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.
