bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
Hello all,
I'm not looking to raise anyone's dander here, but I just thought I'd offer a friendly observation. Before i begin, let me say that I respect both the digital and analog photography worlds -- I do not necessarily think one is 'better' than the other. They both have strengths and weaknesses.
Here's my observation.
While browsing various classifieds, I have seen a regular flow of M8's on the market. It is common nowadays to see used M8 bodies for sale on various internet sites. Many seem to have only a few thousand shutter actuations.
Now here's the mental exercise.
Let's say an M8 user (let's call him Mr. Leitz) has put on 4000 actuations, signifying relatively light use. If the M8 body (in 2007) originally cost about $5000 USD, let's assume Mr. Leitz sells the camera in 2011 for $2300. This means he paid $2700 to use the camera for 4 years (rough math, I know -- I'm not allowing for inflation-adjusted dollars and other costs, but I'm not an accountant and this is just a mental exercise.)
A rough calculation shows that each shot with the digital M8 cost Mr. Leitz about $0.67 over 4 years. That's not including the capital necessary to have a suitable computer + monitor, a software suite, a fast memory card, etc. -- but I'm assuming he already has these things.
In an alternate universe (Mr. Leitz might wear a fu-manchu mustache) he instead purchases a very mint M6 TTL for $1200 in 2007. He shoots 4000 frames, which would work out to about 110 rolls of 36 film. If each film costs $7.00 plus $5.00 for scanning & developing, then he paid $1,320 over 4 years to use the camera. Although it's possible to get film + scanning done for less than $12, I'm trying to not be 'cheap' on this figure. In my area, that's what it costs at the local photo lab. In other jurisdictions, this figure might be higher or lower.
Of course, if Mr. Leitz was particularly enthusiastic, he could develop his own B&W or colour film at home and his costs would be somewhat less. Again, I am not allowing for opportunity costs -- using one's time to develop film can be considered 'expensive'. Nor am I allowing for the investment into a decent scanner.
At the end of 4 years, the alternate universe Mr. Leitz sells his M6 for the same that he paid for it in 2007. His only net costs are the film and processing. Theoretically, he's ahead of the game, compared to the other Mr. Leitz and his digital M8.
Again, this is just a friendly mental exercise -- no offense to anyone (digital or analog users) ... I just thought this might be of interest. I only mention it because there is a general assumption made that film 'costs more'. Steve Huff made remarks about that on his website -- basically dismissing film because of the costs over time. My rough calculations show that a light user or hobbyist might actually be ahead of the game with a film M body.
I'm not looking to raise anyone's dander here, but I just thought I'd offer a friendly observation. Before i begin, let me say that I respect both the digital and analog photography worlds -- I do not necessarily think one is 'better' than the other. They both have strengths and weaknesses.
Here's my observation.
While browsing various classifieds, I have seen a regular flow of M8's on the market. It is common nowadays to see used M8 bodies for sale on various internet sites. Many seem to have only a few thousand shutter actuations.
Now here's the mental exercise.
Let's say an M8 user (let's call him Mr. Leitz) has put on 4000 actuations, signifying relatively light use. If the M8 body (in 2007) originally cost about $5000 USD, let's assume Mr. Leitz sells the camera in 2011 for $2300. This means he paid $2700 to use the camera for 4 years (rough math, I know -- I'm not allowing for inflation-adjusted dollars and other costs, but I'm not an accountant and this is just a mental exercise.)
A rough calculation shows that each shot with the digital M8 cost Mr. Leitz about $0.67 over 4 years. That's not including the capital necessary to have a suitable computer + monitor, a software suite, a fast memory card, etc. -- but I'm assuming he already has these things.
In an alternate universe (Mr. Leitz might wear a fu-manchu mustache) he instead purchases a very mint M6 TTL for $1200 in 2007. He shoots 4000 frames, which would work out to about 110 rolls of 36 film. If each film costs $7.00 plus $5.00 for scanning & developing, then he paid $1,320 over 4 years to use the camera. Although it's possible to get film + scanning done for less than $12, I'm trying to not be 'cheap' on this figure. In my area, that's what it costs at the local photo lab. In other jurisdictions, this figure might be higher or lower.
Of course, if Mr. Leitz was particularly enthusiastic, he could develop his own B&W or colour film at home and his costs would be somewhat less. Again, I am not allowing for opportunity costs -- using one's time to develop film can be considered 'expensive'. Nor am I allowing for the investment into a decent scanner.
At the end of 4 years, the alternate universe Mr. Leitz sells his M6 for the same that he paid for it in 2007. His only net costs are the film and processing. Theoretically, he's ahead of the game, compared to the other Mr. Leitz and his digital M8.
Again, this is just a friendly mental exercise -- no offense to anyone (digital or analog users) ... I just thought this might be of interest. I only mention it because there is a general assumption made that film 'costs more'. Steve Huff made remarks about that on his website -- basically dismissing film because of the costs over time. My rough calculations show that a light user or hobbyist might actually be ahead of the game with a film M body.
eia41
Established
I reserve my (propable) comment for later, but I cannot wait to read the amount of response this thread will undoubtedly create!
Spleenrippa
Yes, Right There
Awesome. Let the games begin
archeophoto
I love 1950's quality
OP: your comparison does not work. You are comparing a NEW M8 (bought for $5000, sold for $2300) with a USED M6. This M6 was about $5000 (everything calculated in) when it was new as well.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Change the numbers, and you change the outcome. If you shoot several thousand pics each year, as I do, then even the M8 comes out ahead, never mind M9. The quality is better, too: commercial scanning is mostly pretty poor.
Besides which, what are you pricing here? Pro photography and time, where digital wins easily, or enjoyment? 'Cos if you are pricing enjoyment, I still use film as well.
Cheers,
R.
Besides which, what are you pricing here? Pro photography and time, where digital wins easily, or enjoyment? 'Cos if you are pricing enjoyment, I still use film as well.
Cheers,
R.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
OP: your comparison is correct since it is homing in on the cost to mr. Leitz, not users before him.
I'm from 1971 myself and own two 1955 M3s, now how should I take the price of these cameras when new into account?
Now, I could point out that my process is even cheaper than Mr. Leitz's because I buy film in bulk and home develop. But, any argument like that would only be of interest if I ever planned to sell my M's. Which I'm not going to do.
I'm from 1971 myself and own two 1955 M3s, now how should I take the price of these cameras when new into account?
Now, I could point out that my process is even cheaper than Mr. Leitz's because I buy film in bulk and home develop. But, any argument like that would only be of interest if I ever planned to sell my M's. Which I'm not going to do.
ampguy
Veteran
Hmm, 1000 shots a year? Perhaps one should rent??
Stefan Daniels, the digital M Leica product manager states that the life of a digital camera is about 3 years, so someone buying an M8 or M9 is probably going to lose less than the 4 years depreciation, plus, let's face it, a lot of folks here collect Leica gear and use sparsely ...
Stefan Daniels, the digital M Leica product manager states that the life of a digital camera is about 3 years, so someone buying an M8 or M9 is probably going to lose less than the 4 years depreciation, plus, let's face it, a lot of folks here collect Leica gear and use sparsely ...
Ken Shipman
Well-known
In your scenario the M8 was purchased new while the M6 was purchased used. If a hypothetical used M8 was available in 2007 for say about $3,500 then the 4-year costs in your example would be closer to even. If the price of film and processing slowly rose over the years, it could tilt the other way. If you stretch the example out to say 8 years, how do the numbers move? Unfortunately a scenario could probably be constructed to support any argument a person wants.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Ken,
What's unfortunate about it? As long as it encourages people to think...
Cheers,
R.
tlitody
Well-known
In the real world Mr Leitz wouldn't be such a cheapskate and do the nerdy thing of bothering to make such a calculation. He would make subjective choices based purely on "I want" rather than "which is cheapest". There is no such thing as rationalisation when it comes to buying cameras. You might think you are being rational but you are prejudiced and will buy what you want just because you want it.
Last edited:
Ken Shipman
Well-known
Hehe...I suppose it's not unfortunate from that perspective. The conundrum is people looking for a truth, but who find any number of arguments in all directions.
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
I was told there would be no math.
Snacks
Established
On the other hand, maybe Mr Leitz forsees future expenses/changes in salary or retirement and wants to watch the pennies. People argue that if you have the money to spend on a Leica then you have enough money to buy everything you want. I doubt that this is universally true.
umcelinho
Marcelo
Mr. Emsicks bought an M6 in 2009 for $1000. shot 5000 frames with it until 2011. each roll cost him $5 bucks with an additional $8 to develop and scan. He was clever on how to load the film, so he got 40 frames on each roll. By 2011 he paid $1625 to use the camera. In 2011 he sold the M6 for $1300, because prices have gone up. So in total he spent $1325 to shoot 5000 frames.
Dr. Emeyth bought an M8 for $2300 in 2009. shot 5000 frames with it. did not spend a penny to get his shots. In 2011 he was fed up with the whole UV/IR filter thing and decided to sell the M8 for $2000. in total he spent $300 to shoot 5000 frames.
there you go
Dr. Emeyth bought an M8 for $2300 in 2009. shot 5000 frames with it. did not spend a penny to get his shots. In 2011 he was fed up with the whole UV/IR filter thing and decided to sell the M8 for $2000. in total he spent $300 to shoot 5000 frames.
there you go
tlitody
Well-known
And his prejudice is making him look at a Leica when something far cheaper would do the job
dave lackey
Veteran
Ha...you get what you pay for. Maybe less, maybe more for either digital or film. It is the process and the resulting image from said process that you pay for even it is more expensive with film.
In my perfect world, I would never have a computer to work on and I would access RFF and email, etc. on a handheld whatever. No need for photoshop, spreadsheets, etc., that's what employees are supposed to do. I would spend my time shooting.
But, alas, my world is imperfect and the processing cost for film is expensive. But I made the decision to do this latest documentary with TriX and Delta 100 because they were totally different images than anything I could convert from my perfectly good color digital files.
These days, it pays to consider costs and it is a good exercise, but the final decision should be based on what you want to see when the day is done, and that really should not be based on which is cheaper IMO.:angel:
In my perfect world, I would never have a computer to work on and I would access RFF and email, etc. on a handheld whatever. No need for photoshop, spreadsheets, etc., that's what employees are supposed to do. I would spend my time shooting.
But, alas, my world is imperfect and the processing cost for film is expensive. But I made the decision to do this latest documentary with TriX and Delta 100 because they were totally different images than anything I could convert from my perfectly good color digital files.
These days, it pays to consider costs and it is a good exercise, but the final decision should be based on what you want to see when the day is done, and that really should not be based on which is cheaper IMO.:angel:
dave lackey
Veteran
Mr. Emsicks bought an M6 in 2009 for $1000. shot 5000 frames with it until 2011. each roll cost him $5 bucks with an additional $8 to develop and scan. He was clever on how to load the film, so he got 40 frames on each roll. By 2011 he paid $1625 to use the camera. In 2011 he sold the M6 for $1300, because prices have gone up. So in total he spent $1325 to shoot 5000 frames.
Dr. Emeyth bought an M8 for $2300 in 2009. shot 5000 frames with it. did not spend a penny to get his shots. In 2011 he was fed up with the whole UV/IR filter thing and decided to sell the M8 for $2000. in total he spent $300 to shoot 5000 frames.
there you go
Ummm...his time spent processing digital files must be included. And archiving. And backup drives. And blah, blah, blah... it really doesn't matter much.
dave lackey
Veteran
Well, there will be a test at the end of this thread. You have been warned!
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
The OP's scenario does not work as a one size fits all cure. Change any one of a number of preconditions, new M6 for a used one, and the outcome is different. You are never going to prove or disprove one or the other is cheaper for everyone. Why even worry about it and just enjoy which you want. If a certain Leica product manager has been quoted correctly digital shooters will get to reassess their situation every three years anyway.
Bob
Bob
sc_rufctr
Leica nuts
OK... All good but one thing not factored in is the storage costs of digital photos.
The reality is if you want to store your digital images with the same level of certainty as film you really need to factor this in.
You need an external hard drive and a backup system. Then you need to think about what may happen and how technology will change in the future.
Like DVD/CD/Blueray drives. It won't be long before these are no longer available as standard on new PCs and LTs.
Replaced by external media like thumb drives and memory cards.
External/internal hard drives do fail regularly. One little mechanical or electrical problem and everything is gone forever.
You can pay someone to recover data from a failed hard drive but this gets really expensive very quickly.
About 10 years ago I got a quote for a client to recover data from a failed laptop hard drive.
Total cost + shipping etc... $5,400 (ten years ago!)
-----------------------------------------------------------
You may think it's a good idea to go digital but I wonder how many digital photographs have already been lost forever.
I can still show you 100s of photos and film shot in the 70s by my mother on her Konica Range finder. Most B&W and still perfect.
I wonder how many descendants of today's digital users in the future will be able to say the same thing???
The reality is if you want to store your digital images with the same level of certainty as film you really need to factor this in.
You need an external hard drive and a backup system. Then you need to think about what may happen and how technology will change in the future.
Like DVD/CD/Blueray drives. It won't be long before these are no longer available as standard on new PCs and LTs.
Replaced by external media like thumb drives and memory cards.
External/internal hard drives do fail regularly. One little mechanical or electrical problem and everything is gone forever.
You can pay someone to recover data from a failed hard drive but this gets really expensive very quickly.
About 10 years ago I got a quote for a client to recover data from a failed laptop hard drive.
Total cost + shipping etc... $5,400 (ten years ago!)
-----------------------------------------------------------
You may think it's a good idea to go digital but I wonder how many digital photographs have already been lost forever.
I can still show you 100s of photos and film shot in the 70s by my mother on her Konica Range finder. Most B&W and still perfect.
I wonder how many descendants of today's digital users in the future will be able to say the same thing???
Last edited: