Most newspapers now use digital cameras (often N*k*n). They get regular
service from the same people who used to service their film cameras. Usually
the service that's required is mechanical in nature (e.g., mirror alignment).
Of course, a few years down the road we may see more failures of the
On Sunday, September 29, 2002, at 04:02 AM, Cotty wrote:
> This entirely depends on where you live. Here in the UK, we have laws
> that say that if trouble arises after the purchase of an item, then the
> buyer (and warranty holder) has an issue with the seller, not the
> manufacturer.
>
> In p
John Mustarde wrote:
Hi John,
> PDML threads often find reasons why digital may fail to please, or
> speculate on why it must be an inadequate medium, or find a dozen
> other faults with it - but the simple fact is there are many thousands
> of satisfied digital camera users.
I have found the t
This time I'm with Bruce.
A digicam has few moving parts, those it has are mostly a legacy of sharing
its platform with a film camera, if it does have a film counterpart at all.
The electronics can be as robust as the manufacturer chooses. The board can
be heavier to withstand shock, or pliable
Cotty wrote:
>
> >*Sigh* I think some still miss the point. Electronic consumer goods (which
> >I originally brought up anyhow) are very suseptable to a variety of things.
> >Moisture damage, breaking when dropped, and malfunctioning. One can then
> >assume that a consumer digital camera or D
>*Sigh* I think some still miss the point. Electronic consumer goods (which
>I originally brought up anyhow) are very suseptable to a variety of things.
>Moisture damage, breaking when dropped, and malfunctioning. One can then
>assume that a consumer digital camera or DSLR would also be that way
I agree!
- Original Message -
From: "Malcolm Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 2:56 AM
Subject: RE: Digital robustness
> Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
>
> > That was the whole point. Someone here said t
Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
> That was the whole point. Someone here said that electronics are
> not robust
> based on experience with consumer goods. THAT has nothing to do with the
> inherent robustness of electronic equipment. If consumer equipment breaks
> when you drop it, it's because there is
- Original Message -
From: "Malcolm Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 2:26 AM
Subject: RE: Digital robustness
> I'm glad you repeated this. I don't think anyone can give a definitive
> answer t
Brad Dobo wrote:
The other point was that many of
> these consumer goods are cheaper to replace than fix, and what
> would happen
> to a DSLR after warranty is up. I posed the question, didn't give an
> answer.
I'm glad you repeated this. I don't think anyone can give a definitive
answer to th
dn't quote my whole email, a typical tactic in academic
arguments.
- Original Message -
From: "Stan Halpin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: Digital robustness
>
>
> > From: "Brad
On Saturday, September 28, 2002, at 11:18 PM, Stan Halpin wrote:
> Can we go back to foul language? Or political discussions?
>
> Stan
>
@#%@ you—and I bet you vote funny, too.
Someone had to say it.
Dan Scott
> From: "Brad Dobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 21:02:42 -0400
> Subject: Re: Digital robustness
>
> ... Electronic consumer goods ... are very suseptable to a variety of things.
> Moisture damage, breaking when dropped, and malfunction
*Sigh* I think some still miss the point. Electronic consumer goods (which
I originally brought up anyhow) are very suseptable to a variety of things.
Moisture damage, breaking when dropped, and malfunctioning. One can then
assume that a consumer digital camera or DSLR would also be that way,
be
Hi, Brad,
I'm afraid I'm missing your point.
regards,
frank
Brad Dobo wrote:
> Digital cameras are not military systems. One can draw conclusions, by
> experience or otherwise. Digital cameras are no better than consumer
> electronic products. To assume they are lacks all reason, logic, kno
Digital cameras are not military systems. One can draw conclusions, by
experience or otherwise. Digital cameras are no better than consumer
electronic products. To assume they are lacks all reason, logic, knowledge
and experience.
Brad Dobo
Hi, Bill,
Valid points, all. My acquaintance (I'm not calling him a friend,
because I don't much like him - and not because he uses N, either)
tends to use the LCD screen, and shoot as fast as the body allows him,
for one or two seconds at a time, then edit on the fly. Wouldn't take
long to
Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
> Drawing conclusions about the inherent physical robustness of electronic
> systems, based on consumer electronic products, lacks all reason, logic,
> knowledge and experience. Some military equipment has shock and vibration
> requirements that are high enough to withstan
Drawing conclusions about the inherent physical robustness of electronic
systems, based on consumer electronic products, lacks all reason, logic,
knowledge and experience. Some military equipment has shock and vibration
requirements that are high enough to withstand explosions (like a ship's
fire
- Original Message -
From: Brad Dobo
Subject: Re: Digital robustness.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "frank theriault"
> Subject: Re: Digital robustness.
>
>
> > One thing I do know about digitals is that they eat
batteries. At least
> th
- Original Message -
From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: Digital robustness.
> One thing I do know about digitals is that they eat batteries. At least
the
> N D1 do
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 wit
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
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,
24 matches
Mail list logo
