How many shots per year does a typical person use his/her digital camera?
anir...@gmail.com
surprised to know that I have clicked over 50,000 photos with it. My
newer Samsung digimax i5 is only 5 months old, and I already used it
over 3000 shots. I am not a commercial or professional, and not even
an enthusiast photographer. Despite of a lot opinions about the
Samsung camera as being a mediocre quality, I appear to grow to like
it with time. It is nice and ultra compact, and I carry it with me in
my pocket all the time. It is slow, but photo quality is not too bad.
My questions are as follows:
- How often are other people, who bought a digital camera at a
supermarket or photo store uses his/her cameras?
- How do camera manufacturers design their cameras to last? How many
shots would the industry be considered to be acceptable, without
loosing their quality?
- If as an amateur, I shot that many pictures, what about professional
photographers? How many shots did they typically take monthly or
yearly?
- What part of a digital camera which likely to go haywire first?
autofocusing system, metering system, built-in flash, mechanical
components (buttons, springs, etc)?
Just curious and would like to hear feedback from other users.
Thanks
The Reid
>- How often are other people, who bought a digital camera at a
>supermarket or photo store uses his/her cameras?
I buy my DSLR cameras from camera shops, landscape is my hobby after
hill walking, I take under 500 shots a year, although there will be
some instantly deleted ones that the exposure was all wrong.
--
Mike Reid
UK walking, food, photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Spain walking, food, tourism "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"
Beginners UK flight sim addons "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"
ben brugman
>
> My questions are as follows:
> - How often are other people, who bought a digital camera at a
> supermarket or photo store uses his/her cameras?
I bought My camera in a photo store, make about 4000 pictures a year.
Sometimes I make a lot of pictures to get a good one. At a sporting game
of my daugther I made almost 300 pictures, but I captured 5 (sequence)
when she was scoring, these pictures have value to me most of the
other pictures are redundant.
> - How do camera manufacturers design their cameras to last? How many
> shots would the industry be considered to be acceptable, without
> loosing their quality?
For DSLR, there is a maximum on how often the mirror can go up
and down. (50000 to 100000 seems to be resonable). For point and
shoots, it's often not the number of pictures which determine the lifetime,
but the use of the camera, how is it kept, stored transported and used.
> - If as an amateur, I shot that many pictures, what about professional
> photographers? How many shots did they typically take monthly or
> yearly?
I Head of a professional that het used to shoot conservatively when still
using film. For a soccer match het shot 'only' about 10-12 roles of film
(360-430 pictures). Now he said that he wasn't limited to shoot and
kept on shooting. (No numbers given but several times 360 was
was suggested).
> - What part of a digital camera which likely to go haywire first?
> autofocusing system, metering system, built-in flash, mechanical
> components (buttons, springs, etc)?
>
Depends a lot on the treatment.
Dust and dirt can do a lot of harm to a camera. (Slowly but certainly).
Moisture can do a lot of harm to a camera. (Often not noticed till the
camera stops working).
Batteries do weare out after several years, sometimes that's time to
upgrade to a new camera as wel.
Although some wear and tear does happen when taking a picture,
this probably is less than the wear and tear of carrying the camera
around.
Also connections do not last forever, the usb-connection of the
camera, the card connection of the camera.
Buttons and dials can become disfunctional.
The displayscreen can become broke or difficult to see.
(Scratching).
> Just curious and would like to hear feedback from other users.
> Thanks
>
ben
Mike Russell
news:1179074413.6...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
...
> - How often are other people, who bought a digital camera at a
> supermarket or photo store uses his/her cameras?
I bought mine online, but I'd guess there are a mixture of people. Some
people, like my mom, have changed their habits only slightly in this new era
of free film. I'm guessing a typical number is a dozen or so per month for
these folks. Again guessing, for most computer savvy users, who can get
their images from the camera to disk unassisted, a few hundred per month.
> - How do camera manufacturers design their cameras to last? How many
> shots would the industry be considered to be acceptable, without
> loosing their quality?
In the 10's of thousands.
> - If as an amateur, I shot that many pictures, what about professional
> photographers? How many shots did they typically take monthly or
> yearly?
I'n not a professional. Personally I do about 500 to a 1000 per month,
slightly more when I'm travelling.
> - What part of a digital camera which likely to go haywire first?
> autofocusing system, metering system, built-in flash, mechanical
> components (buttons, springs, etc)?
Rechargeable batteries and hot pixels aside, any moving parts are more
likely to fail than electronic components. This includes lens parts,
followed by non-membrane buttons, for example rotating controls. On DSLR's
the shutter is the achilles heel, with 50,000 being a typical number. It's
not unusual for a pro to have the shutter replaced several times on a
workhorse camera.
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/
Adrian Boliston
news:1179074413.6...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> My questions are as follows:
> - How often are other people, who bought a digital camera at a
> supermarket or photo store uses his/her cameras?
I seem to average about 1000 shots per month, and use the camera mainly at
weekends so about 200 shots per trip i guess.
> - How do camera manufacturers design their cameras to last? How many
> shots would the industry be considered to be acceptable, without
> loosing their quality?
I have heard about 50k shots for a consumer camera and 150k shots for a pro
model.
> - If as an amateur, I shot that many pictures, what about professional
> photographers? How many shots did they typically take monthly or
> yearly?
A pro shooting action shots will likely use multiple shots at up to 8 shots
per second so this can stack up quickly!
> - What part of a digital camera which likely to go haywire first?
> autofocusing system, metering system, built-in flash, mechanical
> components (buttons, springs, etc)?
The shutter is what takes the strain!
cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk
Garry Knight
> My questions are as follows:
> - How often are other people, who bought a digital camera at a
> supermarket or photo store uses his/her cameras?
I think I half qualify to answer this: though I bought my Canon S3is from an
eBay stores trader (at a great price, £200), I blagged my previous camera,
a Casio EX-Z700 compact, for £150 from a shop in Tottenham Court Road when
Jessop's stock ran out. Then I went back with a friend, and blagged another
one for the same price for her. :-)
I got the Canon 14 days ago and I've taken 647 shots, which would add up to
nearly 17,000 per year if I kept it up at this rate. I expect I'll slow
down a bit when the novelty of the S3 wears off. (Other S3 owners will be
smirking at this...)
The Casio is up to 2,218 in about 3 months, so I was only using it at half
the rate of the Canon. It's a great little camera and it gives bright,
punchy shots, but it's not as versatile.
Maybe "enthusiastic amateur" would best describe my photography. While I
specifically go out on "shoots", I've still got lots to learn.
--
Garry Knight
garry...@gmx.net
http://www.flickr.com/photos/garryknight/
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/garryknight/
(No relation to the well-known photographer of the same name :-)
Ron Hunter
> My small 3 MP Panasonic/Lumix digital camera is now 4 years old. I was
> surprised to know that I have clicked over 50,000 photos with it. My
> newer Samsung digimax i5 is only 5 months old, and I already used it
> over 3000 shots. I am not a commercial or professional, and not even
> an enthusiast photographer. Despite of a lot opinions about the
> Samsung camera as being a mediocre quality, I appear to grow to like
> it with time. It is nice and ultra compact, and I carry it with me in
> my pocket all the time. It is slow, but photo quality is not too bad.
>
> My questions are as follows:
> - How often are other people, who bought a digital camera at a
> supermarket or photo store uses his/her cameras?
It varies, but I take 600-700 shots/year. MUCH more than I took with
film due to the cost factor.
> - How do camera manufacturers design their cameras to last? How many
> shots would the industry be considered to be acceptable, without
> loosing their quality?
A lot more than I will ever need to worry about.
> - If as an amateur, I shot that many pictures, what about professional
> photographers? How many shots did they typically take monthly or
> yearly?
It would depend on the professional's market segment. A busy wedding
photographer might take thousands of shots a month, while a news
photographer in a small town might take less than I do.
> - What part of a digital camera which likely to go haywire first?
> autofocusing system, metering system, built-in flash, mechanical
> components (buttons, springs, etc)?
>
The photographer. Grin.
Seriously, the mechanical aspects, such as battery door, followed by the
zoom mechanism, from reports in this newsgroup.
David Dyer-Bennet
> anir...@gmail.com wrote:
>> My small 3 MP Panasonic/Lumix digital camera is now 4 years old. I was
>> surprised to know that I have clicked over 50,000 photos with it. My
>> newer Samsung digimax i5 is only 5 months old, and I already used it
>> over 3000 shots. I am not a commercial or professional, and not even
>> an enthusiast photographer. Despite of a lot opinions about the
>> Samsung camera as being a mediocre quality, I appear to grow to like
>> it with time. It is nice and ultra compact, and I carry it with me in
>> my pocket all the time. It is slow, but photo quality is not too bad.
>>
>> My questions are as follows:
>> - How often are other people, who bought a digital camera at a
>> supermarket or photo store uses his/her cameras?
>
> It varies, but I take 600-700 shots/year. MUCH more than I took with
> film due to the cost factor.
I seem to be shooting about 3500 a year (since 2000 when I went
digital). It definitely varies; I tend to shoot big clumps, at events
or on trips or whatever. This is definitely more than I was shooting on
film in the years before that, and price is probably some of the reason
for me as well -- though especially my two DSLRs have pushed the expense
up; not as far as film for this many pictures would have been, though.
>> - How do camera manufacturers design their cameras to last? How many
>> shots would the industry be considered to be acceptable, without
>> loosing their quality?
>
> A lot more than I will ever need to worry about.
The shutter activations spec is the lifespan design limit on most DSLRs.
The pro models are up in the 100,000+ range. Consumer models are
often around 50,000. These are design numbers, not all cameras achieve
them, and they don't appear to be programmed to stop working when the
count reaches those numbers.
>> - If as an amateur, I shot that many pictures, what about professional
>> photographers? How many shots did they typically take monthly or
>> yearly?
>
> It would depend on the professional's market segment. A busy wedding
> photographer might take thousands of shots a month, while a news
> photographer in a small town might take less than I do.
A wedding photo team, at the top end, apparently shoots over 10,000
photos for one wedding (maybe 5 days of coverage). That's multiple
people and multiple camera bodies, and most weddings don't go for that
level of coverage (and aren't that big an event to begin with).
>> - What part of a digital camera which likely to go haywire first?
>> autofocusing system, metering system, built-in flash, mechanical
>> components (buttons, springs, etc)?
>>
>
> The photographer. Grin.
Score one for you :-). That piece of most cameras is crazy as a loon.
ASAAR
>> My questions are as follows:
>> - How often are other people, who bought a digital camera at a
>> supermarket or photo store uses his/her cameras?
>
> It varies, but I take 600-700 shots/year. MUCH more than I took with
> film due to the cost factor.
How many of those do you think would be outdoor shots vs. indoor
shots using flash?
Ron Hunter
by outdoor shots while on vacations. I plan to visit Palo Duro canyon
at the end of this month, and will probably take a few hundred shots
there, to balance the shots I will take this week at a family gathering
for a nephew's graduation.
You can check my webshots.com 'homepage' to see how that works out.
Search for rphunter42.
C Anon
6000 + so far this year. Getting paid to do it is a huge incentive.
Grey
"C Anon" <invalid> wrote in message
news:4649c0b6$0$36732$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
I have taken about 5,500 pictures in the two years I had my camera. It's an
old Minolta F200, takes amazing pics, but i'm starting to look to upgrade to
a Canon EOS 400D.
I like taking picutres, tweaking them in Photoshop and putting together
albums and slideshows.
Big plus with Digi cameras is take as many pics as my mem
card/battery/finger can stand and not cost a bean to develop (I tend not to
print my pictures) and my 2GB card means I can take over 1,000 (not sure
exact number) at a time and have yet to fill a card in one go.
Worst thing is batteries - the thing chews them up and spits them out. I can
never go anywhere without my charger being too far away - even though I have
four sets.
I also seem to need my tripod all the time, as it has a slow shutter speed
but as always, I keep forgetting it and have to improvise.
A minus with my camera is the inability to use filters and gradients. The
microscopic screen doesn't help matters either.
Graham
Mr. GoaT
wrote:
>
>"C Anon" <invalid> wrote in message
>news:4649c0b6$0$36732$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
>> anir...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> My small 3 MP Panasonic/Lumix digital camera is now 4 years old. I was
>>> surprised to know that I have clicked over 50,000 photos with it. My
>>> newer Samsung digimax i5 is only 5 months old, and I already used it
>>> over 3000 shots. I am not a commercial or professional, and not even
>>> an enthusiast photographer.
I would consider myself an enthusiast photographer.
>>> My questions are as follows:
>>> - How often are other people, who bought a digital camera at a
>>> supermarket or photo store uses his/her cameras?
I have two older digital Olympus cameras (C-700UZ and C-2020) which I
have taken over 100,000 pictures on each. I use them to take pictures
at the local park when taking my dog for his daily walk (Approx
100-150 daily) and also used them to take pictures at my son's adult
hockey league game (approx 1800-2500 pixs per games 1-2 per games per
week - of which only about 75 get put on web site for the whole
hockey team to look at). Both of them still work perfectly.
For Xmas 2005 I got a Nikon D70s which had to go back for a $250
shutter repair after 12 months and 110,00 pictures. Since the repair I
taken almost 25,000 more pictures (4 months).
99% of my pictures are taken with out a flash.
>>> - How do camera manufacturers design their cameras to last? How many
>>> shots would the industry be considered to be acceptable, without
>>> loosing their quality?
I have heard that the Nikon D200 has 100,000 picture life for its
shutter.
Pat
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 16:03:08 +0100, "Grey" <graha...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"C Anon" <invalid> wrote in message
> >news:4649c0b6$0$36732$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
You win. I just checked my hard drive. I only have 47,525 images on
it.
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
> My small 3 MP Panasonic/Lumix digital camera is now 4 years old. I was
> surprised to know that I have clicked over 50,000 photos with it. My
> newer Samsung digimax i5 is only 5 months old, and I already used it
> over 3000 shots.
Mr. GoaT wrote:
> I have two older digital Olympus cameras (C-700UZ and C-2020) which I
> have taken over 100,000 pictures on each. I use them to take pictures
> at the local park when taking my dog for his daily walk (Approx
> 100-150 daily) and also used them to take pictures at my son's adult
> hockey league game (approx 1800-2500 pixs per games 1-2 per games per
> week - of which only about 75 get put on web site for the whole
> hockey team to look at). Both of them still work perfectly.
>
> For Xmas 2005 I got a Nikon D70s which had to go back for a $250
> shutter repair after 12 months and 110,00 pictures. Since the repair I
> taken almost 25,000 more pictures (4 months).
Some of these frame counts are pretty astounding. So I looked up
what I have been doing (stimates from images on disk, and rolls of film
bought per year):
1994 350-700, 10-20 rolls of film + 100-200 sheets of 4x5 film
1995 350-700, 10-20 rolls of film + 100-200 sheets of 4x5 film
1996 350-700, 10-20 rolls of film + 100-200 sheets of 4x5 film
1997 ~1450, ~40 rolls of film + 100-200 sheets of 4x5 film
1998 350-700, 10-20 rolls of film + 100-200 sheets of 4x5 film
1999 1600 (film, digital transition) + 100-200 sheets of 4x5 film
2000 6000 (film, digital transition) + 100-200 sheets of 4x5 film
2001 16600 (mostly digital) + 100-200 sheets of 4x5, 8x10 film
2002 10000 digital + 100-200 sheets of 4x5, 8x10 film
2003 41000 digital + 100-200 sheets of 4x5, 8x10 film
2004 44000 digital + 100-200 sheets of 4x5 film
2005 18400 digital + ~50 sheets of 4x5 film
2006 9500 digital + few sheets of 4x5 (transition to digital mosaics)
2007 13000 digital (Jan-Apr)
But while the numbers, like 41,000 and 44,000 seem like a lot, there are reasons
for the spike: I was doing a science experiment where I was taking an exposure
every minute for days at a time. Second, I do astrophotos, and many
long exposures (1 to 5 minutes each) are added together to produce a single
final image. Plus one needs to do a similar number of dark frames,
so 80 to 200 frames may go into a single final image. Another explanation
for the high frame counts in 2006 is digital mosaics: I take from several
to ~80 images for a single final image mosaic.
In the early 1990s, when I was shooting 10 to 20 rolls of film per year,
I couldn't imagine shooting thousands in a day like you hear some pros do.
Then I got some nice telephotos (e.g. 500 f/4 L IS) and started doing
a lot of wildlife photography. Then I began to understand why one
burns through so many frames when capturing action.
So looking at my style, I don't think I produce any more or less landscape
images now than I did a dozen years ago with film, I just take more digital
frames to make those images. But digital sure saved a lot of money
on film when I started doing more wildlife photography. With
wildlife, I find I get about 6 to 8 percent very nice
images (up from 1% when I first started). In my recent Africa trip,
I had something like 90% percent in sharp focus and decent
composition, up from much less than 50% in the early days of digital
(D60 and 10D cameras were pretty slow to focus).
So, I have to ask, for those who are shooting tens of thousands of frames
per year, what do you do with all those images?
Roger
Photos, digital info at: http://www.clarkvision.com
ASAAR
> Everyone that's seen my photography wonders why I don't sell coffee-table books
> or enter them in galleries or contact Nat. Geo. or something like that. Society
> as a whole would have to prove to me that they deserve to see them. I know now
> that that's never going to happen. I used to sell my photography long long ago.
> But when I saw what kinds of undeserving useless cretins were able to enjoy my
> photography just by handing me their ill-gotten money I decided the best thing
> to do was take all of it off the market and never reveal anything new to the
> general public ever again. Instructions in my will to destroy them all, if I
> don't do it myself first.
Don't wait. It would be best to destroy them all right now.
They're already in the hands of an undeserving, useless cretin! If
you have any offspring, one wonders if you've taken similar steps to
keep them from the undeserving society you so abhor.
Ron Hunter
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 07:01:15 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
> rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net> wrote:
>> So, I have to ask, for those who are shooting tens of thousands of frames
>> per year, what do you do with all those images?
>>
>
> on some lengthy year-long wilderness treks. Where keeping, hauling, and storing
> that much film would have been impossible. (Can you imagine hauling enough film
> for 30,000 shots?) Now I just charge up my camera with some compact folding
> solar-panels, takes about 2 hours per camera. Or I can just plug one in while
> I'm hiking and use the other camera.
>
> In just the first few months the digital camera paid for itself when I add up
> how much that film would have cost to purchase & process. My cameras have paid
> for themselves many times over since then.
>
> What do I do with them? I archive them to both CD and DVD. Catalog them with a
> good thumbnailer cataloging utility. Since I have no desire for fame nor fortune
> I just go back through them now and then if I want to print one up for a gift or
> to use for a web page for myself to show temporarily to someone (pages which are
> also private).
>
> Everyone that's seen my photography wonders why I don't sell coffee-table books
> or enter them in galleries or contact Nat. Geo. or something like that. Society
> as a whole would have to prove to me that they deserve to see them. I know now
> that that's never going to happen. I used to sell my photography long long ago.
> But when I saw what kinds of undeserving useless cretins were able to enjoy my
> photography just by handing me their ill-gotten money I decided the best thing
> to do was take all of it off the market and never reveal anything new to the
> general public ever again. Instructions in my will to destroy them all, if I
> don't do it myself first.
>
pictures to. Sad. Hiding your light under a bushel will give you no
pleasure in the end.
Ron Hunter
> 100% correct in my values and reasoning. Humans never change their
> contemptibility, and they will never deserve something better in life, at least
> not from me!
You are attributing to others your own attitudes, and values. Perhaps a
long stay in front of a mirror would be beneficial. If you don't love
yourself, you can't love others, and vice-versa.
Charlie Self
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 15:56:41 -0400, ASAAR <cau...@22.com> wrote:
> 100% correct in my values and reasoning. Humans never change their
> contemptibility, and they will never deserve something better in life, at least
>
> - Show quoted text -
Holy Moses! You respond with un-asked for nasty comments about
humanity and are surprised when you get that in return, taking it as
an example of proving your statement?
Sheest. I sell my photos. Some who buy them are probably undeserving,
but for the most part, my customers, and other people I meet, do not
fall into your rationale about the human race.
Sure, there are plenty of people who give me a royal pain in the
sitzspot, but there are many more who are enjoyable to be around, to
talk to, who actually can teach even an old fart a bit about life and
living it.
You might try locating someone like that. They ARE out there.
Charlie Self
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 15:56:41 -0400, ASAAR <cau...@22.com> wrote:
Charlie Self
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 15:56:41 -0400, ASAAR <cau...@22.com> wrote:
Charlie Self
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 15:56:41 -0400, ASAAR <cau...@22.com> wrote:
Allen
> self-esteem issues. I like myself just fine. It's why I'm also perfectly content
> to stay three or more years in remote wilderness locations by myself, never
> seeing nor talking to another human face. I'm the best company I've ever met in
> life.
>
> Whoever wrote "no man is an island" suffered from severe dependency and
> insecurity issues.
>
> Bye!
Bye bye to you too, and don't let the doorknob...etc. You will be missed
here about as much as the bubonic plague. We never developed a vaccine
for that, but email systems provide one for defense against people like you.
Allen
Charlie Self
> 100% correct in my values and reasoning. Humans never change their
> contemptibility, and they will never deserve something better in life, at least
Ron Hunter
> self-esteem issues. I like myself just fine. It's why I'm also perfectly content
> to stay three or more years in remote wilderness locations by myself, never
> seeing nor talking to another human face. I'm the best company I've ever met in
> life.
>
> Whoever wrote "no man is an island" suffered from severe dependency and
> insecurity issues.
>
> Bye!
Somehow, I suspect that having you not around makes everyone much happier.
Bill Funk
wrote:
>>With an attitude like that, I suspect you have few people you show the
>>pictures to. Sad. Hiding your light under a bushel will give you no
>>pleasure in the end.
>
>You have that backwards. Society are the ones hiding under their bushel. I could
>care less what happens to them.
>
>I (and the very rare few that get to see one or two of them) enjoy my
>photography just fine. That's more than enough.
"Look! Everyone's out of step but my Johnnie!"
--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!
Hillary Clinton said Monday the U.S. government
should pay for pre-school for all four-year-old
kids in America. It's not fair. After making it
all the way across the Mojave Desert, shouldn't
they be allowed to relax and enjoy their childhood
for a year?