[BigMackCam]

So, what is the point of this thread again?

"K-30 dies after years of intensive use"

[08amczb]

Have to have a point other then I'am extroverted and like to tell my beloved camera get exhausted?

I think the only objective, useful information I told is: there is at least one K-30 which got to 91546 shutter count. Now the thread is diverging.

[leekil]

This indicates your experience is above average, though I would say these statistics are affected by 1) aperture block failure and 2) the information being on a volunteer basis.

K-30 shutter life expectancy

[normhead]

So, what is the point of this thread again?

I liked hearing her K-30 got 91,000 shutter actuations. Didn't you? My K-3 is currently at 117,000, which perhaps confirms the greater dependability of the flagship models in an anecdotal kind of way.

It is actually pretty rare on the forum to here a report from someone who actually wore out a shutter. That in itself is news.

If I was looking for a relatively inexpensive back up for the K-P it would be the K-70.

[ChristianRock]

No, I don't buy another APS-C body, the KP is a perfect travel/backup body. I have three local Pentaxian friends who can lend me a K-50 in emergency.
I have 24, 31, 35, 43, 50, 55, 77, 100, 200 FF/Compatible AF primes, it's time to use the whole image circle.

Well you said you wouldn't buy a K-1 because you need a bigger house, I thought you were saving for a house. I now understand you probably meant a bigger house to store all the stuff you're thinking of buying

And I agree with Norm that it's great to hear about someone using a camera "'till the wheels fall off", so to say

[normhead]

And I agree with Norm that it's great to hear about someone using a camera "'till the wheels fall off", so to say

We always knew it was theoretically possible, We just never heard of it happening. My *ist, K100D, K-x, K20D and K-5 all went to new homes.

My K-3 has the opportunity to be the first camera in 30 years I use until the shutter dies. The longer before the APS_C flagship update comes out, the more likely it will be. I wore out the shutter in my SV after close to 20 years of use. and there's no way it had anywhere near 100,000 or even 50,000 actuations. I shhot more now in a month than I shot in year with film. It's like you buy a lifetime supply of film with the camera. Now the OP can tale the cost of her camera estimate say $700 and that gives you 0.8 pennies per photo. Ain't digital grand?

With film, ten cents a photo was an unbelievable bargain. As I recall , about $4 for 36 exposures before printing costs. Say another $7. That's 30 cents a photo. So I spend the same money, but I shoot 30x more photos. It's photographer dream come true.

I often shoot 24 shot bursts in less than 3 seconds and i don't have to change film afterwards., without a motor drive. From a 1967 mindset that's unfathomable.

Kudos to the OP for accomplishing this with a limited frame rate and buffer.

If I were Adam I'd just give the OP the K-1. They've earned it, and they'll put it to good use, based on past performance.

But then I would have given the last one to bertwert for being such a keener. But, I don't actually have anything to give away, so my opinion doesn't really count for anything. Nothing deflated my opinion of the contest more than the part where the K-1 went to person who would be using it as a back-up for the K-1 they already owned. I was expecting squeals of joy from someone who thought they'd never own one.

I never expected to hear, oh, I'll just put it n my closet in case my other one breaks.

[08amczb]

Leekil, I know that db, I submitted my shutter count.

I liked hearing her K-30 got 91,000 shutter actuations.

Norm, she is my wife on the images.

Well you said you wouldn't buy a K-1 because you need a bigger house, I thought you were saving for a house. I now understand you probably meant a bigger house to store all the stuff you're thinking of buying

First the house, then save for a K-1II (if I didn't win one :P), then fill the house with my kids and their future gear is the exact plan.

[dubyam]

We always knew it was theoretically possible, We just never heard of it happening. My *ist, K100D, K-x, K20D and K-5 all went to new homes.

My K-3 has the opportunity to be the first camera in 30 years I use until the shutter dies. The longer before the APS_C flagship update comes out, the more likely it will be. I wore out the shutter in my SV after close to 20 years of use. and there's no way it had anywhere near 100,000 or even 50,000 actuations. I shhot more now in a month than I shot in year with film. It's like you buy a lifetime supply of film with the camera. Now the OP can tale the cost of her camera estimate say $700 and that gives you 0.8 pennies per photo. Ain't digital grand?

With film, ten cents a photo was an unbelievable bargain. As I recall , about $4 for 36 exposures before printing costs. Say another $7. That's 30 cents a photo. So I spend the same money, but I shoot 30x more photos. It's photographer dream come true.

I grew up hearing my dad say, often, "Film is cheap." What he meant was film is relatively cheap compared to the value of 30 and 50yr old pictures of family, friends, and places we loved visiting or being. When my wife and I first got married, we used 35mm P&S cameras, and developed an average of 1 36exp roll a week. We have a lot of boxes of pictures stored in our spare closets still. One day I'd like to digitize the negatives, but that's a big process. When we went digital in 2004, it was like winning the lottery. We could take plenty of pictures, know which were good and which weren't, immediately, and try to be sure we captured good memories along the way. We used a variety of P&S and one very nice Fuji bridge model (actually my first digital, which produced amazing images), and accumulated 25-30k images over the ensuing decade. Bought my first DSLR (K30) in late 2012 and shot 20k images in 3.5yrs. Picked up a K3 in spring of 2016, and here 2yrs later, I'm around 12k exposures on it. It's cyclical, so I shoot more some times of the year than others, but trying to get more consistent and better at composition and quality. But the adage still applies, now even more so - "Film is cheap." My dad would have loved the digital revolution in photography if he'd lived to see it.

[normhead]

Leekil, I know that db, I submitted my shutter count.



Norm, she is my wife on the images.



First the house, then save for a K-1II (if I didn't win one :P), then fill the house with my kids and their future gear is the exact plan.

I tried to make the posts gender neutral after realizing that might be true.

[ChristianRock]

We always knew it was theoretically possible, We just never heard of it happening. My *ist, K100D, K-x, K20D and K-5 all went to new homes.

My K-3 has the opportunity to be the first camera in 30 years I use until the shutter dies. The longer before the APS_C flagship update comes out, the more likely it will be. I wore out the shutter in my SV after close to 20 years of use. and there's no way it had anywhere near 100,000 or even 50,000 actuations. I shhot more now in a month than I shot in year with film. It's like you buy a lifetime supply of film with the camera. Now the OP can tale the cost of her camera estimate say $700 and that gives you 0.8 pennies per photo. Ain't digital grand?

I agree. I wouldn't even have photography as a hobby if it wasn't for digital, with film it would be more of a "register the moment sometimes" kind of thing.

There was a recent post about a K-50 going over 300,000 shutter actuations. And it's still going strong. Your K-3 might go on for much longer than you think

[sergysergy]

RIP...but very nice shots!

[normhead]

This indicates your experience is above average, though I would say these statistics are affected by 1) aperture block failure and 2) the information being on a volunteer basis.

K-30 shutter life expectancy

You cannot seriously expect to estimate shutter life, before the cameras start dying of natural causes. There is no data to suggest his experience is above average. That poll you quote has design flaws so serious it's useless, and was the day it was published. Only a controlled group of randomly selected cameras with study size of say a 25-200 could do that. That study is just pure anti-Pentax propaganda repeated ad nauseam by disgruntled users.

The study is actually a perfect example of how people using legitimate research tools can effect the research outcomess by using selective test subjects. A favourite trick of drug companies to prove the effectiveness of useless drugs, such as cholesteraol drugs. It does make drug companies billions, but it's really shoddy research.

This poll was nothing more than bunch of disgruntled customers who got burned in by a 10$ part taking out their frustration on Pentax.

You can't compute life expectancy if all the healthy subjects aren't dead. Please don't continue to point to this nonsense.

If our OP was in that poll, his 91,000 clicks wouldn't have counted, because great number of them occurred after the poll was taken. Whatever he'd taken at that time would be in the poll, which would have been a gross misrepresentation of his final shutter count. When the collection methods used to obtain your original data are unreliable, so are your conclusions.

The fact that a person can get 90,000 clicks from a K-30 is all the proof you need of how inaccurate that poll was. That shows what the camera is capable of, as was shown in the original page. What was the only inconclusive part was what percentage would reach that level, and that will continue to get higher and higher as the K-30s get older and older.

It's odd that this poll is referred to, despite the fact that the defficineces were pointed out at the time it was first discussed. it just shows, people can't tell the difference between good research and opinions masked as research. But for you who fall into that category, the government drug licensing departments can't either. People who make really good money for evaluating research make the same mistakes.

Good research is rarely all that sensational. bad research seems to hag around forever.

[dubyam]

I don't want to get into the difference between your opinion of drug research and the realities of the application of scientific method, quality experimental design, and rigor of evaluation used in FDA submissions, but suffice it to say, if it were as easy to fake the research as you make it sound, the failure rate wouldn't be approximately 90%.

Now, on to the discussion of this survey (which isn't scientific at all, so let's dispel that idea right now). It all depends on what you want to see and how you evaluate the data. As a data guy (my day job), I can tell you the key takeaways from this are that the Kaplan Meyer curve estimates, even from deeply flawed data skewed to the negative, that 70% of K-30s will exceed 50,000 actuations, and greater than 52% will exceed 100,000 actuations. As statistics go, from a flawed methodology which leans deeply to the negative, that's a pretty sterling recommendation for the old K-30 as a durable piece of kit, considering those data show it to have a 70% chance of lasting longer than 5yrs, and greater than a 50% chance of lasting a decade, if we use 10,000 actuations as a baseline for an active hobbyist photographer (the likely purchaser of a K-30 or similarly featured body). How many active hobbyists keep a body a decade without either adding a second body or upgrading? And for those who are not active hobbyists, how many of them achieve that average 10,000 actuations per year? I'd suspect most don't even come close, ending up somewhere around 5-7k actuations per year, which gives a 7-10yr lifespan chance of about 70%. And that's with negatively skewed data of questionable and absolutely non-scientific nature.

The reality is, a well kept DSLR will likely die of something other than shutter failure. Some internal part will fail, or a component on one of the control boards will fail, or some such thing, long before the majority of users see a shutter failure.

[normhead]

I don't want to get into the difference between your opinion of drug research and the realities of the application of scientific method, quality experimental design, and rigor of evaluation used in FDA submissions, but suffice it to say, if it were as easy to fake the research as you make it sound, the failure rate wouldn't be approximately 90%.

Cholesterol and risk of stroke

Higher Cholesterol Is Associated With Longer Life ? The Mission ? Medium

The FDA is incredibly underfunded, and the drug companies lobbied for that. They want to the FDA to know what they want it to know and nothing else. Cholesterol drugs marketed to everyone with high cholesterol are effective only for a small percentage of the population with pre-existing conditions, and the FDA allowed it to go into use to the general public based on tests on people already sick. Those are the facts. You can defend the FDA as much as you want. That doesn't change the facts.

[BigMackCam]

All this talk of the FDA might lead us into politics... Please let's avoid that, folks

Thank you!