Frank Theriault wrote: Hi Frank,
Comments interspaced. > 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. Good point, I need these kind of views. I have a strong dislike of modern products which use so much plastic. However, if they perform their task, I may just have to get over this image problem I have of them. > > 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. My feeling with most electronic equipment, depending on price is either replacement or location of fault to a particular circuit board (unless totally integrated) and replace that. It is probably cheaper to replace in this manner to speed up faulty equipment repairs by reducing labour costs in terms of time and need of extra specialist knowledge. > > 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! That is a big minus point, even if they are rechargeable with the cost involved. However, I expect digital users will claim (quite fairly) that they are spending all their money on equipment and nil on consumables. Malcolm
