UKH

How long should a digital camera last?.

I've had my Sony RX100 mk1 for 6 years now and am thinking about getting a new one. But the one I have still works perfectly after taking thousands of photos and videos, and I'm reluctant (tight arse) to splash out on an upgrade. I just think a change would be nice, any thoughts anyone?

Alan

ps :- I hope i haven't jinxed my camera after posting this

I have a Canon EOS600D or 650D that I bought second-hand in late 2015, call it 5 years. It is a 2011 model. 
I am perfectly happy with it. Sure it shows a bit of noise at ISO1600 which is where I often set it, but really only when you pixel-peep. If you are happy with what you've got, why replace? You can SUPPLEMENT it but considering the camera you have, I don't know what you'd "supplement" it with (given that my Canon is a dSLR, I also have a cheap little Lumix just to have a compact, and I never got rid of my Sony NEX F3 low-end CSC)

I think you can easily get another 10 years if you treat your camera kindly and can find enough replacement batteries.

My eleven year old Nikon d5000 is still clicking away. The Nikon d60 which I bought from ebay is still clicking away. However the batteries of my 19 year old Coolpix 885 are like unicorn droppings so I can't comment on that one.

I am not sure whether the OP is asking about physical durability, it seems it is more about "how long should you run the same one before getting the next one"; I may be wrong though!

Re-sale value of RX100 is pretty good so if you did want something new you should be able to recoup some of the cost

What are you missing out from the current camera? Are you happy with it? Is it picture quality, lens or controls you want to improve? Later RX100 models have changed a fair bit, assuming you want to stay with rx100 series.
 

There’s always later and greater electronics and other goods. If you are happy with what you have, quit the forums and enjoy what you have! 

If you are not a tight-arse, like to keep up (reasonably) and enjoy new gadgets, then leapfrogg new models, i.e. every other one.

Assuming you can get batteries, then the answer pretty much depends on shutter count.  You'll have to have a google to see what others are getting out of theirs.

In terms of replacement with a newer version of the same model, most won't notice a difference in image quality with a newer model unless its 2 generations newer. Improvements tend to be elsewhere - better video, or UI tweaks, or software improvements like on-camera HDR.

I would have agreed with you had I not seen a marked improvement  with my own eyes.

I had a Panasonic GH4 and thought the image quality was as good as I was ever going to get without spending serious wedge. A couple of years ago I thought about the next upgrade until I spoke to a Panasonic rep in a camera shop.He advised that there wasn't much in the GH4 and it's replacement, so I held off.

Earlier this year my GH4 succumbed to my propensity to film in extreme conditions beyond what it was designed for and it died. Basically I got engulfed by a huge wave during the worst storm of this century, which nearly knocked me over and dislodged the lens from the body.

So I replaced my GH4 with the next version up. I wasn't expecting much of a visual improvement but I was truly blown away at the improvements even with using the same lenses.

Just think what 6 years of camera advancement can do with the latest version of your camera.

If it was me, I'd splash the cash for a new toy.

My Nikon Coolpix 8700 must be 15 - 16 years old. I got one when it first came out. It's still perfect and I'm very happy with it. I had to get new Duracell batteries for it though

Am more than happy with my RX100 picture quality and mostly user friendly. What I would like is an electronic view finder. I keep looking at the newer versions but wonder if it's worth forking out for that extra add on when my current unit is still working like new. 

It's not so much how long they will last, but more about how long before they become obscelete due to improvement in newer cameras.... I guess it depends how much it matters to you

Or pick up a good as new model n-1 second hand when model n comes out.

I have an RX100 Mark 1 for climbing and, without a viewfinder, get very little pleasure from actually taking photos with it. If it were my only camera I would definitely upgrade!

Another good approach.

Will depend on the OPs view on keeping up with the latest stuff and enjoying new gadgets.

... but considering last new camera six years ago, the n-1 approach could well suit the OP

If you are not going to print massive pictures and don't need amazingly fast focus or low light a camera should be good for a very long time, until the mechanics or electronics fail.  I dream of the old days when raw files were only 6MB, but the camera wasn't that good. Bigger is not always better.

The image quality of cameras has not changed that much, in terms of what I can distinguish with my eyes on a screen in recent years. The big exception being low light performance maybe. 

However, there have been great improvements in things like image stabilization and compactness. So much so, that with my lightweight micro 4/3 setup, I can now take exposures of several seconds without a tripod and I can travel with a single zoom lens with reasonable quality. 

So, I changed my old setup after a few years, and the quality remained more or less the same but my comfort level has increased dramatically. So, what I want to say with this, upgrades can be good for a number of reasons, even though they are, of course, not always needed.

Image stabilisation of cameras is getting quite impressive. In fact with my current camera having stabilisation on the sensor and in the lens, my gimbal has been gathering dust while it hides in its box.

The image stabilisation of my Google pixel 3a is also astonishing. What is even more impressive is the phone's algorithm producing night time shots and faux bokeh comparable, if not better than what I can achieve in Lightroom or Luminar with shots from my GH5.

It depends on what rocks your boat; your solution is valid for you, but may not be the fun solution for everyone.

I used to print big and still get a kick out of high res images on a 30" monitor and a big TV, I also prefer fast focus for some/most of the stuff I shoot (all hand held nowadays), I  like working in lower light and often need slightly higher ISO to get faster shutter speed, without crazy levels of noise.

So every new camera iteration has been a boom for me

(and what has 'need' got to do with it, its a hobby!)

I recently upgraded too, partly for work, but mainly because I wanted to. I wanted to say to the OP that they didn't have to upgrade. I have great pictures from a SA holiday taken with a D2H at the time, nowadays the image size wouldn't match the cheapest mobile phone but many are up on the wall and much loved. Probably what is most important is where you point the thing!

And watch the planet burn.

Yep we are all responsible for that, even you.

I have the same model and its broken twice due to a reasonably well known fault with the lens retraction electronics. If yours is still working and the picture quality is acceptable then stick with it? Wish mine hadn't broken again as its a quality bit of kit.

I replaced mine with a cheaper but inferior panasonic and stopped pixel peeping.

Are you writing this on a laptop or smartphone or other device? If yes, why are you helping the planet burn?

Sounds like you might have the early stages of GAS(Gear Acquisition Syndrome)!

More seriously, only you can tell. A new toy is always fun and digital photography advances quickly but if you are happy with the quality of the shots you are getting now then a new camera might not give you much in the way of greater enjoyment. If the main place you show your photos is online then you might not see much of a difference.

Dave

Based on your user name, perhaps just get a wide angle lens!

Thanks everyone for your interesting views and the odd amusing ones. I am still amazed at the technology with digital cameras these days, with the quality of photo and the way they take out all the faff of film. So I was mostly interested how others had faired with their digital Cameras over the years.

I have had two compacts prior to the RX100, dropped them both on rocky ground and in the process knackered them, so have always kept my RX100 on its lanyard at all times. I also own a CSC a Panasonic G5 which I rarely use these days, a GOPRO and a phone, so am not short of equipment really. But its always nice to have an upgrade once in a while.

..apart from the bit that keeps breaking of course :-D

Indeed, although the image quality is top notch.

Absolutely. We can try to minimise our impact though. One way of doing that is not replacing things that are perfectly good.

I am. I don't think that disqualifies me from pointing out that replacing things that are still good just because someone brought out a slightly shinier version is a destructive behaviour that we've built into our society. 

Planned obsolescence is accelerating the junking of the planet, and consumerism is not something to be celebrated IMO, no matter how much Boris urges us to get back on it.

But the OP is not throwing it in tbe bin though .

Assuming it will enter the very active 2nd market, part of the turnover sytem allowing others to replace their even older or broken cameras.