(Camera: Ricoh GXR A12 50mm)Yesterday, the GXG co-editor had a good question, "Are all the upgrade items for the A700 replacement (or whichever camera's replacement for that matter) necessary?" For sure, if there is one unnecessary thing, it is the sturdier built.
Let's put the illustration this way: if you can pay 5 pounds or 8 US dollars for a roll of film, will you embrace an upgrade version with a sturdier film case but for a dearer price? Such a cheeky proposition will be a non-starter because what's important about the roll of film is the content, not the case.
Likewise, let's further say that actually a digital camera is a metal case fitted with contents of imaging technology: Would you pay more for a sturdier metal case with the similar contents?
Fact is, whether in the film or digital era, this metal-case identity of a camera has not changed. What has been changed is the content from, in short, a roll of film to an imaging sensor. In the film era, SLRs were metal cases independent of the advancement in films. This reason, among others like camera-makers had fewer gimmicks to add to the camera body, facilitated a longer serving period for SLRs. So, a sturdier built and an endurable finishing were the convictions in especially making higher-end SLR cameras. This is not the case for their digital cousins.
Now, with the metal case and the contents integrated, and the rapid development in imaging technologies, a digital camera is retired sooner than later. We are probably retiring our main camera and buying a new one every five years or less. The gain in durability on the strength of a sturdy built therefore becomes less important. We are not saying that a sturdier built is not important for digital cameras. It is important to professional photographers or photo journalists. But for the general users, factoring in convenience of smallness/ lighness and the shorter serving life of cameras, a sturdier built with a heavier weight and a costlier price tag just sounds neither right nor good-value-for-money.
Fact is, whether in the film or digital era, this metal-case identity of a camera has not changed. What has been changed is the content from, in short, a roll of film to an imaging sensor. In the film era, SLRs were metal cases independent of the advancement in films. This reason, among others like camera-makers had fewer gimmicks to add to the camera body, facilitated a longer serving period for SLRs. So, a sturdier built and an endurable finishing were the convictions in especially making higher-end SLR cameras. This is not the case for their digital cousins.
Now, with the metal case and the contents integrated, and the rapid development in imaging technologies, a digital camera is retired sooner than later. We are probably retiring our main camera and buying a new one every five years or less. The gain in durability on the strength of a sturdy built therefore becomes less important. We are not saying that a sturdier built is not important for digital cameras. It is important to professional photographers or photo journalists. But for the general users, factoring in convenience of smallness/ lighness and the shorter serving life of cameras, a sturdier built with a heavier weight and a costlier price tag just sounds neither right nor good-value-for-money.
------
Some afterthoughts: the differentiation of the various levels of DSLRs lies in the pixel count, the reach of ISO, the speed of continuous shooting and the body built. While the first four confines are becoming blurred, the body built still matters. Almost all of the new entry level DSLRs/ SLTs' body uses polycarbonate to shed cost and weight. Polycarbonate is a less expensive and lighter material with a comparable durability as metal, or magnesium alloy. Fact is, more and more old-timer photographers are buying these powerful entry level machines to reap the benefit of lightweight.
Also an afterthought: Well, if we flip over the coin, there is always the other side on it. Sometimes, a sturdier built is not just important, but life-saving important:
Comments