will withstand 50,000 actuations, or many more, in the case of
pro level cameras.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
 >> Stay informed about: reliable digital camera -- one that will last 5 years plus? 

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:23:15 -0800, bluezfolk wrote:

>
> albert.mills.RemoveThis@googlemail.com wrote:
>> Hi, I want to get a digital camera. There are lots that are well rated,
>> but these things don't seem very sturdy. I want one that is well rated
>> and will last at least 5 years with care. Was thinking of the sd630,
>> but it has a an e-18 error sometimes. Any general suggestions are
>> cameras in particular? Thanks.
>
>
> At the rate things evolve in the field of technology you'll want a
> new one long before 5 years. My first digital camera was still working
> fine after about 3-4 years when I gave it to my son, it'll probably
> still be OK when he upgrades.
>
>
>
> Eric

I not sure I concur with that assessment. A few years ago we were seeing,
for example, a doubling of resolution every few months or maybe a year
e.g. from 1mp to 2mp to 4mp. The rate of advancement seems to be slowing.
The 8mps have been out for two or three years and 10 is about the max
affordable right now.
 >> Stay informed about: reliable digital camera -- one that will last 5 years plus? 

On Jan 18, 4:47 pm, albert.mi... DeleteThis @googlemail.com wrote:
> Hi, I want to get a digital camera. There are lots that are well rated,
> but these things don't seem very sturdy. I want one that is well rated
> and will last at least 5 years with care. Was thinking of the sd630,
> but it has a an e-18 error sometimes. Any general suggestions are
> cameras in particular? Thanks.

We have a Fuji 1400 we bought in 2000, only 1.3mp, but I have always
liked its pictures, my wife still uses it, but not much. I bought a
Nikon D200 last year, life expectancy 5 years, but maybe not. Say if
the price of 35mm framed cameras comes way down because of some tech
advance, I'd go for one. The Fuji, my wife likes it, the photos are
impressive at 5x7 (no larger, have tried several programs), it may go 1
or 2 years more.

Tom
 >> Stay informed about: reliable digital camera -- one that will last 5 years plus? 

On 18 Jan 2007 13:47:16 -0800, albert.mills RemoveThis @googlemail.com wrote:

>Hi, I want to get a digital camera. There are lots that are well rated,
>but these things don't seem very sturdy. I want one that is well rated
>and will last at least 5 years with care. Was thinking of the sd630,
>but it has a an e-18 error sometimes. Any general suggestions are
>cameras in particular? Thanks.

As was mentioned in another reply, it really does depend upon how you
handle the camera. The Kodak DC4800, 3.1 Megapixel camera, that I
bought in 2000, is still working well. The picture quality is not
comparable to my more recent cameras, but is good enough for use in
several situations where I would not risk a more expensive camera.

The camera body has a couple of stress fractures that I can only
attribute to engineering problems because the camera was not abused in
any way.

With reasonable handling habits, I think that the majority of cameras
will last for five years.

Greg
 >> Stay informed about: reliable digital camera -- one that will last 5 years plus? 

ray wrote:

> I not sure I concur with that assessment. A few years ago we were
> seeing, for example, a doubling of resolution every few months or
> maybe a year e.g. from 1mp to 2mp to 4mp. The rate of advancement
> seems to be slowing. [...]

Yes. Thankfully the manifacturers seems to turn their attention towards
things like image stabilization and better noise handling at high ISO.
I my view, these things are more important than the extra mega pixels.

After that, we can hopefully get better glass in the small cameras,
better movie recordings and whatever I've forgotten.

I don't say that we will not reach a plateau, where most people won't
really know this years models from the next, but I don't think we're
there quite yet.
--
Toke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/
 >> Stay informed about: reliable digital camera -- one that will last 5 years plus? 

ray wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:23:15 -0800, bluezfolk wrote:
>
>> albert.mills.TakeThisOut@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> Hi, I want to get a digital camera. There are lots that are well rated,
>>> but these things don't seem very sturdy. I want one that is well rated
>>> and will last at least 5 years with care. Was thinking of the sd630,
>>> but it has a an e-18 error sometimes. Any general suggestions are
>>> cameras in particular? Thanks.
>>
>> At the rate things evolve in the field of technology you'll want a
>> new one long before 5 years. My first digital camera was still working
>> fine after about 3-4 years when I gave it to my son, it'll probably
>> still be OK when he upgrades.
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric
>
> I not sure I concur with that assessment. A few years ago we were seeing,
> for example, a doubling of resolution every few months or maybe a year
> e.g. from 1mp to 2mp to 4mp. The rate of advancement seems to be slowing.
> The 8mps have been out for two or three years and 10 is about the max
> affordable right now.
>

I agree. Resolution is plenty high even for 8x10 prints (which almost
nobody actually makes), 4 GB SD cards are cheap as dirt, battery life is
good.

I'd love to have better light sensitivity / lower noise, but apparently
the sensors are already fairly close to optimal so it's back to how much
light you collect, which means bulky expensive lenses that don't follow
Moore's law.

I'd would like to see vast improvements in movie modes. I'd love to
have 1080p @ 60 fps so I could do digital zoom, image stabilization,
and fluid slow-mo in postprocessing, but I'm sure very few people care
so it will never happen.
 >> Stay informed about: reliable digital camera -- one that will last 5 years plus? 

timeOday <timeOday-UNSPAM RemoveThis @theknack.net> writes:
> I agree. Resolution is plenty high even for 8x10 prints (which almost
> nobody actually makes), 4 GB SD cards are cheap as dirt, battery life
> is good.

8GB is even cheaper. I just can't believe this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820211148

I'm tempted to order one even though I don't think I have any devices
that can use it. I'd figure out something (SD to CF adapter maybe, or
just put it in an SDHC card reader dongle and use it as a pen drive).

> I'd love to have better light sensitivity / lower noise, but
> apparently the sensors are already fairly close to optimal so it's
> back to how much light you collect, which means bulky expensive lenses
> that don't follow Moore's law.

Nah, look at the lenses in pocket sized APS film cameras that I think
are even still being made. They could use bigger sensors but I doubt
they will. They could increase pixel size by decreasing pixel count,
but I'm sure they won't.

> I'd would like to see vast improvements in movie modes. I'd love to
> have 1080p @ 60 fps so I could do digital zoom, image stabilization,
> and fluid slow-mo in postprocessing, but I'm sure very few people care
> so it will never happen.

That's probably coming.

By the way I bought my Canon S100 in mid 2000, and I stayed very happy
with it til I had an accident with it at the beach a year or so ago.
It was very solidly built, reasonably responsive, and its 2 MP were
always enough for me. The A530 that I replaced it with is more modern
but is built like a toy by comparison. The S100 cost $700 when it was
new but you can probably get one for a tenth of that on ebay now.

I'd really like a VGA-resolution camcorder in an A530-like package.
That means it should support mpeg4 at various reasonable bit rates,
have good built-in stereo microphones and good audio quality, and not
have any file size limit (i.e. it should be able to shoot a full 8GB
or 16GB of nonstop video on an SDHC card of that capacity), and run on
AA cells. There's a Panasonic camcorder with roughly the right video
characteristics characteristics but not enough sensor area (1/6" 3
ccd's) and the wrong battery type.
 >> Stay informed about: reliable digital camera -- one that will last 5 years plus? 

Paul Rubin wrote:
> timeOday <timeOday-UNSPAM.RemoveThis@theknack.net> writes:
>> I agree. Resolution is plenty high even for 8x10 prints (which almost
>> nobody actually makes), 4 GB SD cards are cheap as dirt, battery life
>> is good.
>
> 8GB is even cheaper. I just can't believe this:
>
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820211148
>

Figures, I just got a 4 GB from newegg 2 days ago for virtually the same
price because I didn't notice that one.

> By the way I bought my Canon S100 in mid 2000, and I stayed very happy
> with it til I had an accident with it at the beach a year or so ago.
> It was very solidly built, reasonably responsive, and its 2 MP were
> always enough for me. The A530 that I replaced it with is more modern
> but is built like a toy by comparison. The S100 cost $700 when it was
> new but you can probably get one for a tenth of that on ebay now.

I still have my S100

I meant to ebay it 14 months ago when I got a new camera but never got
around to it.
 >> Stay informed about: reliable digital camera -- one that will last 5 years plus?