Disposable Camera


Status
Not open for further replies.

smallaperture

Senior Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,441
0
0
Catchment Area
#1
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.
 

TME

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
6,580
0
0
41
Clementi
#2
Interesting analysis........ the bottomline is to spend more money lor........ :bsmilie:
 

May 24, 2003
334
0
16
Singapore
Visit site
#3
Actually for dSLR, I think the CCD may fail with increasing numbers of dead/stuck/hot pixels before the shutter does.
 

kahheng

Senior Member
Jan 20, 2002
1,481
1
38
bride.ru
#4
smallaperture said:
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.
 

smallaperture

Senior Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,441
0
0
Catchment Area
#5
linse said:
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. :bsmilie: :cool: :)
 

ed9119

Moderator
Staff member
Mar 11, 2002
11,014
38
48
56
Singapore
www.walkeast.com
#6
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.
 

ckiang

Senior Member
#7
ed9119 said:
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
 

smallaperture

Senior Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,441
0
0
Catchment Area
#8
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.
 

Zerstorer

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2002
3,437
0
0
#9
smallaperture said:
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.
 

erwinx

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2002
2,423
0
0
Visit site
#10
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.
 

Jun 2, 2002
975
0
0
hErE lAh
#11
kahheng said:
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 :bsmilie:
 

Jus_a_Nick

New Member
Dec 11, 2003
69
0
0
Visit site
#12
smallaperture said:
...
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.

smallaperture said:
...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.
 

smallaperture

Senior Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,441
0
0
Catchment Area
#13
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. :blah: :bsmilie: :cool:
 

TME

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
6,580
0
0
41
Clementi
#14
kahheng said:
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?
 

smallaperture

Senior Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,441
0
0
Catchment Area
#15
TME said:
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. :blah: :bsmilie:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom