From what I have heard, it is not really the sensor itself, but the shutter mechanism that gets worn out. I mean, you have to imagine a mechanical system that moves fast enough to open and close in less than 1/5000 or 1/8000 of a second is going to wear out at SOME POINT in its life....
The fact that they are expected to last in excess of 50k actuations in entry level cameras to over 100k actuations in high end is faintly ridiculous.
Yes, the 100K "click" actuation is shutter lifetime, not sensors. Keep in mind that that 100K is a mean time between failures (that is, an average), not a guarantee. Actual failures are a curve centered on that number, so it could last to 200K or fail at 50K, or 20K or even the very first time you press the button. Shutter failures can be repaired, but it's likely not worth it on a Rebel.
Sensors do wear out, but they do it slowly, one pixel at a time. Just as you can get stuck pixels on an LCD display, you can get stuck pixels on a camera sensor, which will either always read dark or always read bright. These are easy to detect and fix with the right software. The sensor should easily outlast the shutter.
yup sutter life is rated for 50k clicks on the rebel line and 100k on the d60 on up as I recall.... depending on how you shoot will decide on all that... and the shutter curtian can be repaired... but the obvious question is it worth it? (would depend on the model)
on my pentax k10d I put 25k shots though it in a year.... but I was also in like 10 different countries in the span of 5 months... so it got a bit abused.
my canon 60d has only had about 3k shots put though it in the last year (and a few hrs of video)... the shutter curtian should last a good while at this rate...
my father-in-law gave me an old 35mm SLR that the shutter stuck so it wouldn't open... it would fall but not in time to let light in lol... (if you can get your hands on an older SLR pop it open (with film not in it) and watch how it works... set the shutter pretty slow (1 or 2 sec).... also pull the lens and watch it... its amazingly complex and even mroe so amazon when you think the camera will last 100k clicks on average before you have to have the shutter replaced....
My entry level camera is a Canon EOS Rebel-XS. I do the long range shooting with the standard EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 lens. Granted I can't reach the shots lots of the professionals can get to, I think I do alright with it. Here's what I got from the Roar before the 24 last weekend;
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v246/GARRA20/2012_RoarBeforethe_24/?start=all
For example;
So i found out i could trade my camera in and upgrade to a different one at Best Buy.
Saw these two, and i know its not exactly what i started this thread about i thought maybe these could be a good camera between what i have now and a SLR? Or should i just go straight to digi-slr?
I got to play with the Rebel EOS and some Nikon D-something.
Here are the cameras in question:
Thoughts? One of these or just do a SLR?
I Have an older rebel (hand me down from relatives wanting to own latest and greatest) and a waterproof powershot. I use the powershot more.
I've had my G12 for over a year and I've been nothing but happy with it. It has most of the features of an entry-level DSLR (including RAW), and is much more compact; where a DSLR will be superior is in terms of instant shutter response and sensor size. The G12 is a great travel camera and excels at things like street photography, but I've had nice landscape and macro results with mine as well.
I've never used the SX40, but it has a lot more zoom available, if that matters to you.
In reply to CarKid1989:
I'm an SLR guy and I'd suggest sticking with it. Why change now?
i'll pass this link along... http://www.kenrockwell.com/ some people hate him others love him... don't hold anything he says to be absolute as in many cases its completely said in satire... but he's got some good and fun info on his page
i've played with the G series canon and love them... most of the control of an SLR and a hot shoe for a good flashgun could mean that it's something you actually bring with you more then the SLR....
if I had one i'd prob have a camera with me more often... right now I bring my SLR to events... SLR's are great to shoot people... instant shutter response allows for awesome snipe shooting at events... with a fast lens you can snag amazing shots indoors and people don't even know you are shooting because you don't need or have to wait for the flash... it's also what you want if you are REALLY shooting cars.
but an SLR is easy to decide to not tote along as they are bulky, heavy (vs a point n shoot) and expensive...
to be honest I get a lot more candid shots with my cell phone these days then my DSLR... its always with me... but the quality does suck lol.
so it all depends on what you really want to shoot... I love my SLR and couldn't give up the control or speed for one that you mentioned... but other people prefer them to an SLR...
Some good info some stuff thats pretty frustrating, I am sure of it has been addressed, so if i retread forgive me.
Sensors do not fail typically, shutters do, that's the mechanical, the electric sensor will rarely be a failure point.
For a good statistical comparison of any DSLR's i like this site: http://snapsort.com/compare
Canon does not produce better colors, some canons produce better colors than some nikons, some nikons produce better colors than some canons. There is no one rule that applies to all nikons or all canons.
Canon lenses are not cheaper, some canon glass is cheaper compared to equivalent nikons (50mm f/1.8), and some nikon glass is cheaper than some cannon (35mm f/1.8). But 3rd party glass (sigma and Tamron for instance) is typically priced IDENTICALLY for either mount.
But thats only statistical. The feel of your camera and the layout is pretty important much like it might be on a car, so holding and shooting a lil bit with what you think your going to buy is paramount.
I would also ask, do you have a friend with a DSLR of a specific brand, the ability to learn from someone with the same system is huge, and borrowing glass is nice as well.
Mega Pixles do not matter, a 6.1MP DSLR can print up to 8x10 easily so unless you plan to PRINT bigger than that, ignore MP count, it really is the least important statistic unless your talking about DOUBLING the MP count.
Keep in mind that double the MP does not double the reoslution, to go from a 4x4 square of pixles has a total reoslution of only 16 pixles to double the size to a 8x8 square of pixles means you now have 64 pixles. You have to think in 2 dimnesions.
For AutoX you will rarely need really fast glass or a big ISO bump, your outside, unless it is raining, stupid early in the morning, or stupid late at night, you will have plenty of light.
Now my opinions: You can make great shots with either camera. I shoot nikon, i love it, i have shot canon, i still get good shots, much like a driver the photographer make the difference here....
I feel that in a given price range canon puts more effort into the MP count that other factors that matter like ISO performance, color depth, and EV range. As I stated there are exceptions to this rule going in canons favor but overall i think Nikon are more about the end product, canon plays the numbers game better. If you would like I can give specific examples of this but it is unnecessary because of the following FACT.
The cheapest new DSLR you can buy today was TOP OF THE LINE a decade ago, the nikon D3100 is a $600 camera and 10 years ago would have been worth $10,000 given it's relative performance, so buy what you like, and what your friends have and what FEELS GOOD in your hands.
Maybe im over simplifying this but what i thinking im hearing is that they are all good but in different ways and a lot of it comes down to personal feel and preference.
You guys have been great. Very helpful.
I will continue my research and see where it leads
CarKid1989 wrote: Maybe im over simplifying this but what i thinking im hearing is that they are all good but in different ways and a lot of it comes down to personal feel and preference.
For your first DSLR, yes.... my only caveat is stick with the big two just for future support, canon and nikon...
Emailed!
I am also in the market for my first DSLR and am looking for a used one, this thread interests me... 
CarKid1989 wrote: Maybe im over simplifying this but what i thinking im hearing is that they are all good but in different ways and a lot of it comes down to personal feel and preference.
Canon and Nikon are like Ford and Chevy. Buy what your friends have and you can share parts and knowledge.
Ill add this cause it is great: http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/digital-cameras/134544-entry-level-dslr-recommendation.html#post1093696 from that thread by user Inkista:
Standard "a dSLR is not a P&S upgrade" lecture 101. Moving from a P&S camera to a dSLR is not a straightforward upgrade so much as an entire shift in picture-taking paradigm, so there are a few questions you really really need to ask yourself about why you want to take the leap, because this can get really expensive very quickly. So, ask yourself: 1) Does my P&S actively keep me from getting the photos I want? Or is it me? Technique and composition can get you pretty far even with "just" a P&S camera. Most of us who shoot with dSLRs also keep a P&S or smaller camera around and handy because dSLR equipment can get to be big, heavy, and cumbersome. The analogy I constantly make around here is that a P&S camera is much like a swiss army knife while a dSLR is like a big red toolbox. But do you need to pound nails or saw 2x4s? Or do you just need to tighten a screw? 2) Can I afford to go with a dSLR? Unlike P&S cameras, purchasing a camera body or camera kit is only the first step in what can become a never-ending purchase stream. Most folks spend two to three times the amount they did on the body on additional portions of the system. You have to buy tools for your big red toolbox. Lenses, flashes, a tripod, remote, camera bag, filters, etc. It all adds up. Are you sure you can afford this if you're not actually getting any income from your photo taking? 3) Am I ok with a steep learning curve? P&S cameras do a lot of work for you, because most people don't like to take the trouble to learn how to do all the persnickety bits themselves, not only when shooting, but also when post-processing. P&S cameras do one-size-fits-all JPEG processing, increasing sharpness and saturation. dSLRs can, but by default don't, figuring that you might like to tailor your processing for the individual image, the way that folks used to monkey about in the dark room. Are you willing to learn how to take charge of your iso, aperture, and shutter speed? Can you put in the time to learn lighting and flash photography? Are you ok with learning how to do post-processing on RAW files? Moving from a P&S to a dSLR can be a pretty steep learning curve, and far from you pictures instantly improving when you switch to your big expensive new camera, chances are you may be disappointed at first to get photos that look a little greyer, duller, and possibly even fuzzier than what you got with a P&S. 4) Am I ok with losing features I'm used to having on a P&S? To go back to my overused analogy, you won't find many nail scissors or tweezers in a big red toolbox. You are actually going to lose a few features you're used to with P&S cameras. Most P&S camera users long for the blurred-background look they are told they can get with a dSLR and a fast lens. And this is true--it's very difficult to achieve that look with a P&S camera. But what everyone forgets to tell you is that the reason you can blur the background is that you can get it out of focus. You can get ANYTHING out of focus. You now have to focus your camera. Accurately. This is not a skill you know from P&S cameras, where an extremely deep depth of field has kept you safe from mistakes like this. If you're using a "bridge" P&S camera with a 20x zoom, you're also likely to lose the ability to zoom in a great deal (until you buy a telephoto zoom lens). You're also going to lose your macro capability (until you buy a macro lens), because the larger sensor of the camera with the larger lenses also means a larger minimum focus distance. You're also going to have to buy another lens to throw the background out of focus, because the kit lens doesn't have a particularly wide maximum aperture. And yes, now that you're on information overload about camera models, you'll need to learn about lenses, too. You ok with all this? Or is it a bit overwhelming? You may want to slow down and rethink this move a little bit. And you'll certainly want to consider keeping your P&S and still using it as you transition and acquire gear (especially if you're a macro shooter). If you're still eager to get a dSLR after all that, then welcome to the wonderful land of dSLR photography. 5). No. Really. It's about the glass/lenses. The lens is the other half of the camera. There are only two things that touch the light: the glass and the sensor. Everything else is gravy. As for which model to go for, you can compare the camera bodies, but typically around the same price point, bodies are going to be relatively comparable. And they're all good these days. There's a wealth of great cameras out there. Where the biggest difference is going to be is in the rest of the camera system. Lenses choices vary from maker to maker--especially among the exotic lenses. Flash systems vary. 3rd party support varies. The types of "specialty" lenses of each make varies. Once you buy a camera body, you're locked into a mount system. You (mostly) can't interchange lenses between brands. And here's the part nobody tells you: the body/camera? That's the MOST disposable part of the system. Now that these things are digital electronica, it's similar to computers or phones--you tend to upgrade and move on every three to five years. Your lenses are probably going to cost you more and last you longer than your camera bodies in the long run. If you're still undaunted, good for you. What do you like to shoot? And what's your budget? That can guide you to a better fit.
ReverendDexter wrote: The other thing is that digital sensors have a finite life, so if you pick up a used camera, you need to check the shot count. Most sensors are good to around 100k shots, after that they start to degrade.
Yes and no, it's not the sensor that goes out, it's the shutter.
You can send Canons in to have the shutter rebuilt if they go out, but as much as it costs you might as well just get another used body.
I have two DSLR's (Nikon D1 and Nikon D1X) that are 10 years old and I've replaced the shutter in one of them due to use. I used to shoot professionally but decided it was more fun as a hobby.
With that said, I have no problem coming up with great photos despite my gear being "outdated," and one of my cameras shoots at 2.5 megapixels.
Invest in good glass. If you want to see photos shot will old DSLRs as evidence that you don't have to buy the newest to get good results check out my site: http://daveestey.smugmug.com/
e_pie wrote: Yes and no, it's not the sensor that goes out, it's the shutter.
My buddy's 20D has dead receptors in his sensor that cropped up around 110k shots, and are slowly getting worse. The longer the exposure, the worse it shows in his pictures. He was the one that introduced me to DSLRs and told me about the shot count thing.
I see from reading other articles that it's typically the shutter that goes, but the sensor is still not an infinite use item.
Forgot to mention my older cameras have magnesium bodies and rubber weather shields, much more durable than the new stuff. And if anybody talks trash they're heavy enough to use as a bludgeon.
ReverendDexter wrote: My buddy's 20D has dead receptors in his sensor that cropped up around 110k shots, and are slowly getting worse. The longer the exposure, the worse it shows in his pictures. He was the one that introduced me to DSLRs and told me about the shot count thing. I see from reading other articles that it's typically the shutter that goes, but the sensor is still not an infinite use item.
As I mentioned earlier, it's fairly easy to map these out, so long as you don't have huge chunks of the sensor that don't work. You take a shot with the lens cap on -- any pixel that's lit up is a stuck pixel, and you load that into your camera software. Since you know what pixels are stuck, you can then run a filter on all of your real shots to override the color of the pixel in those locations with the average of the ones around then. I believe there are photoshop plugins to do this, but I've never needed to find them so I can't point to one specifically.
Even if you've got a hundred stuck pixels, so long as they're not all in one spot they'll be impossible to notice once fixed as above in a 15megapixel+ image.
That article someone quoted above scared me off a bit to be honest.
That made is sound quite difficult
DaveEstey wrote: Forgot to mention my older cameras have magnesium bodies and rubber weather shields, much more durable than the new stuff. And if anybody talks trash they're heavy enough to use as a bludgeon.
prosumer level on up still uses magnesium bodies and weather sheilding... for nikon it's the Dx00 level and up cameras and on canon it WAS the X0D on up (that changed with the 60d and it's now the 7d thats got the metal body)
there are some exceptions but if you buy a generation or 2 old prosumer body you will get the metal and weathersealing...
Don't rule out Sony, All these photos: www.hiddentreasuresphotography.com We're taken on a Sony a100, and an a55.
Joey
joey48442 wrote: Don't rule out Sony, All these photos: www.hiddentreasuresphotography.com We're taken on a Sony a100, and an a55. Joey
Well, other than Sony is the most evil of all evil corporations, and it's just generally a bad idea to give them money. Which is sad, because I really do like a number of their products.
You'll need to log in to post.
