Cameras forum

General discussion

What is the useful life of digital cameras?

by blackhawk26 / October 31, 2005 8:10 PM PST

Can anybody comment with experience on this subject? Our family had two Kodak LS443 camera both fail within months of each other early this year and late last year, both having taken only about

2000-2300 shots. They just recorded a blank (black) image. This was well covered previously in several posts in the Kodak forum on this site.
I'm not complaining about the particular camera, or Kodak. (Although I've switched manufacturers) My question is more fundamental. Does anyone really know the useful life of these cameras and the

technology behind them? Particularly the imaging sensors. Recently, there has been a rash of reports on this site about failures of all brands of cameras using a particular sensor, apparently made

by one manufacturer.

I was thinking of going with this canon camera now:
it is ranked 1th in its category after analyazing more then 5000 editorial reviews...


Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: What is the useful life of digital cameras?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: What is the useful life of digital cameras?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Seems on par with many film cameras.
by R. Proffitt Forum moderator / October 31, 2005 9:02 PM PST

I've had similar lifespans with film cameras. And I had one camera last for years with a busted LCD but it still took great shots so I didn't fix it.

If I think back to film cameras, that 2000 to 2300 shots would be nearly impossible to afford and certainly for most cameras had the camera in for some cleaning or repair.

Here's my parting thought. The per shot price was likely cheaper with the digital camera even if we replace the camera every 2000 shots?


Collapse -
Useful Life
by snapshot2 Forum moderator / October 31, 2005 11:18 PM PST

The Kodak LS443 has many problems.
They were corrected in later models.

The sensor problem was casued by a defect in the manufacturing process of certain Sony sensors.

I immagine Sony will be footing the bill for repairs on those cameras involved.

Sony is the main manufacturer of digital camera sensors for small cameras. They are the only manufacturer of 7 and 8 meg sensors used in non DSLR cameras.

Fujifilm and Panasonic make their own sensors.


One of the factors in life of digital cameras is usage.

It is quite common for people to take thousands of photos each year with a digital camera.
Because there is little cost in taking photos, as long as you don't print them out.
And most are never printed.

When people used the film cameras, yearly usage was several hundred photos each year.
The usage was less due to the high cost of film and processing.


You may discover that the Canon A85 is hard to find now.
It has been replaced by the Canon A520.


Collapse -
Play seriously...
by Willy / November 1, 2005 12:15 AM PST

I have no clear answer for you. However, I tend to disagree with older SLR and newer DSLR cameras have roughly the same life cycles. The best rule of thumb is, the better the quality, the better the longivity or usefulness. I have far more experience with older cameras and still use my old 35mm Ansco(40yr+) and with the great film available provides wonderful shots. The digital cameras I have used are "low end" types and give aways. They still work and provide me with a link to place snapshots onto the PC, etc.. However, I'm pretty sure once you get into the serious DSLRs out there in the $500+ or better range(top end), the money is well spent. Those are my rants on the topic, good luck -----Willy

Collapse -
It probably depends on how much the camera costs. They
by Kiddpeat / November 1, 2005 2:49 AM PST

won't be made like tanks if the camera costs less than a certain amount. Let's say that's about $1,000. My guess is the expected life of the camera is a guide to the quality of the components used. If technology will obsolete it in a few years, it will probably be made to last a year or two longer than that. The limited life reduces the camera's price so that it can compete with similar cameras. The consumer gets a pretty good deal in the cost per image produced over the life of the camera.

My Canon 20D has already taken over 20,000 images if that helps put it in context.

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?