Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Disposable Camera

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Catchment Area
    Posts
    2,441

    Default Disposable Camera

    I am not talking about those 1 time use cameras. Those entry level SLR cameras are probably design to last 5 to 10 years for amateur use. The shutter might last 20 to 30,000 cycles or so. After that, it is finished, or to be disposed. Ken Rockwell said that it is better to buy an F80, use or abuse it until it konks off, buy another F80 than to get the F100, which is heavier and cost more than 2xF80. Interesting view.

    Now, for those consumers lenses, say, costing less than 500 bucks could be viewed similarly. Lenses do not finish, but collects dust in the inside as we use it, focusing and zooming, exchanging air with dust-filled air. After 3 to 5 years, when there is enough dust to affect the sharpness, the flare and the contrast, it is about time to dispose it. It is also time to get new gear that is faster to focus, lighter to carry around, using smaller filters, cheaper to buy, more convenient to use, with IF, ED, lens motor, AF/MF switch. APO etc, etc.

    Tripods and ballheads are different. A good Manfrotto ballhead could readily last 10 years and beyond. Those older aluminum tripods, being more solid could last as long. Newer carbon fibre ones might be less robust. Only check if the screws, pins and rivets are made of stainless steel, then, I am quite sure such gear would last longer than you expect. Most of the time, we get new gear becos there are always better designed stuff out there to tempt us - lighter, more sturdy, more convenient to use, etc.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    6,580

    Default

    Interesting analysis........ the bottomline is to spend more money lor........

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    334

    Default

    Actually for dSLR, I think the CCD may fail with increasing numbers of dead/stuck/hot pixels before the shutter does.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smallaperture
    Ken Rockwell said that it is better to buy an F80, use or abuse it until it konks off, buy another F80 than to get the F100, which is heavier and cost more than 2xF80. Interesting view.
    He's a wanker who reviews equipment he hasn't ever used.

    There's a lot of crap on his website. Watch out for the turd.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Catchment Area
    Posts
    2,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by linse
    Actually for dSLR, I think the CCD may fail with increasing numbers of dead/stuck/hot pixels before the shutter does.
    So, for dSLR - dunno how long it can last, the CCD/CMOS. dSLR is an even more expensive toy. Play, play and chuck away.

    So Lenses, I prefer to get virgin, black body and if possible with blond hair. If used, must be very young, like less than a year old, with birth certificate.

  6. #6
    Moderator ed9119's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    10,931
    Blog Entries
    26

    Default

    i dont use Nikon but a casual examination of the spec sheets between the F80 and the F100 shows that 2 x F80's do not equal to 1 x F100 just on features alone.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ed9119
    i dont use Nikon but a casual examination of the spec sheets between the F80 and the F100 shows that 2 x F80's do not equal to 1 x F100 just on features alone.
    Right. F80 and F100 is in two totally different classes, abit like EOS 3 vs EOS 30 for the Canon folks.

    The statement about lenses is even more ridiculous. Unless you are talking about Leica and Zeiss optics, there are so many great lenses out there that are < $500. If you are talking Nikon, we have 50/1.4, 28/2.8, 35/2, and maybe a few zooms. And I believe pros have been using them for years and never had problems.

    Regards
    CK

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Catchment Area
    Posts
    2,441

    Default

    If you're using the same lens for 5 years, and that, pretty frequently, you will never realise that dust has been collecting on the element's surface all the while. The optical degradation is so gradual that you will not realise it. Only when you compare it with new lens then, you might notice something is amiss, like lower contrast, more flare, somewhat soft..... I suppose it depends on how much use, how much dust, how many group/elements. So, those huge zoom with 15 or more elements will tend to show more problems than those nice well balanced primes like the 50 F1.8 or the 85 F1.8 that have got only 6 elements.

    So, maybe, I will use the Nikon 28-80G F3.3-5.6 for 3 years and then, get another one to use for another 3 years. Or the Tokina 28-70 F2.8, which is the most affordable fast zoom around, to be the disposable lens, but this one has to be amortised over 5 years. After that, sell it away real cheap.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smallaperture
    I am not talking about those 1 time use cameras. Those entry level SLR cameras are probably design to last 5 to 10 years for amateur use. The shutter might last 20 to 30,000 cycles or so. After that, it is finished, or to be disposed. Ken Rockwell said that it is better to buy an F80, use or abuse it until it konks off, buy another F80 than to get the F100, which is heavier and cost more than 2xF80. Interesting view.
    You can't just compare it based on the shutter cycles. The added performance and features of the F100 cannot be discounted just like that.

    Now, for those consumers lenses, say, costing less than 500 bucks could be viewed similarly. Lenses do not finish, but collects dust in the inside as we use it, focusing and zooming, exchanging air with dust-filled air. After 3 to 5 years, when there is enough dust to affect the sharpness, the flare and the contrast, it is about time to dispose it. It is also time to get new gear that is faster to focus, lighter to carry around, using smaller filters, cheaper to buy, more convenient to use, with IF, ED, lens motor, AF/MF switch. APO etc, etc.
    Lenses do not degrade so easily. I have a lenses over 14-25yrs old that are still perfectly clean on the inside. It also depends on the environment you shoot in and the type of lenses used. Most people should not have problems with this on the majority of lenses.

  10. #10

    Default

    People who like to talk about equipment seem to like to quote Ken Rockwell a lot. I recall a pro saying something to the effect of 'whatever Ken Rockwell says, I do the opposite'.

    As Dewitt Jones put it, the thing that matters is 'Did you get the shot?'

    If you use a brand new F80 and 28-80 f/5.6 and can take the same quality as shots as say, a pro with a bruised and battered F100 and 28-70 AF-S, then post here and show us, instead of quoting Ken Rockwell.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    hErE lAh
    Posts
    975

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kahheng
    He's a wanker who reviews equipment he hasn't ever used.

    There's a lot of crap on his website. Watch out for the turd.

    hahaha I had my suspicions on that

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smallaperture
    ...
    The shutter might last 20 to 30,000 cycles or so. After that, it is finished, or to be disposed. Ken Rockwell said that it is better to buy an F80, use or abuse it until it konks off, buy another F80 than to get the F100, which is heavier and cost more than 2xF80. Interesting view.
    For all equipments, there is always the need to compare what is your need first b4 deciding which equipment you should use. I dun normally like to comment on such "subjective" comparions but i find it so strange in this case to compare a F80 to a F100. a F100 often better features and is of a different class together, with it faster x-sync, abiilty to use vertical grip, faster frames/s etc. No matter how many F80 you can own, how new it is, you can never had your F80 to hit 5f/s.

    Quote Originally Posted by smallaperture
    ...So, those huge zoom with 15 or more elements will tend to show more problems than those nice well balanced primes like the 50 F1.8 or the 85 F1.8 that have got only 6 elements.

    So, maybe, I will use the Nikon 28-80G F3.3-5.6 for 3 years and then, get another one to use for another 3 years. Or the Tokina 28-70 F2.8, which is the most affordable fast zoom around, to be the disposable lens, but this one has to be amortised over 5 years. After that, sell it away real cheap.
    I admit that the 28-80G is a very good lens for it class, but hey, comparing it towards a 2.8 lens, or prime?? gosh, no matter how new your 2.8G, it can never take a picture at F2 or F2.8, and tat is a good 3 stop at your 80mm end to a 85 1.8. (a 1/8 shutter compare to 1/60?, and you should know how impt this means.)
    I believe that every equipment serve it purpose, not jus how long it will last.
    Like computers, there are poeple who own fast computer jus for the sake of having, and there are people who need fast processing power because of the huge amt of rendering n process which they need to do, and this applies similiarly to photographic equipment.
    I am not here to put down the equipment you listed, i myself is a proud F80 owner, and i own a 28-80G lens too. but i jus had to use other lens or primes at times when i am in situation of low light, or i jus wanna tat shallow DOV.
    Rather then comparing purely on equipments, i feel there is a need to ask oneself, which level and what type of photography he/she is doing, and would he needs the extra features. if he need it, he had to get it.
    and other things that we might wan to consider is how we line our priority
    1.Build, handling, ease of use.
    2.speed
    3.quality
    4.features
    5.how many such lens you can buy with the same amt of $???

    cheers.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Catchment Area
    Posts
    2,441

    Default

    What I wrote is not intended to be a dissertation or to be taken seriously. Just like Ken Rockwell. Too much rain these days, and the golf courses are invaded by frogs and toads. So, a little too much time to write such things, and please take it lightly.

    By the way, most of my pix are not up to my standard, so I do not wish to post it here. Anyhow, I cannot post pix here.

    By the way, this is a free for all forum, so whatever is said may not be the gospel truth. So beware of authentic gurus, professors with thick glasses of high index and tse fu with long beards.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    6,580

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kahheng
    He's a wanker who reviews equipment he hasn't ever used.

    There's a lot of crap on his website. Watch out for the turd.

    Wow!! That's pretty strong? Who's this Ken fellow?

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Catchment Area
    Posts
    2,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TME
    Wow!! That's pretty strong? Who's this Ken fellow?
    Please go to KenRockwell.com to read his articles. Nice pic and interesting articles. I like his articles. I say things a little like him too, that is a lot of crab.... going sideways.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •