20 Years and Still Going
Faz
such a short time. Although I have a D-70, my old FM2 is still chugging away
perfectly after 20 years.......any comments>
Phil Stovell
Olympus OM-2n: 26 years old, never had any problems.
Nikon Coolpix 880 - binned after 5 years.
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
jeremy
"Faz" <chuc...@shawdelete.ca> wrote in message
news:V7RUg.88783$1T2.18863@pd7urf2no...
> Have you noticed how many of these digital cameras break down or go wonky
> in such a short time. Although I have a D-70, my old FM2 is still chugging
> away perfectly after 20 years.......any comments>
>
The days of handcrafted, mechanical cameras are mainly over. Now the focus
is on planned obsolescence and upgrades every two years.
My personal way of dealing with this is to have bought a film scanner and to
keep on using my legacy gear.
Gary Edstrom
wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:16:53 +0000, Faz wrote:
>
>> Have you noticed how many of these digital cameras break down or go wonky
>> in such a short time. Although I have a D-70, my old FM2 is still chugging
>> away perfectly after 20 years.......any comments>
>
>Olympus OM-2n: 26 years old, never had any problems.
>
>Nikon Coolpix 880 - binned after 5 years.
My Nikon F2 is still working great after 32 years.
But why use it?
I'm having FAR too much fun with digital photography!
A 2001 trip to Midway Island was the last time I ever took a film
camera with me. Even with the 4 megapixel Olympus E-10 I was using at
the time, 8x10 enlargements came out FAR better than enlargements from
the Nikon. Since then, it's been 100% digital for me.
Gary
Lez Pawl
> in such a short time. Although I have a D-70, my old FM2 is still chugging
> away perfectly after 20 years.......any comments>
>
Rangefinder SP............52 years and still going strong..
Coolpix 950, one of the originals must be 6/7
years............lovely..........and always with me.
Scott W
shots but really used it.
If so care to guess how much you have paid for film and processing in
those 20 years.
So how long does a digital camera last, well I expect to get somewhere
between 50K to 100K shots from one. Whereas a film camera might last
100K shots I would not want to pay for them.
Scott
Gary Edstrom
I am reminded of an Engineer I was working for back in 1976. While
primitive by today's standards, it was clear to me that, even then,
microprocessors were the wave of the future. But the Engineer I was
working for was convinced that they were a passing fad and would NEVER
replace discrete logic. Therefore, all of his complex circuit designs
used discrete logic! I wonder where he is today?
It really doesn't matter if you like it or not, digital photography IS
the wave of the future (actually the present!). It may take a while
yet before replacing the 4x5 and larger cameras, but replace them it
will. The smart person will learn to use the new technologies rather
than holding on to something that, like it or not, is going to fade
away.
Yes, film will be around for a while yet, but you can bet that its
price is going to go up and up as the demand goes down and down.
Gary
David J Taylor
[]
> I am reminded of an Engineer I was working for back in 1976. While
> primitive by today's standards, it was clear to me that, even then,
> microprocessors were the wave of the future. But the Engineer I was
> working for was convinced that they were a passing fad and would NEVER
> replace discrete logic. Therefore, all of his complex circuit designs
> used discrete logic! I wonder where he is today?
Upper management?
<G>
David
Charles Schuler
> in such a short time. Although I have a D-70, my old FM2 is still chugging
> away perfectly after 20 years.......any comments>
Average lifetime is short for many electronic products. Folks just won't
pay a premium price for longevity as they fully realize that the feature set
is expanding so rapidly.
Manufacturers adopt policies based on sales and the competition.
Would you pay a lot more for reliability?
Bill Hilton
>David J Taylor wrote:
>
> Upper management?
>
> <G>
>
> David
Or a consultant :)
jeremy
news:n9v7i2d7scjrle7ac...@4ax.com...
>
> It really doesn't matter if you like it or not, digital photography IS
> the wave of the future (actually the present!).
It really doesn't matter if you parrot the industry line or not--film is not
going to disappear in our lifetime, and there will always be people that do
not blindly follow the rest of the herd and who will continue doing their
own thing.
This thread was about equipment longevity, not a "film vs. digital" debate.
Helen
> in such a short time. Although I have a D-70, my old FM2 is still chugging
> away perfectly after 20 years.......any comments>
>
Still have my dad's Graflex Norita 6x6 120 roll film enormous SLR, purchased
1976, still fine just this last summer.
H
Leonard
I've taken more pictures with my 350D than with all of my film cameras
put together. And it's still working perfectly. That's reliability for
you.
Seriously, I don't expect the 350D to be particularly more or less
reliable than the film 300 that it replaced - ditto my S70 versus
say a film IXUS.
And your FM2 might be okay, but my Minolta XG-9 is knackered, the meter
on my Yashica rangefinder is deranged, as is my lovely Zeiss Ikophot and
the takeup on my Rollei 35 is somewhat temperamental. Not all old
cameras still work.
- Len
sna...@mailinator.com
My old digital Olympus C840 is still working as it was when it was new some 7 years ago. Not that
it gets much use these days.
Scott Schuckert
<chuc...@shawdelete.ca> wrote:
1954 Leica IIIg, still going strong; though I did have it serviced by
Leitz back in the late 70's.
What it comes down to is technology and design parameters; and
ultimately to price. Current "cameras" do far more than older ones, and
do it mostly with solid state components too small to see. These
components fall prey to deterioration at a microscopic level, from
oxidation, "tin whiskers" and just plain heat. Then they die.
At the larger scale, 99.9% of retail products are not engineered to
last past their warranty expiration. That's just good corporate
business; and if you think any corporation on earth makes things a
certain way because it's "right" or because of love of photography,
you're kidding yourself.
Take my field, computers. You CANNOT buy a desktop computer - at any
price - as well made as a late 80's Compaq or IBM. They don't exist,
because people won't pay for them. Think what it would be like if all
you could buy was a Leica?
Scott W
> This thread was about equipment longevity, not a "film vs. digital" debate.
How is this not a film vs. digital debate when the OP is pointing out
that his film cameras are holding up longer then his digital cameras?
Scott
David J. Littleboy
> in such a short time. Although I have a D-70, my old FM2 is still chugging
> away perfectly after 20 years.......any comments>
You can't compare them because lifetime units are different. Digital cameras
provide a nearly infinite number of frames, as long as you take those frames
within the first few years of purchase. Film cameras (epsecially fragile
things like non-pro cameras) have much shorter usable lifetimes _when
measured in frames taken_.
Your D70 shutter probably has a MTBF of 50,000 or 100,000 actuations. At
which point the shutter is replaceable (within the 7 years that companies
are required by law to provide parts for their products).
I doubt an FM2 would last 2700 rolls of film. (Which, by the way, would cost
you somewhere between US$13,500 and US$27,000 for film and processing costs.
Which makes it a really uneconomical way to take 100,000 images.)
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
JohnR66
> in such a short time. Although I have a D-70, my old FM2 is still chugging
> away perfectly after 20 years.......any comments>
>
It was an Epson Photo PC. It just quit working one day, but a couple years
after I gave it to my dad. I still have my 4, 5 and 6th camera and they all
are doing fine. Never lost a memory card either. I did have a horrible PNY
memory card reader years ago that would corrupt the images. After pitching
that in the trash and getting a new one, never any problems.
I'd aways treat my toys with respect and have had good luck with electronics
over the years - except for one brand. Sony. Had Camcorders, high end
walkmans, stereos, tape players bite the dust early on. Now Sony has had
problems with batteries and some defective camera sensors.
John
Kinon O'cann
me, and eats film monthly.
As far as new cams go, the game has changed...
"Faz" <chuc...@shawdelete.ca> wrote in message
news:V7RUg.88783$1T2.18863@pd7urf2no...
Matt Clara
Let me guess, Kodak Super MAX?
Mark B.
"Bill Hilton" <bhilt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1159992886.7...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Wal-Mart greeter. ;-)
Scott W
>
>
> Let me guess, Kodak Super MAX?
Sadly even with good film the prints most often came out pretty bad if
you used a mini-lab.
It was not until I started scanning my film that I got close to all
that the film was capable of.
Scott
Randall Ainsworth
<chuc...@shawdelete.ca> wrote:
My 1969 Spotmatic still works fine...as do my 1971 (500 C/M) and 1975
or 76 (El/M) Hasselblads.
Paul J Gans
No, actually I hadn't? Do yours break often?
My Nikon 995 is still functional though I don't use it often.
My Canon 300D just survived a trip to the arctic. So did my
Canon SD450. It not only went to the arctic, but I wear it
in its belt case every day. It gets banged around some but
I try to protect it.
Am I doing something wrong?
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul Rubin
> No, actually I hadn't? Do yours break often?
>
> My Nikon 995 is still functional though I don't use it often.
> My Canon 300D just survived a trip to the arctic. So did my
> Canon SD450. It not only went to the arctic, but I wear it
> in its belt case every day. It gets banged around some but
> I try to protect it.
>
> Am I doing something wrong?
My Canon S100 died fairly recently from salt water exposure, my fault,
can't really hold that against the camera. It was otherwise built
like a tank.
Stacey
I still regularly use and get spectacular results from camera made from the
19040's and 1950's. I can't imagine these digital things will still even be
useable 50 years from now! I use dSLR's but still like the feel of old film
cameras.
--
Stacey
Stacey
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:16:53 +0000, Faz wrote:
>
>> Have you noticed how many of these digital cameras break down or go wonky
>> in such a short time. Although I have a D-70, my old FM2 is still
>> chugging away perfectly after 20 years.......any comments>
>
> Olympus OM-2n: 26 years old, never had any problems.
>
The OM-2n is still one of my favorite cameras!
--
Stacey
Stacey
> Faz wrote:
>> Have you noticed how many of these digital cameras break down or go wonky
>> in such a short time. Although I have a D-70, my old FM2 is still
>> chugging away perfectly after 20 years.......any comments>
>
> I've taken more pictures with my 350D than with all of my film cameras
> put together.
But how many good pictures with digital vs good pictures with film? I find I
ussually end up with the same number of keepers, just shoot more frames
with the digital because I can.
--
Stacey
Phil Stovell
I prefer it to my new Panasonic FZ7. I'll bet the OM-2n will still be
taking good photos when my FZ7 joins my E880 in the garbage bin.
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
Dave Martindale
>I am reminded of an Engineer I was working for back in 1976. While
>primitive by today's standards, it was clear to me that, even then,
>microprocessors were the wave of the future. But the Engineer I was
>working for was convinced that they were a passing fad and would NEVER
>replace discrete logic. Therefore, all of his complex circuit designs
>used discrete logic! I wonder where he is today?
Probably designing PALs. They're not discrete chips, but it's still
hardwired logic once it has been programmed.
Dave
plasti...@yahoo.com
Faz wrote:
> Have you noticed how many of these digital cameras break down or go wonky in
> such a short time. Although I have a D-70, my old FM2 is still chugging away
> perfectly after 20 years.......any comments>
Well, I think this is largely due to the fact that when people use
digital cameras, they shoot away indiscriminantly. Good shots, bad
shots, repetitive shots, throwaway shots, who cares. People don't need
to care about the cost of film anymore. Also, digital allows people to
immediately realize if they need to retake a shot. With film, people
don't realize they needed a reshoot until it's too late.
I'd guess that digital cameras break down faster largely because it's
used more heavily. It's not unusual to hear an amateur photographer
take 500 shots with his camera over a weekend. I guarantee you, that
same person would only shoot a fraction of that amount if they had to
pay for and carry all those rolls of film.
Gary Edstrom
wrote:
>"Gary Edstrom" <geds...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:dcs7i2l3usir0uosj...@4ax.com...
>>
>> My Nikon F2 is still working great after 32 years.
>>
>> But why use it?
>>
>> I'm having FAR too much fun with digital photography!
>>
>> A 2001 trip to Midway Island was the last time I ever took a film
>> camera with me. Even with the 4 megapixel Olympus E-10 I was using at
>> the time, 8x10 enlargements came out FAR better than enlargements from
>> the Nikon. Since then, it's been 100% digital for me.
>>
>Let me guess, Kodak Super MAX?
Kodachrome 25
Kodak Processing
Kodak Enlargements
Bill Funk
>"Gary Edstrom" <geds...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:n9v7i2d7scjrle7ac...@4ax.com...
>>
>> It really doesn't matter if you like it or not, digital photography IS
>> the wave of the future (actually the present!).
>
>It really doesn't matter if you parrot the industry line or not--film is not
>going to disappear in our lifetime, and there will always be people that do
>not blindly follow the rest of the herd and who will continue doing their
>own thing.
I don't think anyone said film would disappear.
>
>This thread was about equipment longevity, not a "film vs. digital" debate.
>
When it's about film cameras vs digital cameras, it's about film vs
digital.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Scott W
It depends on how you are defining what a good photo is. A sad trend
that I see is for people to get an attitude that all photographs should
somehow be works of art, and if the photograph is not something that
you would want to hang on your wall then it is not good.
But photography is much more then just trying to make a few pretty
pictures, it is also about capturing the events of our lives. And here
is where not having to worry about the cost each photograph becomes so
valuable. I will almost always take a fair number of photos of any get
together with friends and or family. I did some of this in my film
days, going back well over twenty years. And over time I have found
these photos to be the one that hold their value over time, not the
photos of mountains and rivers and lakes, but the photos that relate to
our life.
There is a group of us that has been getting together at a bar every
time my wife and I make it back to our home town, we have been doing
this for 22 years now. When I started shooting these get togethers
with digital the photos got much better, more to choose from and so
more keepers as you would say.
As another example years ago I flew ultra-lights, and it was the desire
to get photographs from the air that prompted me to get my first SLR.
And I did indeed get some nice photos from the air and some other
photos of ultra-light flying. But what I did not get even on photo of
what the group of us that few together at the bar when the flying was
done. And not one photograph of the inside of the hanger where we
kept the planes. I was concentrating on what I thought were the
important photo and missing a lot of opportunities to get photos that
would have as much value or more to me in later years.
My grandmother on my father's side was a photography nut, but she
shot pretty much only landscape photos and never just the ordinary
stuff that went around her. My grandfather on my mother's side also
shot photos, but he simply took photos of what went on in their life.
Here is the kind of photo my grandfather took.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/30853001/large
This one photo is more valuable that all the photos of mountains my
grandmother took in her lifetime. My only regret is that my grandfather
did not take a lot more photos.
So maybe you don't see the value in taking more photos, but maybe you
should give some thought as to what photos you are going to want to
have in 20 to 40 years from now.
Scott
Annika1980
Faz wrote:
> Have you noticed how many of these digital cameras break down or go wonky in
> such a short time. Although I have a D-70, my old FM2 is still chugging away
> perfectly after 20 years.......any comments>
You'll probably take more pics in 2 years with a digital camera than in
20 years with a 35mm film camera.
Freda
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160062312.5...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Stacey wrote:
professionals around, that they seem to have lost sight of why the majority
of us actually buy cameras, and that's simply to record day to day events,
and things of interest that we may see from time to time, and this has been
made so much more simple with advent of digital photography, due to the 'no
cost' picture taking experience that we all enjoy nowadays.
I have run several online web galleries for a few years now, since I
purchased my first digital camera, and even post scans of 35mm photos from
my previous years of photo taking, and these are very popular amongst people
of a like-minded interest. However due to the nit-picking nature of some of
the DSLR brigade, I wouldn't dream of mentioning my websites on here, as I'm
sure I'd be castigated because some of my pictures were less than perfect!
So I'll keep on enjoying my hobby of photography, free from the criticism
that would surely be hurled at me on here for my photos, which are simply
that, and not intended to be works of art.
Neil Harrington
"Mark B." <mbohnt...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:39mdnegYVt4jwbnY...@comcast.com...
<GUFFAW!>
Yes, and found his niche at last!
Neil Harrington
> in such a short time. Although I have a D-70, my old FM2 is still chugging
> away perfectly after 20 years.......any comments>
Yep. I still have my first digital camera, a seven-year-old Agfa. Probably
still works fine. I haven't used it in five or six years and never will
again, wish I'd sold it years ago.
Technology marches on, and at high speed. Who on earth would *want* a
digital camera "still chugging away perfectly after 20 years"?
Neil
Neil Harrington
Well and truly said. I believe you and I agreed on this some time ago, but
it's well worth repeating from time to time.
Neil
Neil Harrington
"jeremy" <jer...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:H5VUg.7701$tN.4117@trndny06...
> "Gary Edstrom" <geds...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:n9v7i2d7scjrle7ac...@4ax.com...
>>
>> It really doesn't matter if you like it or not, digital photography IS
>> the wave of the future (actually the present!).
>
> It really doesn't matter if you parrot the industry line or not--film is
> not going to disappear in our lifetime, and there will always be people
> that do not blindly follow the rest of the herd and who will continue
> doing their own thing.
>
> debate.
Well, I bought my first serious 35mm camera, a Kodak Retina IIa, in 1952. It
may very well still be working perfectly somewhere, but who cares? I still
own half a dozen 35mm SLRs also, and have to say I deeply regret not having
sold them all off a few years ago. Most of the lenses and other accessories
I can still use on my Maxxum 5D, but the bodies are just taking up space.
What's the good of "equipment longevity" when the equipment has been
obsoleted by newer technologies?
Neil
Gary Edstrom
>"Gary Edstrom" <geds...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:n9v7i2d7scjrle7ac...@4ax.com...
>>
>> It really doesn't matter if you like it or not, digital photography IS
>> the wave of the future (actually the present!).
>
>It really doesn't matter if you parrot the industry line or not--film is not
>going to disappear in our lifetime, and there will always be people that do
>not blindly follow the rest of the herd and who will continue doing their
>own thing.
>
>This thread was about equipment longevity, not a "film vs. digital" debate.
If you like film, then fine! Continue to use it. Nobody here is
trying to stop you!
As for me, I like digital and I am going to continue using it. And no
amount of trashing of digital by film buffs is going to change my
mind.
You do your thing and I will do mine. Ok?
Gary
JTS Brown
Leonard
As a fraction of exposures taken, the number of keepers is well down.
But I'm keeping more pictures per month than I was with film.
- Len
Jørn Dahl-Stamnes
> Have you noticed how many of these digital cameras break down or go wonky
> in such a short time. Although I have a D-70, my old FM2 is still chugging
> away perfectly after 20 years.......any comments>
I'm 43 and I'm still going... ;-)
--
Jørn Dahl-Stamnes
http://www.dahl-stamnes.net/Foto/
Graham Fountain
> Stacey wrote:
>> Leonard wrote:
<big snippage>
>
> So maybe you don't see the value in taking more photos, but maybe you
> should give some thought as to what photos you are going to want to
> have in 20 to 40 years from now.
was an early adopter of digital for this very purpose. My idea was to
use the digital P&S for life documentation type shots, and my film
cameras for my "wannabe professional" stuff.
In 2000 I paid $1000AUS for a Kodak DC3400, 2MP, 2x Zoom camera, and
another $300 AUS for a 128MB Memory card. This camera served me well
going places where it was inconvenient to take one of my advanced
cameras. At a family gathering for the first time I could snap away
happily without worrying about how each frame was costing money. But
after 1800 shots, and not long out of warranty, it died - the CCD
started "blooming". By that time CF cards had stopped being used in P&S
cams, so I pretty much had to write off $1300 worth of equipment - $1300
/ 1800 shots = $0.72/shot (+ printing, although only a small qty were
printed).
I decided to send it for repair, and Kodak indicated it was not viable
for repair and offered to replace it with a Kodak CX4230 - 2MP, 3x Zoom
for about $300AUS. I spent another $100 for a 128MB SD Card. This camera
lasted about 1400 shots and just out of warranty before it died - it
would drain a set of batteries in about 1 minute flat. If I was lucky I
would get 5 shots out of Lithium or NiMH batts. In this case I could
re-use it's memory card, but it still cost $0.21/shot. After it died,
I went back to film for everything. I was never happy with the 4230, it
lagged too much, and the image quality was poor compared to the 3400.
After a couple of years of being back to the SLR's exclusively, at my
wife's request I bought another P&S - this time a HP R707 again for
around $300 AUS so we'd have a compact P&S again. About 700 shots saw
this camera out before it failed with focussing issues - again it was
just outside warranty. Once again though, I was never happy with the
quality of the R707, the old Kodak DC3400 took better quality photos,
despite the lower megapixel rating.
Between the 3 cameras I was able to take about 3900 photos for a cost of
$1900 - 49c/photo WITHOUT prints.
I've now gone to a better brand - a Canon S2IS for $450AUS. Because this
camera is a little more versatile than the others I have taken more
shots with it (although not necessarily better), and am up to around
1400 in the 5 months I've had it. It has now failed, with massive
exposure issues and is currently pending warranty repair/replacement. At
least this time I shouldn't have to pay to have a working camera. So far
I'd have to say that it's photos are the worst quality of any of my
digitals, but possibly the faults have been present since new, so I'll
give it the benefit of the doubt. Some progress, when a 5MP camera takes
a worse photo than a 2MP camera.
Compared to film however, a roll of 24 shot fuji 400 costs $3, and
processing and printing costs me $7, so for $10 I can get 24 prints, or
$0.41/photo. Before you say this isn't a fair comparison, my workhorse
camera was bought new in the late 80's for $300 with 2 lenses, and would
have shot hundreds of rolls of film in it's time - If I assume 300 rolls
(probably far more) that's an additional 4c/photo if it dies today, so
45c/photo, WITH prints.
This is based on all shots taken - if I was to base it on the shots
worth keeping (and I'm not talking artistic merit, I'm talking shots
that the focus and exposure is good enough to warrant keeping the
photo), then the digitals would lose more shots than the film cameras,
and things would skew even further in favour of film. It also doesn't
factor in costs of battery chargers, batteries, electricity to charge
batteries, which would again skew toward film. Many of my rolls of film
have been developed myself and scanned, which has given me digital
images at a lower cost than the processing mentioned above, again
lowering the overall cost (Although resulting in more work for me, but
it is an enjoyable task).
I have a '60's era yashica rangefinder that I bought 2nd hand last year
for $30. Goodness knows what history it has had, but it works perfectly
and takes stunning photos. I have put about a dozen rolls through
since I've had it. I mainly use it for black and white. I have the
abovementioned hanimex SLR (Pentax copy) that I bought in the late 80's
for $300, a Ricoh KR-10S that I picked up a few years ago 2nd hand for
$40, and a Pentax MZ60 that I bought new in 2004 for $299. The MZ60 was
DOA, and replaced under warranty. That replacement, and all the above
cameras have worked flawlessly, and between them have taken far more
photos than my digitals.
Basically I'm over all this digital fad. The "low cost" only exists if
the gamble of the reliability of the equipment pays off. Digital P&S
are great for what they are, and leave film P&S for dead when it comes
to functionality, but their reliability is so poor, that they are no
cheaper. With all the "progress" in the megapixel hunt though, it seems
image quality is declining, not improving. It seems all the
manufacturers are working so hard at getting better marketing numbers
than their competition, that they are forgetting image quality
completely. At the rate they are going a disposable film cam will soon
be better.
I haven't yet taken the plunge to a digital SLR, although I have used a
number of them at various times. So far I'm unimpressed by image quality
and build quality. The Sony Alpha and 30D are probably the only ones
that so far have impressed, but at $1700 and $2500 respectively (plus
lenses) it poses the dilemna of will I get 5000-8000 frames out of them,
to give them a lower marginal cost than film? In theory yes, but from
what I've seen so far, I have my doubts they will last more than maybe 2
years. I have high hopes for the upcoming K10D but again also have
doubts. Personally I think I'd rather know that every time I press the
shutter is another 40c, rather than knowing that every time I press the
shutter is one more time closer to a $2000 replacement cost.
>
> Scott
>
Graham Fountain
> Faz wrote:
>> Have you noticed how many of these digital cameras break down or go wonky in
>> such a short time. Although I have a D-70, my old FM2 is still chugging away
>> perfectly after 20 years.......any comments>
>
>
> Well, I think this is largely due to the fact that when people use
> digital cameras, they shoot away indiscriminantly. Good shots, bad
> shots, repetitive shots, throwaway shots, who cares. People don't need
> to care about the cost of film anymore. Also, digital allows people to
> immediately realize if they need to retake a shot. With film, people
> don't realize they needed a reshoot until it's too late.
dispute that comment. The small screens just aren't big enough to tell
if the photo is out of focus, or suffers from motion blur. You can sort
of gauge exposure, but that's about it. Problem is though, customers
think that because the shot looked sharp on the screen, that it must be
the lab that is printing blurry. Or better yet, in a case where every
one of the customer's photos had the subject blurry, but the background
in clear focus - "your lab is focussing wrong and making the backgrounds
in focus instead of the people".
>
> I'd guess that digital cameras break down faster largely because it's
> used more heavily. It's not unusual to hear an amateur photographer
> take 500 shots with his camera over a weekend. I guarantee you, that
> same person would only shoot a fraction of that amount if they had to
> pay for and carry all those rolls of film.
10 to 1 digital:film, by the time I prune out the shots that the digi
got the wrong exposure, locked AF on the wrong subject etc, that things
are a lot more even. Add to that, the digi takes so damned long to lock
focus on anything, that if there is even the remotest chance that the
subject will move, I'll use film. I can manually focus, and manually set
exposure on my fully manual SLR or rangefinder, faster than my canon
S2IS can lock focus and take a shot. My KR-10 which has aperture
priority AE is faster again. And if I'm taking multiple shots of the
same subject, all I have to do is wind on the film (very quick), and
maybe tweak focus. The S2IS will hunt the focus every single time,
unless I put it in burst mode, in which case it won't re-tweak focus if
the subject has moved slightly.
>
Scott W
<Snip> a long history of cameras going bad.
Man you have had really bad luck with cameras.
I took something like 20,000 photos with my Nikon 995
Something like 50,000 with my Sony F828, which is still working fine.
My wife and I are not using both a 20D and a 350D and have a lot of
photos from each without and problems so far.
This is simply no way I could afford to photograph in the style I do
using film.
BTW I have also had one film SLR go bad, shutter would only expose half
a frame. We did not find out about this until the end of a vacation
when we got the film back from processing.
Scott
Graham Fountain
their camera fails just outside warranty. If a modern DSLR is capable of
similar quality as a modern FSLR, then why wouldn't you want it to be
working perfectly in 20 years time? My film cameras can take a better
photo now than they did 20 years ago, because of better film. My 6yo
digital can't even take a photo at all now. But despite it being only
2MP, it's pictures were of better quality, with better focus, less
noise, and overall sharper, than my more recent 5MP digicam. Progress? I
don't think so. If we see the same "progress" in DSLR as we have seen in
compact, as manufacturers continue the marketing numbers chase as being
more important than image quality, then I'm pretty sure my film cameras
will be better in 20 years than the digi's around then.
>
> Neil
>
>
Phil Wheeler
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "Faz" <chuc...@shawdelete.ca> wrote in message
>> news:V7RUg.88783$1T2.18863@pd7urf2no...
>>> Have you noticed how many of these digital cameras break down or go
>>> wonky in such a short time. Although I have a D-70, my old FM2 is
>>> still chugging away perfectly after 20 years.......any comments>
>>
>> Yep. I still have my first digital camera, a seven-year-old Agfa.
>> Probably still works fine. I haven't used it in five or six years and
>> never will again, wish I'd sold it years ago.
>>
>> Technology marches on, and at high speed. Who on earth would *want* a
>> digital camera "still chugging away perfectly after 20 years"?
> Perhaps people who don't want to spend a fortune every 13 months when
> their camera fails just outside warranty. If a modern DSLR is capable of
> similar quality as a modern FSLR, then why wouldn't you want it to be
> working perfectly in 20 years time? My film cameras can take a better
> photo now than they did 20 years ago, because of better film. My 6yo
> digital can't even take a photo at all now. But despite it being only
> 2MP, it's pictures were of better quality, with better focus, less
> noise, and overall sharper, than my more recent 5MP digicam. Progress? I
> don't think so.
Sounds like 5 mp camera was not well selected ..
or do you assume that fewer mp is better?
Phil
Scott W
> don't think so. If we see the same "progress" in DSLR as we have
seen in
> compact, as manufacturers continue the marketing numbers chase as being
> more important than image quality, then I'm pretty sure my film cameras
> will be better in 20 years than the digi's around then.
instead.
Or do your homework and get a decent compact.
BTW just where do you plan to get your film processed in 20 years.
Scott
Neil Harrington
"Graham Fountain" <a...@and.find.out> wrote in message
news:45282555$0$8398$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
[ . . . ]
You've certainly had an astonishing amount of bad luck with your cameras. I
haven't had a digital camera fail on me yet, but since I have a lot of
digital cameras no one of them sees extremely heavy use, so that probably
doesn't mean much.
However, my sister has a Nikon Coolpix 4100, the cheapest Nikon (about $160
U.S.) at the time she bought it two or three years ago; it's the only
digital camera she's ever had and she uses it a great deal. She bought a
512MB SD card (something under $15 after rebate at the time) and gets her
prints made at Wal-Mart for 14 cents apiece. She's retired and travels a
lot, makes at least one and sometimes two trips abroad every year, takes
hundreds of photos while traveling and lots more of her children and
grandchildren, friends and get-togethers, etc., though I have no idea of her
total picture count. She has had absolutely no problems of any kind with the
little 4100 and just loves it. And the prints she gets from it are of at
least equal and frequently better quality than the various name-brand 35mm
point-and-shoots she used before. She didn't have complete confidence in the
digital on her first overseas trip with it, and brought along a 35 as a
backup. Never used the 35 then -- or since. There is no way she would ever
go back to film now. My guess is that her experience with digital is more
typical than yours (unfortunately) has been.
Neil
Neil Harrington
"Graham Fountain" <a...@and.find.out> wrote in message
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "Faz" <chuc...@shawdelete.ca> wrote in message
>> news:V7RUg.88783$1T2.18863@pd7urf2no...
>>> Have you noticed how many of these digital cameras break down or go
>>> wonky in such a short time. Although I have a D-70, my old FM2 is still
>>> chugging away perfectly after 20 years.......any comments>
>>
>> Yep. I still have my first digital camera, a seven-year-old Agfa.
>> Probably still works fine. I haven't used it in five or six years and
>> never will again, wish I'd sold it years ago.
>>
>> Technology marches on, and at high speed. Who on earth would *want* a
>> digital camera "still chugging away perfectly after 20 years"?
> Perhaps people who don't want to spend a fortune every 13 months when
> their camera fails just outside warranty. If a modern DSLR is capable of
> similar quality as a modern FSLR, then why wouldn't you want it to be
> working perfectly in 20 years time?
Of course, it's preferable if anything keeps on working, as opposed to stops
working. But the fact that my seven-year-old digital (probably) still works
is of no benefit to me now, since it's so primitive compared to the digital
cameras I've bought since and I'll just never use it again. Neither will I
use the one I bought after that, or the one after that, though each was
substantially better than the one before. Digital cameras have just gotten a
lot better over the last few years.
As for SLRs, while I've had 35mm SLRs for 40+ years, digital SLRs are a
relatively new experience for me. Sure, I hope mine keep working and I
expect they will. But will I really want the ones I have now, in 20 years?
Who can say what digital cameras will be like in 20 years? Would anyone 20
years ago have predicted the cameras we have now?
> My film cameras can take a better photo now than they did 20 years ago,
> because of better film. My 6yo digital can't even take a photo at all now.
> But despite it being only 2MP, it's pictures were of better quality, with
> better focus, less noise, and overall sharper, than my more recent 5MP
> digicam. Progress? I don't think so. If we see the same "progress" in DSLR
> as we have seen in compact, as manufacturers continue the marketing
> numbers chase as being more important than image quality, then I'm pretty
> sure my film cameras will be better in 20 years than the digi's around
> then.
What's "better" is of course a matter of personal opinion. But film is a
fully mature (or perhaps more correctly in its old age) technology that
isn't likely to go anywhere from this point on, indeed hasn't advanced much
in the last decade or so. Digital is still advancing vigorously.
Neil
ASAAR
>> Have you noticed how many of these digital cameras break down or go wonky
>> in such a short time. Although I have a D-70, my old FM2 is still chugging
>> away perfectly after 20 years.......any comments>
>
> I'm 43 and I'm still going... ;-)
No doubt attributable to your family's fine, uh . . . reflexes.
:)
Philip Homburg
Graham Fountain <a...@and.find.out> wrote:
>My film cameras can take a better
>photo now than they did 20 years ago, because of better film.
And that is the big difference. My will D1 probably work in 10 years time.
But even today it is completely obsolete.
Now, for todays camera it may be different. The technical specs of a 1Ds are
such that the camera may remain usable for a very long time. I guess we
just have to wait and see how long they last.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Paul Rubin
> >My film cameras can take a better
> >photo now than they did 20 years ago, because of better film.
>
> And that is the big difference. My will D1 probably work in 10 years time.
> But even today it is completely obsolete.
I'd say a 1960's-era Nikon F still takes good pictures, but it was
similarly obsolete by the 1980's.
> Now, for todays camera it may be different. The technical specs of a
> 1Ds are such that the camera may remain usable for a very long
> time. I guess we just have to wait and see how long they last.
One issue is how long they keep making batteries for it. Another is
whether such an enormous, power-hungry tank of a camera still makes
sense in even 5 years, e.g. there might be a Rebel XT-sized DSLR with
a full frame sensor by then. In fact apparently CF storage media runs
out of address space at 32 GB, and 16 GB CF cards are already
available, so the next CF generation is the last. Sure, there will be
some replacement, but the 1Ds will be stuck using the old cards, and
you won't be able to put the multi-terabyte media of the future into
it. Nor will the 1DS be able to shoot at 60 fps for hours nonstop
onto that terabyte media like the future cameras might.
So sure, the 1DS will still be usable in the distant future, just like
a Graflex is still usable today, but does anyone really care?
Philip Homburg
Paul Rubin <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
>phi...@ue.aioy.eu (Philip Homburg) writes:
>> >My film cameras can take a better
>> >photo now than they did 20 years ago, because of better film.
>>
>> And that is the big difference. My will D1 probably work in 10 years time.
>> But even today it is completely obsolete.
>
>I'd say a 1960's-era Nikon F still takes good pictures, but it was
>similarly obsolete by the 1980's.
Yes, but the F is the equivalent of the D1: it was (for Nikon) the first
one that got a particular feature set right. But is was significantly
improved upon in later cameras.
>> Now, for todays camera it may be different. The technical specs of a
>> 1Ds are such that the camera may remain usable for a very long
>> time. I guess we just have to wait and see how long they last.
>
>One issue is how long they keep making batteries for it.
That depends on whether they remain polular or not :-). Anyhow, in
many packs it is relatively easy to replace the cells.
>Another is
>whether such an enormous, power-hungry tank of a camera still makes
>sense in even 5 years, e.g. there might be a Rebel XT-sized DSLR with
>a full frame sensor by then.
I don't know how power-hungry the 1Ds is.
I don't think that anyone can make a good general purpose SLR the size of a
Rebel XT. But I have to admit that I like my SLRs to be big, because that
provides a nice counter balance to the lens.
>In fact apparently CF storage media runs
>out of address space at 32 GB, and 16 GB CF cards are already
>available, so the next CF generation is the last.
I can't imagine how CF can run out of address space a 32 GB. That sounds
like a software limitation.
CF is essentially ATA, and ATA can go upto terrabytes.
Anyhow, 32GB is about 2000 raw images. And there is no reason that good
CF cards cannot last as long as the 1Ds.
>Sure, there will be
>some replacement, but the 1Ds will be stuck using the old cards, and
>you won't be able to put the multi-terabyte media of the future into
>it. Nor will the 1DS be able to shoot at 60 fps for hours nonstop
>onto that terabyte media like the future cameras might.
So, who cares? In my experience, photography and video have almost nothing
in common. At 2000 images per 32GB, 'old' cards will work just fine.
>So sure, the 1DS will still be usable in the distant future, just like
>a Graflex is still usable today, but does anyone really care?
I can't see why not. The graflex was not mature technology. Later
improvements in film rendered the graflex obsolete.
Canon's sensors are very close to what possible within the limits of
physics.
And 16 Mpixels is probably also close to what is reasonable for 35mm.
In theory you can go to 30 Mpixels (full frame 35mm) and then it stops.
(Note enough photons, not enough MTF in lenses, camera shake, etc.)
In most prints, you are not going to see any difference (just like you
can't see on a screen that a picture was taken with a D1 (at ISO 200))
ASAAR
>> In fact apparently CF storage media runs
>> out of address space at 32 GB, and 16 GB CF cards are already
>> available, so the next CF generation is the last.
>
> I can't imagine how CF can run out of address space a 32 GB. That sounds
> like a software limitation.
>
> CF is essentially ATA, and ATA can go upto terrabytes.
It's probably a hardware, not a software limitation. If, when the
design specifications for CF cards were put together it was agreed
that 32GB would be the upper capacity limit, no cards, but more
importantly, no devices (cameras, PDAs, etc.) would be implemented
using more than enough hardware address lines than would accommodate
32GB. My old Canon Powershots (S10 & S20) will never be able to use
the largest CF cards, and in their case it's both a hardware and a
software limitation. Software because they'd have to have their
firmware updated to handle FAT 32, which Canon is not likely to do.
But also because those cameras probably lack sufficient address
lines to handle high multi gigabyte address spaces.
Just as the SD spec. was updated to now allow for greater
capacities (SDHC), the same could be done for CF, and CFHC cards
could go well beyond 32GB. But only future cameras would be able to
fully use these new cards. Today's 1Ds cameras will still have
today's CF capacity limit, whatever it happens to be.
> Anyhow, 32GB is about 2000 raw images. And there is no reason
> that good CF cards cannot last as long as the 1Ds.
>
>> Sure, there will be
>> some replacement, but the 1Ds will be stuck using the old cards, and
>> you won't be able to put the multi-terabyte media of the future into
>> it. Nor will the 1DS be able to shoot at 60 fps for hours nonstop
>> onto that terabyte media like the future cameras might.
>
> So, who cares? In my experience, photography and video have almost nothing
> in common. At 2000 images per 32GB, 'old' cards will work just fine.
I agree, and this is another reason why Canon, even if it could
implement a simple, inexpensive hardware fix (you send in the
camera, they return it within 2 weeks with its new 512GB card limit)
probably wouldn't be interested. They like their customers, even
pro photographers, to keep buying new cameras, and we all seem to
agree that the old 32GB cards won't present any hardship and will
"work just fine", because as you say, nobody really cares, and they
won't see 32GB as a real limit. Five or ten years from now they'll
instead see the 1Ds as the real limit and will be salivating for a
new Canon 1Xs. [p.i.] :)
Bill Funk
wrote:
>Canon's sensors are very close to what possible within the limits of
>physics.
I think we need to be very careful in saying things like this.
I remember when 9600 baud was the "limit" for phone line modems.
While physics does indeed limit some things, we haven't yet discovered
those limits; we've just discovered the limits of what we know.
John McWilliams
My thoughts exactly, only better stated than I was going to.
--
John McWilliams
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
- Albert Einstein
Ron Hunter
it around. How many good pictures will I get from a camera sitting on a
shelf at home? Seems to me I would much better pictures, and more of
them, from a camera I actually carried around with me.
I am sure there will still be places that process film in 20 years,
although I am pretty sure one will have to hunt for them.
Philip Homburg
Bill Funk <Big...@there.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 11:56:40 +0200, phi...@ue.aioy.eu (Philip Homburg)
>wrote:
>
>>Canon's sensors are very close to what possible within the limits of
>>physics.
>
>I think we need to be very careful in saying things like this.
>I remember when 9600 baud was the "limit" for phone line modems.
I never heard of 9600 baud being the limit of phone lines. That sounds
like marketing speak.
For long distance, 64kps was a reasonable limit due to the 4 kHz bandwidth
limitation.
>While physics does indeed limit some things, we haven't yet discovered
>those limits; we've just discovered the limits of what we know.
We do know the limits of physics. We don't know if there are clever ways
to avoid getting into trouble.
However, people have been trying to make high performance sensors for
a very long time. So it is not impossible, but rather unrealistic to
expect radical improvements.
Philip Homburg
ASAAR <cau...@22.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 11:56:40 +0200, Philip Homburg wrote:
>> CF is essentially ATA, and ATA can go upto terrabytes.
>
> It's probably a hardware, not a software limitation. If, when the
>design specifications for CF cards were put together it was agreed
>that 32GB would be the upper capacity limit, no cards, but more
>importantly, no devices (cameras, PDAs, etc.) would be implemented
>using more than enough hardware address lines than would accommodate
>32GB.
I can only assume that you don't know what ATA is.
Please, don't invent 'reasons' that make no sense.
Graham Fountain
if Fuji's F30 technology was applied to an APS or Full Frame sensor,
we'd have a very high res, low noise sensor.
But...
There is another limitation that we already know where the limits apply,
and that is diffraction limiting. For an 8MP APS sized sensor, at F11 it
is already diffraction limited. The higher the pixel resolution, the
greater the aperture where the limits occur. For 8MP 4/3 system it is
diffraction limited at F8. Increase the pixels and regardless of the
noise issues of smaller pixels, diffraction limiting cuts in, making the
extra pixels less useful. Considering that most lenses are at their
sharpest at about F8, any more than 11MP in APS or 7.5MP in 4/3 will not
achieve any benefit. Therefore the Olympus 4/3 models are already at
their effective limit, and Canon/Nikon/Sony/Pentax are pretty close to
their limit with their 10MP models. To get any benefit out of higher
megapixel counts, lenses that are much sharper at more open F-stops are
needed. Of course another negative is that a smaller range of F-stops is
available to use.
Neil Harrington
"Graham Fountain" <a...@and.find.out> wrote in message
> Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 11:56:40 +0200, phi...@ue.aioy.eu (Philip Homburg)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Canon's sensors are very close to what possible within the limits of
>>> physics.
>>
>> I think we need to be very careful in saying things like this.
>> I remember when 9600 baud was the "limit" for phone line modems.
>> While physics does indeed limit some things, we haven't yet discovered
>> those limits; we've just discovered the limits of what we know.
> There are probably improvements yet to be made in S/N ratio, for example
> if Fuji's F30 technology was applied to an APS or Full Frame sensor, we'd
> have a very high res, low noise sensor.
> But...
> There is another limitation that we already know where the limits apply,
> and that is diffraction limiting. For an 8MP APS sized sensor, at F11 it
> is already diffraction limited. The higher the pixel resolution, the
> greater the aperture where the limits occur.
What do higher pixel resolutions have to do with diffraction? Diffraction
has to do with the physical size of the aperture. Smaller formats use
shorter focal lengths and therefore smaller apertures for any f-number,
which is why compact cameras with 1/1.8 or 2/3 type CCDs generally have
lenses limited to f/8 or so at the small end to avoid diffraction problems.
I don't see how that has anything to do with the pixel resolution.
For example, I have a Nikon Coolpix 5900 and 7900. The former is 5
megapixels and the latter is 7, but in other physical respects the cameras
are identical -- same lens, same CCD size exactly. You're saying that my
7900 has more severe diffraction limitation than the 5900 because it has
more pixels? I doubt it very much. It may have more *noise* because of more,
smaller pixels packed into the same space. But I don't see how it can have
any bearing on diffraction.
Neil
ASAAR
> I can only assume that you don't know what ATA is.
I can only assume that you don't know what your talking about if
you think that either a simple software fix will allow old 1Ds
cameras to accept cards greater than 32GB or that Canon would want
to provide one.
> Please, don't invent 'reasons' that make no sense.
Not my fault if you're incapable of understanding.
Graham Fountain
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
it explains it. What I'm saying is, for a given sensor size, as the
resolution goes up, the F stop where diffraction limiting becomes a
problem, goes down, and so the gain of the extra resolution is
pointless. For example if shooting at F11 with an APS sensor, it doesn't
matter if I have an 8MP sensor, 10MP sensor, or 100MP sensor.
Diffraction has set the limit on the maximum detail that can be resolved
to be at just below 8MP. It doesn't matter if I have more "resolution",
because all it will be resolving is the diffraction pattern, not the
original image.
With most common lenses, F8 is their sweet spot where increased
sharpness due to small aperture is balanced by loss of sharpness due to
diffraction. So with an APS sensor, the most that a lens can resolve at
F8 is about 11 Megapixels. Below F8 diffraction is less of a problem,
but lens sharpness becomes an issue, again negating the advantage of
extra megapixels. Yes if you used a lens design that was sufficiently
sharp at at F5.6 or F4 you could reap benefits of higher resolution, but
that would again limit the number of available stops of usable aperture.
For example it is often advantageous when shooting with telephoto lenses
to stop down to gain depth of field, or to stop down to lengthen shutter
speed slightly. What is the point of squeezing higher resolutions out of
sensors, if lenses can't create an image to take advantage of that
resolution?
ink
"Jørn Dahl-Stamnes" write
> Faz wrote:
>
>> Have you noticed how many of these digital cameras break down or go wonky
>> in such a short time. Although I have a D-70, my old FM2 is still
>> chugging
>> away perfectly after 20 years.......any comments>
>
> I'm 43 and I'm still going... ;-)
So do you... go...? <wink wink nudge nudge know what I mean?>
:-)
Cheers,
ink
Philip Homburg
ASAAR <cau...@22.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 00:26:21 +0200, Philip Humbug wrote:
>
>> I can only assume that you don't know what ATA is.
>
> I can only assume that you don't know what your talking about if
>you think that either a simple software fix will allow old 1Ds
>cameras to accept cards greater than 32GB or that Canon would want
>to provide one.
Ploink.
Neil Harrington
"Graham Fountain" <a...@and.find.out> wrote in message
Okay, I see what you're saying. That's very interesting, thanks.
Whether common lenses are best at or around f/8 as you say is what I'm not
so sure about. That has indeed been my experience when testing 35mm lenses
with the familiar USAF charts -- they always seemed to have their best
contrast and resolution at f/8 or thereabouts, by visual inspection of the
negatives. But testing based on MTF, which I have no way of doing myself,
and is supposed to be much the better method, does not necessarily seem to
agree with this. For example, I have seen MTF results showing that a
particular f/2.8 enlarging lens is best at f/4.
It seems to me that an APS-sized sensor should still be large enough not to
make diffraction that much greater a problem than it is in 35mm, but clearly
the much smaller CCDs used in compact cameras are another story. In my
experience the small auto-everything cameras do quite well even wide open,
which most of them favor obviously for this reason. But I will try testing
my Nikon Coolpix P2 (which has an aperture priority mode and stops down to
f/7.6 at the short end) to see what difference I can see over the available
aperture range. Of course that aperture range is always much smaller with
digital compacts than what we were used to with 35s. And I'll test my
digital SLRs too, though both of mine are only 6 megapixels and so may not
prove much in connection with this issue -- but with those lenses I can stop
down to f/22, which should show something useful.
Neil
Neil Harrington
"ink" <i...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:egcq5q$smd$1...@atlas.ip-plus.net...
Ah, another fan. But is 43 old enough for him to remember that?
Neil
ASAAR
>> I can only assume that you don't know what your talking about if
>> you think that either a simple software fix will allow old 1Ds
>> cameras to accept cards greater than 32GB or that Canon would want
>> to provide one.
>
> Ploink.
I didn't think you'd have an intelligent response, but I also
didn't think that you'd add illiteracy to your shortcomings. :)
> --
> That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out to be a moron.
Neil Harrington
"Graham Fountain" <a...@and.find.out> wrote in message
[ . . . ]
That's most interesting too, and the comparison shots of fabric between f/8
and f/22 are certainly persuasive.
Neil
Dave Martindale
>> CF is essentially ATA, and ATA can go upto terrabytes.
> It's probably a hardware, not a software limitation. If, when the
>design specifications for CF cards were put together it was agreed
>that 32GB would be the upper capacity limit, no cards, but more
>importantly, no devices (cameras, PDAs, etc.) would be implemented
>using more than enough hardware address lines than would accommodate
>32GB.
CF cards use a disk drive interface (that's what ATA is). The
controller sends a request in terms of block number, and there's lots of
room for expansion above 32 GB. The card does *not* require row/column
address lines like RAM memory. Block addresses used to be limited to 24
bits, but can now be 48 bits.
My old Canon Powershots (S10 & S20) will never be able to use
>the largest CF cards, and in their case it's both a hardware and a
>software limitation. Software because they'd have to have their
>firmware updated to handle FAT 32, which Canon is not likely to do.
>But also because those cameras probably lack sufficient address
>lines to handle high multi gigabyte address spaces.
Again, no address lines are involved. The request from the controller
to the drive is just a message in a particular format, transferred as
bytes across a bus.
The older Canons couldn't use cards larger than 2 GB because they only
supported the FAT16 filesystem.
Dave
ASAAR
> CF cards use a disk drive interface (that's what ATA is). The
> controller sends a request in terms of block number, and there's lots of
> room for expansion above 32 GB. The card does *not* require row/column
> address lines like RAM memory. Block addresses used to be limited to 24
> bits, but can now be 48 bits.
True, I had forgotten about their use of Logical Block Addressing.
Thanks for the reminder. But there are other hardware limitations
involved, since manufacturers like to minimize hardware to keep
costs low and profits high. Making relatively simple changes such
as going from 24 to 48 bits and adding a few new features will
almost certainly require more fast volatile memory (for larger
tables and buffers, etc.) and more EEPROM or FLASH RAM to hold the
new firmware routines. Some of my old PDAs could have their
firmware upgraded to a point, but eventually couldn't be upgraded to
newer versions which required more non-volatile memory than was
available. I don't know how generous Canon was with resources for
its 1Ds cameras, but for them to be compatible with future CFHC
cards greater than 32GB, the new design would have to require only a
software change. It would be interesting to know if the new SDHC
cards could be made compatible with *all* older SD cameras, or if
some hardware changes would be required.
> My old Canon Powershots (S10 & S20) will never be able to use
> >the largest CF cards, and in their case it's both a hardware and a
> >software limitation. Software because they'd have to have their
> >firmware updated to handle FAT 32, which Canon is not likely to do.
> >But also because those cameras probably lack sufficient address
> >lines to handle high multi gigabyte address spaces.
>
> Again, no address lines are involved. The request from the controller
> to the drive is just a message in a particular format, transferred as
> bytes across a bus.
>
> The older Canons couldn't use cards larger than 2 GB because they only
> supported the FAT16 filesystem.
And again, that was my point. Not so much that it would be
impossible, but that there would be no real incentive for Canon to
support FAT32 in those cameras. Have there been any older cameras
that were originally limited to FAT16 that were made to support
FAT32 after a firmware update? I don't expect to see FAT32 support
for my not-too-old S5100, but there's no pressing need, as it only
has a 4mp sensor, and really large xD cards aren't yet available.
Video buffs might think otherwise, but I'm not one of them. :)