[WhimsicalV]

Obviously, this will vary from user to user, but also from model to model. What do you all feel the maximum is on the Pentax K3 II? Read that "Entry level cameras are rated for around 50,000 shots. Mid-range cameras are rated for around 100,000 shots." I understand this, but would like more specific numbers.

[fehknt]

Pentax K-3 II Review - Conclusion | PentaxForums.com Reviews

k3-ii rated for 200k, but I suspect that's something like mean time to failure or some other rating where a significant number of shutters will fail before that and a significant number will last longer.

[Kevin B123]

Rated at 200,000 here:
Pentax K-3 II - Pentax K-mount DSLRs - Pentax Camera Reviews and Specifications
But then even the K-50 can comfortably exceed that

[Kevin B123]

icrop has Here is image #237,243: in his 2017 K-50 review.

[pentaxus]

The rating is what it is designed to do, not a guarantee. I have a Toyota Corolla with 270,000 miles on it. I will probably get many more. Many people got fewer miles on theirs. But a 200,000 cycle shutter should last longer than a 100,000 cycle shutter. If you take a lot of pictures in super cold weather the shutter will probably not get as many pictures as someone who only takes pictures in spring afternoons. Anyway, the numbers are a general rule.

[joergens.mi]

This are the results from my cameras:
camera bought shutter count
K1 April 2016 96099
K3 Februar 2014 76891
K5 2012 88667
K20D 2010 87206

[WhimsicalV]

This are the results from my cameras:
camera bought shutter count
K1 April 2016 96099
K3 Februar 2014 76891
K5 2012 88667
K20D 2010 87206

These are the numbers when you deemed them no longer operable?

---------- Post added 03-27-19 at 03:22 PM ----------

What exactly goes wrong? Everything, like any vehicle? Mine is @ 78,000 and my picture quality is suffering, it seems to have more difficulties focusing, and the lens, when it tries to focus, seems louder? Would any of these things be expected?

[fehknt]

I've only seen one broken shutter in person. The blades snapped and there were paces all over the mirror box. There was slight warning by some slowing down of the shutter curtain and causing black bands in images.

Nothing you describe sounds like a shutter issue to me. Maybe the body focus motor is wearing out? Maybe the lens has some sand or other grit in it? Does it seem fine on a lens with one of the in-lens-motor silent focusing systems?

[WhimsicalV]

I've only seen one broken shutter in person. The blades snapped and there were paces all over the mirror box. There was slight warning by some slowing down of the shutter curtain and causing black bands in images.

Nothing you describe sounds like a shutter issue to me. Maybe the body focus motor is wearing out? Maybe the lens has some sand or other grit in it? Does it seem fine on a lens with one of the in-lens-motor silent focusing systems?

More problems on my 35mm 2.4 than my zoom lens.

[Digitalis]

Mid-range cameras are rated for around 100,000 shots.

One of my K5IIs cameras has done over three times that - and is still ticking. Most of those shutter actuations have been for Timelapse sequences.

[joergens.mi]

These are the numbers when you deemed them no longer operable?

No all cameras are still working fine and are in use.


for k20 and K5 designed by pentax for 100.000
K3 designed by pentax maybe 200000 but I think it is 100.000 too (but I'm not shure)

K1 designed by pentac for 300.000

[Rondec]

I have never had a shutter break.

My personal opinion is that you are far more likely to have issues with electronics long before the shutter bites the dust. E dials start to be flaky, or you start getting more and more hot pixels when shooting long exposures, or maybe the shutter button gets sticky and doesn't work perfectly all of the time.

All electronics devices have a life span based on the weakest component and here that is usually not the shutter.

[Digitalis]

I will also mention over 10 years of working commercially as a photographer, I have had mirror box components fail, but only rarely have had a shutter fail on me.

[E-man]

Manufacturers these days often intentionally build weak points into their to ensure regular product replacement. Somewhere along the line, they decided building products to last a lifetime was a sucker's bet, as far as their interests were concerned. I'm not talking just about cameras. It's common across the spectrum of consumer products. Not long after Apple brought out the first iPods, consumers began to complain about what they considered premature failures of batteries and hard drives and the inability to easily replace them. Apple responded by saying iPods were "disposable products" with a limited lifespan and were not intended to be repaired.

[photoptimist]

Manufacturers these days often intentionally build weak points into their to ensure regular product replacement. Somewhere along the line, they decided building products to last a lifetime was a sucker's bet, as far as their interests were concerned. I'm not talking just about cameras. It's common across the spectrum of consumer products. Not long after Apple brought out the first iPods, consumers began to complain about what they considered premature failures of batteries and hard drives and the inability to easily replace them. Apple responded by saying iPods were "disposable products" with a limited lifespan and were not intended to be repaired.

I'm really skeptical of that because it is very hard to engineer a weak point that doesn't turn into a huge warranty cost issue or a product quality reputation nightmare. The nature of engineering reliability is that that it's almost impossible to make a product that dies after a specific number of shots or years of use. Anything that decreases the expected lifetime of the product is going to increase the rate of failure before the warranty period and warranty repairs are horribly expensive for a company. Nor do product makers want any one specific weak point in the product because then the product gets a reputation for having a faulty XXX and people scream about product recalls. Sure, the company isn't going to engineer everything in the camera to last forever -- that makes the product too expensive -- but weakening some specific part to fail will kill both profits and sales.

For digital cameras, there really is no need to build a weak point into the device. The steady advancement of sensors, CPUs, and memory systems all but guarantees that you can make a digital camera that lasts 10-20 years but most users will replace the camera after a few years because the newer model has much better performance and features.

This issue with the iPod is that consumers want the impossible. Consumers love super compact, robust little devices for a low price. Replaceable batteries add bulk, increase the cost, and make the device less robust. A sealed unit is thinner, cheaper, and less likely to be damaged but it is also much harder to repair.

Batteries are an unavoidable weak spot in consumer devices. Worse, LiIon batteries have a really nasty trade-off between battery life per charge and battery lifespan. Charging the battery to a lower voltage can extend the lifespan of the battery from 400 cycles (a couple of years) to over 3,000 cycles (more that a decade of life) but it reduces the usage time per charge by 30%.