Hi, Malcolm. I dunno if that was split down the middle, since Brad's friend's Kodak suffered a mechanical problem (cracked body), which had nothing to do with it's "digitalness". Actually, I'd say that the fact that the camera was dropped with enough force to crack the body, but still functioned, is testament to the fact that the electronics are pretty hardy.
I would think that digitals, with many fewer moving parts, should be pretty durable, but that if trouble does occur, it will be expensive to repair. I'm guessing that entire modules will have to be replaced, which doesn't sound cheap to me. One thing I do know about digitals is that they eat batteries. At least the N**** D1 does. An acquaintance of mine somehow borrowed one from N**** to do Papparazzi (sp?) shots at the recent Toronto Film Festival. He was telling me that he ~always~ had to have an extra set of batteries with him, because they often wouldn't last a day's shooting. Mind you, they are rechargable, but even so, they're expensive - like around $400 Cdn! Malcolm Smith wrote: > Hi Brad and Rob, > > Wow! That is the vote split right down the middle! > > I have never owned a digital camera, so I am not qualified to make a > comment, but I do know for a fact that my 67 will take just about anything - > a friend asked me if they made them from old pylons :-) > > As for repairs to DSLRs, good point. I wish I knew. So many things now fall > into the cheaper to replace than repair bracket. So much for recycling. > > Malcolm -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
