 |
| |
| This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you. |
| Moderated by: chrisbet, | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Eric
|
I suppose the title should read ' Is shutter count the limiting factor?' but can't edit it. Anyway....a numptie question, or 3..... When a shutter activation life is quoted for a camera body, is it the actual diaphragm opening or mirror mechanism movement that's being measured as the limiting factor? Which leads on to the second question...are shutter activation numbers relevant for a mirrorless camera? Which leads onto my third question....what sort of wear and tear does videoing impart on a camera? The reason for this brain freeze moment is, I am just selling my wife's LUMIX and although I can quote the number of photos she has taken, I cannot specify, nor even know if it's relevant, how many hours videoing it has done. (Which for my wife, will be loads more than photos!) So as the title should have said, in specifying shutter activation as a key indicator of working life, are we missing other key activities that could limit the life expectancy of a modern camera? Ok that 4 questions  |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Eric wrote:I suppose the title should read ' Is shutter count the limiting factor?' but can't edit it. Interesting question Eric. a) My take is that it's the actual shutter mechanism life which is being quoted. The diaphragm in most cases because it's in the (interchangeable) lens will be disregarded. I suspect the mirror mechanism will be more robust because it's mass is greater, the actual shutter leaves are extremely fragile and highly stressed (in scale) so I suppose they are the weakest link. b) Depends if the mirrorless camera has a mechanical shutter? c) I have heard this one... With the advent of DSLR's some users who do a lot of video work, will clock up a lot of hours video, with a low shutter count. I am aware of some DSLR's which are permanently tethered recording high quality and have hardly taken a single photograph. From what I gathered the sensor suffers. A bit sketchy in my memory but I read of someone who had several D800's or similar all recording video and tethered, this was a university project, the D800's were much cheaper than similar quality dedicated video equipment, therefor a preferred choice. I would simply state "One careful lady owner, low shutter count." Don't think anybody would quarrel with that? |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert wrote:Eric wrote: Of course.....not diaphragm, silly me. Meant shutter. Yes, that's the sort of line I would use selling privately...and not be bothered about the other activities of the camera. It was more the 'industry' position that interested me. Will they introduce a video meter in the future? Or will sensor 'life' be so long it's of no consequence for used sales? I've put the camera into WEX for a PX price. They did a provisional px price which is quite close to the eBay sale minus fees price....so I may side step the 'one careful lady owner' line  |
|||||||||
jk
|
I think the shutter count is the open/close of the shutter. Obviously if you use LV then the mirror up/down sequence must play a factor as well as this 'stresses' the mirror mechanism more (I would guess). |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Well a bit academic for me this time round....just managed to get WEX to give me a PX deal for only £10 less than I would get from eBay (after fees) based on typical sale prices. So wasn't worth the hasssle and angst of auctioning. Money held on account for planned new year purchase. |
|||||||||
novicius
|
Eric wrote:Well a bit academic for me this time round....just managed to get WEX to give me a PX deal for only £10 less than I would get from eBay (after fees) based on typical sale prices. So wasn't worth the hasssle and angst of auctioning. What is the planned purchase . |
|||||||||
Eric
|
novicius wrote:Eric wrote: Not sure yet! D850 ? D500 ? |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Think you need to do the resolution versus a crop sensor test... Interestingly I understand the D850 has built in auto focus stacking, might be handy for small critters or deep flowers...? Eney, meaney, miney, mo! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert wrote:Think you need to do the resolution versus a crop sensor test... The D850 doesnt AUTO stack. It takes the shots but you still need external processing to get the final stacked image. Jan's LUMIX FZ2000, however, does it all automatically in the camera |
|||||||||
novicius
|
So then You would have to purchase Lenses / Flash etc. , since the Nikon Lot has been sold , is the Nikon 1 system under consideration ? |
|||||||||
jk
|
The Nikon1 system is due for replacement. It is end of line. There are new Nikon mirrorless in R&D but when they deliver is another matter. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Eric wrote:The D850 doesnt AUTO stack. It takes the shots but you still need external processing to get the final stacked image. By auto stacking I meant it takes a number of exposures various focus points and provides you with a stack, which to me IS auto stacking. I wouldn't want the camera to do the processing because I doubt very much it would create the image I wanted. Dedicated focus stacking software is very clever. Although I know a man who can, with Photoshop! LOL I haven't looked into it in detail, I was just aware of it and it might have been something you (and others) weren't aware of. How you control it I don't know but it could be a good way of getting very quick grab shots of say, butterflies or bees which are gone in a trice. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert wrote:Eric wrote: We haven't even tried this option on Jan's camera yet! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Have to say I am sceptical how focus stacking can work in the field. Leaves are rarely still let alone the insects. Unless the cameras do the same as WB bracketing....whereby they only take one image and the software does the +/- versions |
|||||||||
highlander
|
What's wrong with having some of the image out of focus, it adds perspective. I think sometimes photographers get hung up on technology and forget its about taking photos. I am just as guilty of this as anyone else, but I do try to remind myself that I have not had a single customer (in nearly 30 years) ask me what camera I use... The only time I did get a comment it was at a wedding from the notorious 'uncle' photographer with a D3 who was 'shocked' I only used a D700. Although I see the point of focus stacking, I've never done it. Give me a decent lens, f16 and focus on the hyper focal distance. Job done. |
|||||||||
highlander
|
Back to the original question, although no longer relevant, I always look for a camera with a moderate shutter count. I am suspicious of counts which are too low. I mean, if the body looks like its done 50k but the count is only 3k what is going on with it? And why would a camera which is say, five years old, only have 3k images on it. Even as a back up you'd shoot more than 3k in 5 years. I can shoot that in a couple of weeks without really trying. I would avoid very high counts though for the simple reason that there is a good chance that you are going to need to pay to replace it. Although I imagine most manufacturers life time figures are probabaly erring on the side of caution. A camera used for extensive video use is more likely to have sensor issues than shutter ones, although holding the shutter open cannot be good for it, I suppose. I don't like seeing video use on DSLRs because I'm old fashioned, and because it opens up a whole lot of questions on life spans. I think that the condition of the body and the accessories tells you as much about the life the camera has had than anything else though. |
|||||||||
jk
|
highlander wrote: Back to the original question, although no longer relevant, I always look for a camera with a moderate shutter count. I am suspicious of counts which are too low. I mean, if the body looks like its done 50k but the count is only 3k what is going on with it? And why would a camera which is say, five years old, only have 3k images on it. Even as a back up you'd shoot more than 3k in 5 years. I can shoot that in a couple of weeks without really trying. Depends on your methods and shooting style. Landscape photographers can have a very low shutter count on the body. I know from experience that my German friend shoots probably 1/4 the number of shots that I take. His pictures are very good. I personally tend to take less shots these days. My XT2 which is my main Fuji has a shutter count of approx. 7000 and it is one year old. The XT1 has only 8600 XPro1 a mere 4900 XE2 only 1600 XE1 only 3000 X100 has 10018 X100T only 5200 X30 only D300 has 14500 D300S has 11340 D3S only 7200 D500 only 2000 D600 only 6200 D700 only 8000 D800 only 3200 D850 just a month or so old, 260 My D3 that I sold to Robert two/three years ago (?) had only 48000 exposures in 7 years. I can bet he has probably added several tens of thousand already!! I always work with two cameras and sometimes three. BTW all these cameras are used as and when and chose for appropriateness for the job. So you can see that while I make a fair number of images, not as many as a working professional and also my picture taking has been somewhat curtailed this last year. My camera are what I call low use. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
highlander wrote:What's wrong with having some of the image out of focus, it adds perspective. That's the point of focus stacking, perspective in spades. If it's done well, with really good lenses it can be stunning, else your f16 method is fine. highlander wrote: Although I see the point of focus stacking, I've never done it. Give me a decent lens, f16 and focus on the hyper focal distance. Job done. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
jk wrote:My D3 that I sold to Robert two/three years ago (?) had only 48000 exposures in 7 years. I can bet he has probably added several tens of thousand already!! Mmmm... 20 months actually, first used about 8th April 2016. The recorded EXIF from my first image is 25,089, my last image, yesterday was 36,698, that's 11,609 exposures I have made in 20 months... About 580 per month. When I am on a trip (NO, NOT that sort of trip!  ) I generally make a couple of hundred exposures a day, something like motor racing that can get much higher, time lapse and star trails at least 60 to 180 per hour. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
highlander wrote:What's wrong with having some of the image out of focus, it adds perspective. I think sometimes photographers get hung up on technology and forget its about taking photos. I am just as guilty of this as anyone else, but I do try to remind myself that I have not had a single customer (in nearly 30 years) ask me what camera I use... Whilst depth of field can be restricted to create more drama, there are many instances that demand less arty and more precise close up recording. Stacking is a great help when shooting insects and flowers, where just having an antenna or stamen in focus isn't sufficient. It also finds use in product studio photography. I created a lot of 100+page catalogues when working, which included hundreds of close up shots of footwear, electronic components, telephones, toys, plants, plastic models, educational aids and safety equipment to name but a few. The key requirement for the client was to clearly show all parts of their product to help customers choose. I would have loved focus stacking to help get it perfectly focused back then. Yes I've done my share of shallow depth of field images but mainly in adverts for glossy mags where it's more eye catching than informative. I confess I hate food photographed this way. Never seen the point of one sprout and some gravy in focus while the rest of the plate is out? I was asked to photograph a range of Chinese meals and table settings for a local restaurant some years back. I exposed at f16 as I thought the punters might like to see what was on both sides of the plate. This was especially necessary when we set the solvent alight for the flamb© meals. "MORE FRAMES" "MORE FRAMES" was Mr Lowes perpetual request....as I nearly set the tablecloth on fire trying to get a good effect. Those were the days! |
|||||||||
novicius
|
Shuttercount...it also depends what background the photog. is coming from , variety of 6x9 / 6x6 format on 120 roll film incl. a technical camera where 1/30 sec. could mean half an hour of setting up / adjust etc. , evolving to 35mm film with 36 pics., nowadays shooting Digital , yet , I Still have trouble to pass over 50 pics. a day , if that many !!! So my camera`s all show a rather low count...even tho` they`re ancient by nowadays standards. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
novicius wrote:Shuttercount...it also depends what background the photog. is coming from , variety of 6x9 / 6x6 format on 120 roll film incl. a technical camera where 1/30 sec. could mean half an hour of setting up / adjust etc. , evolving to 35mm film with 36 pics., nowadays shooting Digital , yet , I Still have trouble to pass over 50 pics. a day , if that many !!! I have to agree with you. Working in the sphere that I did, there was a lot of setting up, whether in studio or on location. After all that prep work...there was no need to take lots of images. When on holiday, the wife would blast everything in sight...so I've always looked for different subjects to supplement her reportage style. The net effect has been my cameras have all had lower than one might expect for ex pro equipment. The only time I fired off lots of images was at sporting events...horse riding, motorsport etc. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Eric wrote: novicius wrote: Yes exactly. I only shoot a lot of images at a flamenco shoot where I have no opportunity to recapture the moment. |
|||||||||
highlander
|
Me think J.K. has way too many camera, he could put ffordes to shame |
|||||||||
Eric
|
highlander wrote:Me think J.K. has way too many camera, he could put ffordes to shame He could put them out of business if he started selling them all. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Eric wrote:highlander wrote: Ssshh!  |
|||||||||
jk
|
Well be careful what you wish for! I may be coming to Inverness next year. If I do then I will have to raid Ffordes. I am sure that if I come I will get wallet burn. I will also bring some of the old old gear to trade. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
My cameras are the other way in that doing press and sport for years my shutter count is high. I have a canon 1d with well over 500,000 shots. My D3 which was my back up has over 200,000 shots and still going. I have one friend that has a D4s with over 1,000,000 shots and still going, it has had 1 shutter replaced at just over 400,000 clicks and is still going on the replacement. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Iain wrote:My cameras are the other way in that doing press and sport for years my shutter count is high. I have a canon 1d with well over 500,000 shots. My D3 which was my back up has over 200,000 shots and still going. I am not sure I have ever SEEN 500,000 photos let alone pressed my finger that often. I think that proves that the durability of the shutter is more than good enough and may outlive the sensor. I now wonder if arthritic index finger joints may be the actual limiting factor. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Some sports/wildlife photographers like to use machine guns! |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Iain wrote:I have one friend that has a D4s with over 1,000,000 shots and still going, it has had 1 shutter replaced at just over 400,000 clicks and is still going on the replacement. Shoody workmanship, should have done it properly first time! |
|||||||||
highlander
|
Robert wrote:Iain wrote: |
|||||||||
Iain
|
Eric wrote:Iain wrote: You could be right. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
jk wrote:Some sports/wildlife photographers like to use machine guns! not so much machine gunning as just a lot of work at the time I was using it. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
Robert wrote:Iain wrote: Here, here. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
I sometimes think that a camera that lies around with only occasional use my be more prone to shutter failure due to lubrication drying up. |
|||||||||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |