Printable View
Funny thing is I've never heard of a nikon shutter being "lifed". My f100 has a titanium shutter that supports up to 1/8000th of a sec, and as far as I am aware they are good for the life of the camera (Don't forget it's film so it's life is 20+ years) lol. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif[/img]
Nikon's entry level D-SLRs (D50, D70) have a shorter lifespan than Canons. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif[/img]Quote:
Originally posted by Captain_Rightfoot
Funny thing is I've never heard of a nikon shutter being "lifed". My f100 has a titanium shutter that supports up to 1/8000th of a sec, and as far as I am aware they are good for the life of the camera (Don't forget it's film so it's life is 20+ years) lol. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif[/img]
20D is good for about 60,000 actuations I think, the 1D etc (pro bodies) are guaranteed for 100,000+, I think.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Nikon's entry level D-SLRs (D50, D70) have a shorter lifespan than Canons[/b][/quote]
Grrrrr...... :evil:
Don't go starting a Nikon (Land Rover) vs Canon (Toyota) war :wink:
No, for godsakes don't.
Grrrrr...... :evil:Quote:
Originally posted by Noddy
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Nikon's entry level D-SLRs (D50, D70) have a shorter lifespan than Canons
Don't go starting a Nikon (Land Rover) vs Canon (Toyota) war :wink:[/b][/quote]
hehe i agree [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img]
Grrrrr...... :evil:Quote:
Originally posted by Noddy
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Nikon's entry level D-SLRs (D50, D70) have a shorter lifespan than Canons
Don't go starting a Nikon (Land Rover) vs Canon (Toyota) war :wink:[/b][/quote]
Sorry, but you got it the wrong way around ! Canon (landy) Nikon (Toymota) https://www.aulro.com/afvb/
I just don't understand these discussions... to get the equivalent of what I have now for film.. it's $2100 for a body + another say $1000 for lenses... let's just round it down to $3000... well at $20 for film and processing, that's 150 rolls I can use in my film camera. Say I do 15 rolls a year... which is probably about right... then in 10 years my digital camera has paid for itself.
Now this is presuming I don't get any prints from my digital shots. And, it doesn't account for the inferior quality. Good quality print film is about 15 megapixel, and slide is around 30. Then there is the issue of built in obsolesence... the anticipated life of a digital camera seems to be 3/5 years at best. When I go on holidays I don't have to worry about storing or losing my photos, I just grab the film out of the engel and put it back when it's used. And, people don't steal film cameras https://www.aulro.com/afvb/
So, unless you're taking a lot of photos, I just can't see that digital is cheap? Can someone explain it too me ? :?: :?: :?: 8O 8O
I'm going to stick with my film camera until this equation adds up https://www.aulro.com/afvb/
because it's easy to make a mistake and fix it "straight away" - instead of finding out when you get your film developed 2000km's later 8OQuote:
Originally posted by Captain_Rightfoot
So, unless you're taking a lot of photos, I just can't see that digital is cheap? Can someone explain it too me ? :?: :?: :?: 8O 8O
because it's easy to make a mistake and fix it "straight away" - instead of finding out when you get your film developed 2000km's later 8O[/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by Grizzly_Adams+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Grizzly_Adams)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Captain_Rightfoot
So, unless you're taking a lot of photos, I just can't see that digital is cheap? Can someone explain it too me ? :?: :?: :?: 8O 8O
It's interesting you say that. We went to the Simpson last year. As to be expected, we're the only one with a film camera there. Anyway, everyone else went snapping away, thinking they had them in the bag. https://www.aulro.com/afvb/
However it wasn't until they got home that the realised that vivid red, and bright blue wasn't in the Japanese programming model for their white balances. So, there were some whacky colours. :roll: :roll:
Guess who was the only one with colours that look like it actually was https://www.aulro.com/afvb/
Ah but that's what Adobe Photoshop is for :-)
You're right though, that would have been more than a little disappointing for those people :?
Nothings perfect. Pro's and con's either way.