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

On 18 Jan 2007 13:47:16 -0800, 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

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/

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

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.

timeOday 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/Produc...82E16820211148

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.

Paul Rubin wrote:
timeOday 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/Produc...82E16820211148


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.

Greg wrote:

On 18 Jan 2007 13:47:16 -0800, 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


Hello, Greg:

That was a known problem with the DC4800's body, actually. Kodak would
repair such affected cameras, under warranty.


Cordially,
John Turco