Longevity

This post, and the responses posted, on RFF had me thinking over my first cup of coffee this morning. Many people assume that, because it is electronic, digital cameras have a very short lifespan. Especially compared to old, "classic" mechanical camera that have been around for 30 years or more, and still very usable today.

Now, I love old cameras too. In fact, if you scroll down, you will find at least a couple of blog entries extolling the virtues of the Canon P, the Nikon S2, and the Leica M3. Maybe I need to roast a new batch of coffee beans, but my thinking this morning left me a contrarian.

How sure are we that current DSLR's won't be working in 20-30 years? The CDS meter on my Spotmatic is working. The electronic shutter on my F3 is still accurate. And this was "old technology." How many of your computers actually conked out before you replaced them? Or was it replaced just to "upgrade?"

The guy from Circuit City called the other day asking me if I wanted to renew the extended warranty on my flat screen TV. "You must be joking. The damn thing won't die, and that's the only thing keeping me from convincing my wife to get a plasma screen!"

In large part, our Leica M3's and Contaxes are in good working condition because of people like Sherry and Henry. Don't we always factor in the cost of a CLA when buying one that has not been serviced? Nothing magical about their longevity.

The original poster on RFF said that 6MP was a sweet spot for digital cameras. Sure, newer models may have more MP and more bells and whistles. It's just a matter of what is good enough for your needs. There may be pros who actually need the extra features, or make humongous enlargements, but for most people, "upgrading" is just part consumerism, and the other part, the little boy who compares 0-60 times on Car & Driver magazine.