Wore out my D200 shutter, apparently

Steve wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:02:58 -0700, Paul Furman
wrote:

DaveS wrote:
"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
Rebecca Ore wrote:
In article ,
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
I'd love to see what a Leica or Nikon FM3 looks like after 89,000
exposures. I'd guess that rolling 2400 rolls of film up and back
would pretty much destroy the mechanism. To say nothing of one's
wallet: film + processing costs about US$10 a roll here, but even
at US$5.00, that's US$120,000.
Oops. The math's a tad off thereg.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
$12,000 plus the cost of film. $24,000 at $10 a roll.

Not to speak of the reality of how long Leica shutters have lasted
and the pro Nikons were good for 100,000+ exposures, if I'm
remembering correctly. Leaf shutters are even more robust if
maintained -- some people still shoot with pre-war Rolleiflexes.
Yes it's supposed to be 100K and with normal still photography: 90K is
still plenty. It's the time lapse movies that did this, plus
considerable abuse, bouncing around in the pack, hiking, sliding off
the bench in a sailboat to the floor, death valley dust storms, etc.
You should just sit on the dock and take pretty pictures... :O)
I'll be doing that with my cell phone for a while till it gets repaired.
:-)

Why not just get another one?

Because I'm tempted to get a D3 :-(

I recently sent my D200 in to Nikon for
some repair. While I didn't have it, I was looking around for another
and found one that a wedding photographer was getting rid of because
they were upgrading to the D300. It's in great shape but has 50k
actuations. Because of that, I got it for only $400. Now that I got
mine back and don't need 2, I'm thinking of selling one on ebay. I
just can't decide which.

Steve

"Paul Furman" wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
I'm sending with it to Nikon for repair

Since it's out of warranty, there should be no problem with the Katz Eye
focusing screen, right?

If possible, I'd swap it out for the trip. There is the chance that they'd
take the "this is a modified camera and we can't even try to fix it"
attitude.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:19:52 -0400, "Rita Berkowitz"
wrote:

Steve wrote:

Why not just get another one? I recently sent my D200 in to Nikon for
some repair. While I didn't have it, I was looking around for another
and found one that a wedding photographer was getting rid of because
they were upgrading to the D300. It's in great shape but has 50k
actuations. Because of that, I got it for only $400. Now that I got
mine back and don't need 2, I'm thinking of selling one on ebay. I
just can't decide which.

Yep, $400 is a good deal for the buyer. This is what happens when a
photographer gets emotionally attached to the body and don't sell them at
18-month intervals. Even though he probably made loads of money with the
tool he foolishly watched its value dwindle into the void of nothingness.
I'll bet you he won't be making that mistake again.

Actually, I think she only had it for less than 18 months. Knowing
what she charges for weddings and how many it did, she probably used
that camera to gross over $250,000. And the purchase was a tax
deduction so the sale price would have to (legally) be claimed as
income. It's not worth the time to dicker around for another couple
of hundred for a professional like that. And believe me, she had no
emotional attachment to the camera. She was glad to see it go since
she liked the D300 better in most, but not all, respects.

So all in all, it was a good deal for the buyer and the seller.

Steve

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:43:10 -0400, "Rita Berkowitz"
wrote:

Oddly, I thought a wedding photographer would be better suited with the D3
and that would be their first choice and a D300 for backup. Anyway, I'm
glad you struck a good deal.

I would think so also. But I play in a wedding band and do a *lot* of
weddings and I always take a look at what the photographers are using.
I've seen only one D3 so far. Quite a few D300's though. The wedding
photographer I bought my Nikon 12-24mm zoom from was switching to a
D3, which is why he couldn't use that lens anymore (since it's a DX
lens) and was selling it. Well, I guess he could use it in the D3's
DX mode, but why bother?

Steve

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:25:52 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:
:
: "Paul Furman" wrote:
: Paul Furman wrote:
: I'm sending with it to Nikon for repair
:
: Since it's out of warranty, there should be no problem with the Katz Eye
: focusing screen, right?
:
: If possible, I'd swap it out for the trip. There is the chance that they'd
: take the "this is a modified camera and we can't even try to fix it"
: attitude.

Why not just send the original screen along? Since they're going to be taking
the camera apart anyway, swapping out the screen shouldn't be a big cost
driver. And maybe you'll get lucky and they'll take the position that the Katz
Eye couldn't plausibly be the source of the problem.

Bob

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 10:49:29 -0400, Rebecca Ore wrote:
: In article ,
: "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
:
: "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
: I'd love to see what a Leica or Nikon FM3 looks like after 89,000
: exposures. I'd guess that rolling 2400 rolls of film up and back would
: pretty much destroy the mechanism. To say nothing of one's wallet:
: film + processing costs about US$10 a roll here, but even at US$5.00,
: that's US$120,000.
:
: Oops. The math's a tad off thereg.
:
: David J. Littleboy
: Tokyo, Japan
:
: $12,000 plus the cost of film.

As I read what David said, the film cost is included in the $10. (That's
largely of academic interest, of course. It will be a cold day in Hell before
most of us use film again.) ;^)

Bob

"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

I'd love to see what a Leica or Nikon FM3 looks like after 89,000 exposures.
I'd guess that rolling 2400 rolls of film up and back would pretty much
destroy the mechanism.


As so often when it comes to film/digital, you guessed wrong.

Leica M, R and Nikon FM3 transport mechanisms are good for more than
100,000 exposures. The shutters are probably the weakest point in the
system, so that means film and digital SLRs should last about the same
number of exposures before shutter failure occurs.

"Robert Coe" wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 10:49:29 -0400, Rebecca Ore
wrote:
: In article ,
: "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
:
: "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
: I'd love to see what a Leica or Nikon FM3 looks like after 89,000
: exposures. I'd guess that rolling 2400 rolls of film up and back
would
: pretty much destroy the mechanism. To say nothing of one's wallet:
: film + processing costs about US$10 a roll here, but even at
US$5.00,
: that's US$120,000.
:
: Oops. The math's a tad off thereg.
:
: David J. Littleboy
: Tokyo, Japan
:
: $12,000 plus the cost of film.

As I read what David said, the film cost is included in the $10.

Yes. Over here a roll of quality film (Velvia, Provia) costs around US$5.00
and processing costs US$5.00. I understand that quality film is about that
in most markets.

(That's
largely of academic interest, of course. It will be a cold day in Hell
before
most of us use film again.) ;^)

Actually, I'm thinking of moving back to film. A 6x7 frame captures somewhat
more detail than a 5D frame, and I find that the number of keepers I get in
an afternoon's walk is essentially inversely proportional to the number of
frames I take. So 20 or 30 carefully composed Mamiya 7 Provia 100F slides
are worth a lot more at the end of the year than a 4GB card full of (usually
overly hasty) 5D shots.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:


Actually, I'm thinking of moving back to film. A 6x7 frame captures somewhat
more detail than a 5D frame, and I find that the number of keepers I get in
an afternoon's walk is essentially inversely proportional to the number of
frames I take. So 20 or 30 carefully composed Mamiya 7 Provia 100F slides
are worth a lot more at the end of the year than a 4GB card full of (usually
overly hasty) 5D shots.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



Curiously when I shoot 645, the results are more profitable than when I
shoot digital. Maybe it's the nature of portraits, maybe it's the
machine gun attitude I've developed towards digital but you are right
about the card full of mostly hasty shots. Somewhere in there is a
lesson for serious shooters.

--

from Douglas,
If my PGP key is missing, the
post is a forgery. Ignore it.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFH8iFVhuxzk5D6V14RAj88AKCH96a80iUhMdMkBftfvL rXiSZongCgpKf5
VcjG/CAPsR3qSLYk+5Tc6xo=
=huzi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 21:49:41 +1000, Alienjones
wrote:
: David J. Littleboy wrote:
:
:
: Actually, I'm thinking of moving back to film. A 6x7 frame captures somewhat
: more detail than a 5D frame, and I find that the number of keepers I get in
: an afternoon's walk is essentially inversely proportional to the number of
: frames I take. So 20 or 30 carefully composed Mamiya 7 Provia 100F slides
: are worth a lot more at the end of the year than a 4GB card full of (usually
: overly hasty) 5D shots.
:
: David J. Littleboy
: Tokyo, Japan
:
:
:
: Curiously when I shoot 645, the results are more profitable than when I
: shoot digital. Maybe it's the nature of portraits, maybe it's the
: machine gun attitude I've developed towards digital but you are right
: about the card full of mostly hasty shots. Somewhere in there is a
: lesson for serious shooters.

The lesson for serious shooters is to throw away the crap as soon as you've
identified it as such. The statistic about what percentage of your shots are
keepers is irrelevant: if you got one good image, it makes no difference (in
the digital world) whether it took you one shot or fifty shots to get it.
(Unless, like Paul Furman, you're starting to wear out your shutter!) I find
that even when I have time to be careful, if I take several shots of the same
scene, they're likely to vary widely in quality (defined as how much I like
the picture). If I took fewer shots, I might miss the best one.

At an event one evening a friend asked me to take a picture of her with four
other women. She chuckled at me for taking five or six shots; but when I
showed them to her the next day, she had to admit that in only one of the
pictures did all the subjects have acceptable expressions. It would have been
a shame if I'd missed it.

Bob