Digital SLR life span?

[yogijenn]

I tried to start this thread earlier today but it didn't seem to have posted. Sorry in advance if it ends up being a repeat.

Does anyone know what (if there is one) the expected life expectancy of a digital SLR is?

I have had my rebel XT for a little over 4 years and have taken just over 10,000 shots. While doing some comparison shots with cameras that family members got for Christmas this year that would fall in the same range as my XT, I feel like the shots taken with my camera don't have the crisp quality and often my WB ran a little off...even with my higher level lenses.

I realize A LOT of advances in digital photography gear have happened in the past 4 years and I'm wondering, are the new models really that much better or is mine starting to show it's age?

Thanks much for your thoughts.

[janamelinda]

Funny because I've been feeling the same way about my Canon Xsi! I've had it a little over 3 years. I feel like I've outgrown it really. But I do feel like the images on it, compared to ones I took on my brothers T2i are not as good. I'm curious to see what other say....

[RichardTaylor]

My XT (350D) was purchased in 2006 and I am still using it after 50,000+ pics.

My 40D was purchased in 2007 and has approx 120,000 pics put through it.. I am still using it.

My 5D has only had about 10,000 pics through it (It is rare that I use it for sport photography)

While they are still do the job I purchased them for I see no reason to replace them, even then I may consider getting them repaired (especially the 40D) if it is cost effective..
I have put the money saved into better lenses.

[LoveDSLR]

I still have my Canon's first consumer DSLR D30 (2001) and it is still good technically. I think the shutter and CMOS life expectancy should be the major concerns regarding the life span of a DSLR.

[dlambert]

I think you're talking about obsolescence vs. mechanical lifespan, right? So, even though the camera is still functioning, it's showing its age compared to new products?

Try to be sure you're comparing apples to apples, for starters. If you're looking at an older Rebel, for instance, vs. a T2i or something, you have to understand that in addition to these newer cameras having newer technology in the sensors and processors, Canon has also moved the Rebel line upscale quite a bit (and backfilled to some extent with the XS). I'd bet that if you compared your XT to a Rebel XS, it wouldn't seem quite as out of date.

Having said that, I don't think there are too many photographers who don't get itchy around newer equipment. I think that just comes with the territory!

[autofocus]

At the risk of being somewhat redundant in this reply; what you are experiencing is the product evolution in digital processing. Digital image processing is a relatively young science. As advances are made in the technology used by the camera manufacturers the consumer benefits and reaps the rewards. It's an ongoing treadmill that keeps us, the consumer, lusting for the latest and the greatest. It's also the reason why camera manufacturers can keep selling their products...if the product and technology stayed dormant we'd all be fine with our first purchased, and now 10 year old point and shoot. I guess it all depends on how much you value the benefits of these advances, and how much you'd be willing to pay for them.
One little problem I do have, however, is that jamming more photo diodes (megapixels) into an already architecturally small crop sensor is not always the best thing. But, it's that old treadmill thing again...if it's more, therefore, it must be better logic. Sometimes it is, but not always.