Sensible answer
To simplify things it is easier to concentrate on a single format so as its the most popular here lets make it 35mm.
So to start with if the parameter is maximum longevity the camera should be totally mechanical with no battery reliance. In my opinion you are in the realms of Nikon F2, Canon F1, Pentax LX, and Leicaflex SL2 for the absolute peak in development of mechanical SLRs. Missed Olympus your fav, then I will add the OM1 but all after that all OM's were electronic.
Why did electronics invade ...... well it added features and reduced production costs. Nikon only stopped making the F2 when the cost of manufacture made it unaffordable for there target market. Leica with the SL2 were loosing money even at the prices they charged due to production costs.
So at this point electronics can be said to have arrived. Engineers were able to add desirable features but the achillies heel was there. In time all were liable to fail and their life span would be determined by useage and availability of spare parts.
Materials used in manufacture also changed. Aluminium mirrorbox and pressed brass top and bottom plates gave way to diecast alloys and plastics. Ahhh the dreaded words ...... Plastics and Polycarbonates. These materials allowed manufacturers to further reduce manufacturing costs, and provided the product was decently engineered would have no impact on its function.
So now that we have added electronics and lightweight mouldable materials all to cut manufacturing costs, the winner is the photographer on any budget. I'll example that by my experience. In 1967 I bought a new Nikkormat FTN ( nothing fancy here ), and it cost 16 weeks wages. I was in the RAF as an airman then so at todays conversion that might equate to around £14,000 pa. after tax. Therefore 16 weeks wages = £4300. Just think of the fancy bit of kit you could get for that money today and if we flip the coin would you be prepared to pay £4300 for a mechanical manual only SLR with a CDS lightmeter. All credit to modern manufacturing materials and processes.
Next up the dreaded digital camera that will not last more than a few years.
First up you have to recognise that the prices for used film kit has collapsed as a result of digital and nothing else. So if we are going to bash digital we have to make the assumption that the film camera should be realistically priced to reflect its true manufacturing/selling cost. You cannot slag off digital an then use used film camera prices that are set by the digital photography market.
Options are limited as most 35mm manufacturers now only make digital, so the option of all mechanical may be with the Nikon FM10 ( £540 body only ) or add electronics the Nikon F6 ( £1699 body only ) or go mad and think Leica with the M7 ( £2355 body only ).
Now the tricky part of putting ££'s to this and seeing if digital with its short life span makes any sense. For that we have to consider digital as paying up front for the camera and the equivalent of film and processing cost NOT INCLUDING PRINTING as that is the great variable between individuals. For the film variant we would either need to price slide film and add the cost of a projector or any film plus the price of a decent scanner. Another tricky aspect is that digital gives colour, B&W and the equivalent of push processing so perhaps E6 for the film on standard process.
How much film would be reasonable for a year. Mmmmm tricky again. In the old days someone buying a camera like the Practica MTL3 may only do a dozen in a year whereas an enthusast with a bit more money to spend on camera and film could be 60 rolls a year. Mmmm again 60 x 36 = 2160 frames pa. Some digital users probably do that a month.
For the Digital camera body perhaps something in the region of £1200 would be reasonable, and for the film body we will go with the lowest cost one the Nikon FM10 at £540.
1st year cost of digital = Camera and images ready to view £1200
1st year cost of film = Camera £540, 60rolls of Fuji Velvia RVP100 135-36 £ 324.60(Calumet), Processing into sleeves £242.40(PeakImaging). All up cost £1107 * Note no cost allocated to a viewing method ( projector or scanner).
2nd and susequent year cost Digital = £0:00
2nd and susequent year cost of film = £567:00 pa excluding price rises
So on cost grounds alone I could easily afford to dump my digital camera working or not, around every four years or so, and with a budget one I could bin it each year and still be quids in.
My question to you now is what does it matter if your digital camera packs up after 8 - 10 years. After all it is only a tool that enables you to capture images.
Its still hugely cheaper than film, even 35mm, and more importantly has done more than anything else to make this an affordable hobby for many. So credit where credit is due.
Don
|