ideal camera for me

wrote in message
...
What would the life expectancy (working without problems) of a digital
camera be today.
From my own experience with previous cameras it appears that 30 months of
good usage is about the best duration.
That's why I am reluctant to spent over $500.00 for a camera. What do you
think?

"Celcius" wrote in message
...

"JC Dill" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:47:53 -0500, "Celcius"
wrote:

A DSLR doesn't use the LCD. Period.

It doesn't now, but that doesn't mean it never will.

Let's get over it and forge ahead!

It sounds like YOU need to "get over it". I'm just mentioning some
valid uses for the feature if it ever gets implemented. Sheesh

jc

--

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA


JC,
Sorry for being abrupt (I got over it) ;-)
What I find is the fact that most of the time, with a camera that uses an
LCD, reflection, light, the sun, whatever... get in the way. My second
camera was a Canon Pro1. It could use the LCD, it was also "twistable",
but I constantly used the viewfinder which was very clear and, according
to Canon, covered 100% of the scene. It also had "spot metering", ISO
down to 50, 2.0" TFT, 235,000 pixels LCD, 8MP, etc. :
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonpro1/page2.asp
perhaps the closest to the description the OP made.
That camera had a major flaw however: When it was new, after using it for
50 or so shots, the lens froze up on me. Henry's gave me a new one. Less
than a year later, when I was on a trip to Greece, it did it again. When
I came back, Canon repaired it on warranty, but I elected to trade it in
for a Canon 350D.
Take care, and sorry again.
Marcel




What think is probably what eveyone thinks: "It happens to others, not to
me" ;-)
Seriously, I don't think that very many people think about how long a
product lasts when they buy it but rather, what it does, what people say
about it, what its specs are... not the fact that it fizzles out.... just
about a few days after the warranty's gone ;-)
In the case of an SLR, even though the body fails, you still have good
lenses (that is if that's what you bought). While you use it, you have a
superior tool. Of course, such a body is probably close to double the $500
you mentioned...
Marcel

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:37:06 GMT, wrote:

What would the life expectancy (working without problems) of a digital
camera be today.
From my own experience with previous cameras it appears that 30 months of
good usage is about the best duration.
That's why I am reluctant to spent over $500.00 for a camera. What do you
think?

I don't know that you can rate camera life in months. It depends
on the camera and how it is used. It should be based more on the
ruggedness of the camera's design as well as how frequently it is
used. Some cheap P&S cameras have lenses that use fragile plastic
parts internally, and if the lens is accidentally bumped while
extended, even fairly gently, can then lose the ability to focus or
zoom. More expensive cameras aren't as fragile. Also, few will
wear out since most won't be used very frequently. The ones that
will get a lot of use are most likely DSLRs, and for them the
shutter is the weakest link. The cheaper ones may be good for tens
of thousands, say 50,000 shots. The better, expensive pro models
are usually good for 100,000 shots or more. When the shutter has to
be replaced, it can cost $300 or $400, but that's not too bad
considering how much use it provided, and that the camera may well
have cost more than ten times as much. A busy pro might wear out
the shutter in a year or two. For most amateurs the shutter might
last decades. Compare the cost of the shutter with how much was
spent for prints over that time period.

More expensive and larger cameras aren't as fragile.
Correct, and I may had the sensor is bigger.
To my dismays I learned that most camera are rated to operate in no more
than 90 degrees of relative humidity and 90 degrees heat. (Not to mention
the restriction for cold temperature.)
I can only conclude that the humidity may have play a major role in the
dysfunction of my camera.
I use to carry it in my shirt pocket all the time. I live in a coastal town
and the humidity is high. Now I am paying the price.
Now I am on the look out for a replacement camera.

"ASAAR" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:37:06 GMT, wrote:

What would the life expectancy (working without problems) of a digital
camera be today.
From my own experience with previous cameras it appears that 30 months of
good usage is about the best duration.
That's why I am reluctant to spent over $500.00 for a camera. What do you
think?

I don't know that you can rate camera life in months. It depends
on the camera and how it is used. It should be based more on the
ruggedness of the camera's design as well as how frequently it is
used. Some cheap P&S cameras have lenses that use fragile plastic
parts internally, and if the lens is accidentally bumped while
extended, even fairly gently, can then lose the ability to focus or
zoom. More expensive cameras aren't as fragile. Also, few will
wear out since most won't be used very frequently. The ones that
will get a lot of use are most likely DSLRs, and for them the
shutter is the weakest link. The cheaper ones may be good for tens
of thousands, say 50,000 shots. The better, expensive pro models
are usually good for 100,000 shots or more. When the shutter has to
be replaced, it can cost $300 or $400, but that's not too bad
considering how much use it provided, and that the camera may well
have cost more than ten times as much. A busy pro might wear out
the shutter in a year or two. For most amateurs the shutter might
last decades. Compare the cost of the shutter with how much was
spent for prints over that time period.

"minnesøtti" writes:

Here are the specs of an ideal camera for me:

-- APS-C sensor or bigger (thus providing a high dynamic rage a
sensitivity);
-- A very good resolution of the lens;
-- The capability to have a high-speed lens (a diaphragm of 1.4);
-- The capability to have a zoom at least 10x;
-- Snapping the pictures at a rate of at least 4-5 fps;
-- "Live" LCD screen which is flippable on a pivot.
-- Reasonably priced;
-- Reasonably small.

A Sony DSC-R1 or a dSLR fit the bill mostly. All of the said cameras
have such a big sensor (i.e., APS-C). Sony R1 has a high-resolution
lens. dSLR's with the premium lenses provide high resolution, too.
However, the problem with Sony R1 is that it has a zoom of only 5x. I
heard that one can attach a 1.7x teleconverter (US$400) to Sony R1, but
I am not sure about the quality and practicality of it. None of the
dSLR cameras, to my best knowledge, have a flippable "live" LCD screen.

There is no arguing with the laws of physics. I suspect if you had a f/1.4 10x
zoom lens in an APS or bigger sensor, you likely would not be able to hold the
lens, because it would be really huge.

--
Michael Meissner
email:
http://www.the-meissners.org

ASAAR writes:

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:47:53 -0500, Celcius wrote:

2) To shoot hand-held over my head (e.g. shooting over the heads of
people standing in front of me) or at my waist (shooting candids
without bringing the camera up in front of my face, which can make
subjects self-conscious). Yes, I can only view the shot after I take
it, but by shooting, seeing what I get on preview by looking at the
twisted LCD, adjusting my hold and shooting again I can get the shots.
Without a twistable LCD I have to move the camera to view the result
of the first shot which makes "adjusting my hold" almost impossible
for subsequent shots.

OK
But the twistable LCD is not part of a DSLR. Period.
I also started with a Canon G1.
I do it differently now with a XT.
A DSLR doesn't use the LCD. Period.
Let's get over it and forge ahead!

There are now several DSLRs that use the LCD. They include the
Panasonic Lumix L1 and Leica Digilux 3 (virtually the same camera),
Olympus's E400 (only intended to be sold in Europe) and the first to
use a 'live' LCD, Olympus's E-330, which is the only one of the lot
that has a moveable LCD display. We're now beyond it. Mush!

Actually I don't think the E400 has live view. The Pany/Leica and E330 do (and
they use the same sensor).

--
Michael Meissner
email:
http://www.the-meissners.org

On 30 Nov 2006 23:27:49 -0500, Michael Meissner wrote:

There are now several DSLRs that use the LCD. They include the
Panasonic Lumix L1 and Leica Digilux 3 (virtually the same camera),
Olympus's E400 (only intended to be sold in Europe) and the first to
use a 'live' LCD, Olympus's E-330, which is the only one of the lot
that has a moveable LCD display. We're now beyond it. Mush!

Actually I don't think the E400 has live view. The Pany/Leica and E330 do (and
they use the same sensor).

Hard to say. The E400 is being withheld from our prying fingers.
All of the above info. was taken from the "Perfect 10" article in
the January 2007 issue of PRO Digital Imaging. Wouldn't be the
first time a publication was as accurate as an internet rumor. When
I first read of the E400 I thought it might be my first DSLR. Now
that that can't happen, the D80 climbs back to first place on my
list. I see that it's widely available, but not its kit lens.