Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Bill, Your comment worries me since I'm considering a D. The > implication of your statement seems to be that the D has been > around long enough to have some samples that are worn out. > Is that really what you meant, that the D, and, I suppose, > other cameras of its type, may have a short life span. How > long has the D been out - a couple of years? And, even if > it's too soon for these cameras to be worn out (maybe that > term needs clarification), how long can they be expected to > last under average circumstances? What about when used a lot > - say 100 exposures a day? Is that a lot with these puppies? > > I'd really like to get some idea of how long these things can > be expected to last..
How does usage (in number of images taken daily) of a digital camera compare to usage of a film camera? I suspect that simply by the ease of seeing the results and lack of film to process, even a hobby photographer would take many more images with a digital camera even after the 'novelty' of a new method of taking pictures has gone. Would this increase in numbers of images taken over say five years, be the equivalent use of a film camera over ten? Regardless of technological improvements over a five year period, could digitals have done twice the workload in this time? Malcolm
