Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by DOCESAM, May 15, 2007.
i wounder whether the SLR expected life span is significantly longer than point and shot cameras?
Well, I should start by saying this is all guesswork but here goes.
1. DSLRs come in varying standards of construction and finish. You'd expect the beginners' models with loads of plastic to last considerably less longer than the more expensive (read heavier and with more metal).
2. DSLRs are likely to be used with more than one lens and lens changes will, therefore, be a part of their life. Lenses with plastic mounts will probably last for less time than their metal mount counterparts.
3. Compacts also come in a range of finishes. You'd expect a creaky plastic bodied camera to fall apart sometime sooner than a well screwed together metal bodied version.
4. Compact cameras do not have interchangeable lenses so, in that respect with all else being equal, should last longer then their equivalent standard DSLR (eg you might expect a Canon S3 compact to last longer than an EOS350D + 2 kit lenses).
Of course if you were to put into the equation a DSLR with something like an 18-200 lens attached which is never removed from the body then that would, effectively, become a large compact and last longer.
It also all depends on use. Use a camera bag at all times and never drop anything and you should reasonably expect to get a lifetime of use out of a camera whatever it is. Mind you, that is probably more true of cameras produced from the 60s to the late 80s than it is since.
Cameras are like cellphones, you will probably upgrade long before they quit working.
Those little electronic zooms are not generally built too well and i doubt they would outlast a 350 with any decent lenses. The 350D (XT) should last a fair bit longer than a P&S. It might be plastic but it's not badly built.
Yes, that's exactly right but the key is in the use of the phraase 'decent lenses'.
I've handled some of the kit lenses (which are what most folk will use at first, and in some cases forever) and they don't hold a candle to those that I got with my first SLR in the late 70s (OM-10). Of course, in those days everything came with a 50/1.8 or 1.7 or, if you were lucky and/or richer, a 50/1.7. The next step would have been a 35-70 or 28-70 either from the camera maker or the independents and they were all far superior in build quality to the kit lenses of today.
So, yes - decent lenses on your DSLR will outlast the zooms on the more basic P&S but if you look at something like a Sony R1 (wish I could!) that seems to be built like a tank by all accounts and you never change a lens on it and the lens is a 'proper' Zeiss so the odds are heavily stacked in favour of its longevity.
However, clumsy and/or negligent handling will snooker even the toughest and kid glove treatment will keep the most ramshackle going so it's also at least as much down to the user.
thank you for your time and effort...
actually i have a canon S3IS camera i got last year for around 500$ +200$ for accessories , now since i am going into diving i would like to get underwater housing for the camera
the S3IS wide angle focal length is not excellent for underwater photography and the housing itself is not cheap at 750$
so i think if the S3IS camera will not last for years to come i think i am better getting basic SLR +housing so baying bigger money but for better stuff
Separate names with a comma.