Digital lifespan

[artington]

A few months ago I saved this article to read at a later date then forgot about it until today. It may have been linked elsewhere here - if so, apologies. There is food for thought herein


http://www.petapixel.com/2012/07/06/som ... -lifespan/

[Dusty]

Some good thoughts, some things I don't worry about too much.

Yes, digital means you have to upgrade a body to get better 'film', and digital bodies are, I believe less likely to survive as long.

As to digital formats - I'm not too worried. You can always keep older versions of software around. What? It doesn't work with the new OS? Good thing I have Virtual Box and a copy of an XP VM around still! Also, RAWs are just proprietary TIFFS, so they're easy enough to reverse engineer, and well documented.

As to lenses, I have some very old lenses with electrical and mechanical parts in them that are still fine. Eventually, even the old MF ones will wear out. Expendable, but durable.

Storage cards? I like CF, and have CF, SD and MS cards. They wear out, and I buy new ones, cheaper every time. When they stop making them, I may not be able to use the old cameras that needed them, IF the cameras still work. And IF no one has come up with an adapter. Batteries are more of a problem, as even LI batts. have shelf lives. Sony is one of those that have no AA adapter for their cameras, but don't count out Hong Kong if the need arises.

As to computers and HD space: Every few years I need to buy an new one just so all my new software will run at a decent speed. Code bloat effects us all. If using my computer for paid photography, that's paying some of the costs I would pay anyway. Not to mention that every one I buy is cheaper than the last one, faster and with more storage! Anyone else remember green screen, 640K mem, 40MB HDD DOS computes costing $3000 with a 286?

And software upgrades? Less than the cost of developing. My trip to the Holy Land in '99 cost me over $1k in film developing and printing costs. Today that would be $0, except for the few I really wanted prints of.

I wish I could get an A950 with the new 24MP sensor, or a A990 w/ 36 MP sensor (both with i-shoe). Then I would be set for some time.

As it is, since I will eventually be converting to Nikon to get the OVF, I'll have modern, up to date equipment that will last me several years, and won't worry.

Dusty

[bakubo]

Not including various digicams, these are the digital cameras I have owned since 2002 (camera: buy date buy price, sell date sell price):

Minolta D7i: 2002/5 $1000, 2004/4 $400
Canon 300D: 2003/10 $900, 2006/5 $400 (should have sold it earlier for more money, but KM 7D was a lemon so kept this one too)
KM 7D: 2005/2 $1500, 2006/9 $1500 (2 KM 7D bodies, 1st an unfixable lemon, KM replaced, 2nd also an unfixable lemon, Sony finally gave me full refund)
Canon 30D: 2006/9 $1180, 2008/7 $650
Sony A100: 2007/1 $640, not sold, maybe unsellable?
Sony A700: 2008/2 $1230, not sold, maybe unsellable?
Canon 60D: 2010/11 $930, 2012/7 $670
Panasonic G3: 2012/4
Olympus E-M5: 2012/5

Except for KM and Sony my experience is that digital cameras are very cheap compared to film cameras. I buy them, use them, and then sell them. All my photos are pretty much free. I recall that in 1993 on a trip I used 100 rolls of 36-exposure slide film and the film + processing + taxes was about $1500 ($2392 in 2012 dollars). Also, think about how big/heavy 100 rolls of film is compared to a couple of SD cards!

Keeping all these digital files safe requires some effort and somehow I have lost a couple of dozen photos that I have taken since 2000, but most I still have. After I die though they will probably all disappear. Or maybe much earlier if I don't keep up with transferring them to new media. Oh well.

[Greg Beetham]

I guess one could always print out the photos and put them in an actual album then it wouldn't matter so much if the digital version collapsed in a screaming heap.
Greg