sepiareverb
genius and moron
I'm really in the soup. I shoot film & digital.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
selloutboy
A.g. De Mesa
As long as you enjoy what you are doing, the prices would never matter.
If you are a working Professional, that's where you really have to crunch the numbers.
If you are a working Professional, that's where you really have to crunch the numbers.
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
Gosh, I didn't expect such a vociferous and spirited response to my idle Sunday afternoon musings!
As I scrolled down the list of messages, I almost feared that I could see the ominous dark glow of a flame war on the horizon ... but thankfully this thread has merely been the soapbox of a spirited discourse.
I should have put many caveats in my original post. Yes, you can massage the numbers in any which direction and an alternate outcome is realized. Kind of like those 'choose your own ending' books they had when I was a kid.
"Hmm ... I think I'll shoot a Leica M-body!" TURN TO PAGE 72.
"Golly, I think I'll shoot digital!" TURN TO PAGE 151.
"Oh no! The dragon of planned obsolescence has depreciated my digital camera!" etc. etc.
Alternatively...
"Hmm...I think I'll shoot a Leica M-body!" TURN TO PAGE 72.
"Wow, I really like film! I think I'll get an M6 classic!" TURN TO PAGE 84.
"Uh oh! The evil Queen of Dust-n-Dirt has forced me to get a CLA!" TURN TO PAGE 104.
"My camera has returned from the CLA, but that was a little pricey! Wait -- what's this? Nobody in my area will process E-6 chromes anymore, and C-41 labs are closing all around me!" etc. etc. etc.
Anyway, I think several people hit the proverbial nail on the head when they mentioned it has more to do with what you love and enjoy doing.
There is no right or wrong here ... I'm sure it would be possible to draw up an Excel spreadsheet of costs of ownership for these cameras, but why bother? We're all here because we love photography. On top of that, I've recently polished off a beer and my grasp of Excel is probably at an all-time low.
As I scrolled down the list of messages, I almost feared that I could see the ominous dark glow of a flame war on the horizon ... but thankfully this thread has merely been the soapbox of a spirited discourse.
I should have put many caveats in my original post. Yes, you can massage the numbers in any which direction and an alternate outcome is realized. Kind of like those 'choose your own ending' books they had when I was a kid.
"Hmm ... I think I'll shoot a Leica M-body!" TURN TO PAGE 72.
"Golly, I think I'll shoot digital!" TURN TO PAGE 151.
"Oh no! The dragon of planned obsolescence has depreciated my digital camera!" etc. etc.
Alternatively...
"Hmm...I think I'll shoot a Leica M-body!" TURN TO PAGE 72.
"Wow, I really like film! I think I'll get an M6 classic!" TURN TO PAGE 84.
"Uh oh! The evil Queen of Dust-n-Dirt has forced me to get a CLA!" TURN TO PAGE 104.
"My camera has returned from the CLA, but that was a little pricey! Wait -- what's this? Nobody in my area will process E-6 chromes anymore, and C-41 labs are closing all around me!" etc. etc. etc.
Anyway, I think several people hit the proverbial nail on the head when they mentioned it has more to do with what you love and enjoy doing.
There is no right or wrong here ... I'm sure it would be possible to draw up an Excel spreadsheet of costs of ownership for these cameras, but why bother? We're all here because we love photography. On top of that, I've recently polished off a beer and my grasp of Excel is probably at an all-time low.
Last edited:
Jamesruff
Member
for every argument against digital, you can almost have the same against film..
you have to store negatives and prints, which go in folders which cost money, then they take up a lot of physical space.
hard drives cost very little for large amounts of storage. you can also get digital prints too..
but what if you shoot film, you need to scan negs to computer, so you have to factor costs of a scanner.
im wanting to get myself a Leica M, iv been looking at a M6 for a while, but with the cost of a M6 body averaging around AU$1500, im starting to think that the extra cost of a M8 might be worth while. i dont really have time or space to self process film and the closest lab is about a 2 hr drive away.
i like film, but i like the convenience of digital more.
each to his own though
sc_rufctr
Leica nuts
James
I think you hit it on the head when you said...
"i like film, but i like the convenience of digital more.
each to his own though"
I think you hit it on the head when you said...
"i like film, but i like the convenience of digital more.
each to his own though
"
dave lackey
Veteran
Bobby,
There is one scenario that many people, especially the younger of us, forget. Buying the right tool for the job (M3, M4, M6, MP) can be the only time that you will ever have to buy another camera. These cameras will outlive all of us, so constantly updating and buying a new digital camera ever 3 years or so is not even a factor. Let alone the constant computer, software and archiving upgrades. Those are significant costs!
I am using a 50 year old M3 with a lens made back in 1953. It is one of those "for life" cameras. As much as I would like to have an M9, the numbers justifying it are not there. I doubt that I would keep an M9 for life even if the support for it is still there in 10 years, 20 years or longer.
An M8/8.2 would be nice. An M9 would be nicer. But I can't spring for that kind of money up front and I surely can't justify either over the next 20+ years.
Yeah, film is dead or will disappear. Heard it before, that is why I have a plan for "Film for Life".
There is one scenario that many people, especially the younger of us, forget. Buying the right tool for the job (M3, M4, M6, MP) can be the only time that you will ever have to buy another camera. These cameras will outlive all of us, so constantly updating and buying a new digital camera ever 3 years or so is not even a factor. Let alone the constant computer, software and archiving upgrades. Those are significant costs!
I am using a 50 year old M3 with a lens made back in 1953. It is one of those "for life" cameras. As much as I would like to have an M9, the numbers justifying it are not there. I doubt that I would keep an M9 for life even if the support for it is still there in 10 years, 20 years or longer.
An M8/8.2 would be nice. An M9 would be nicer. But I can't spring for that kind of money up front and I surely can't justify either over the next 20+ years.
Yeah, film is dead or will disappear. Heard it before, that is why I have a plan for "Film for Life".
tlitody
Well-known
Film Is Cheap !!!
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Film is "dead" in the sense that it is no longer a mainstream consumer item but it does not mean there is no film. Nor does it mean it will disappear totally. If you plan on the prolonged use of film I think it is a prudent idea to have a plan for "Film for Life".
Bob
Bob
Stuart John
Well-known
Thing with digital camera is that you don't have to buy a new one every three years if the one you have does what you need it to do. There is no reason why if an M9 is still working in 20 years that you could not use it to take great photos. Now whether these digital wonders will still working in twenty years is anyones guess. My old olympus C220 is still working as is my D1h. Although they are not twenty years old they still working and if the output from them is good enough for ones needs then why not use them.
Archiver
Veteran
I've mentioned this numerous times in other threads. Last year I went to Japan for three weeks and took 350 photos per day with my M9, giving me a complete day by day documentation of the trip.
That's close to 10 rolls of film per day. Call it nine. 9 x $7 = $63 of film per day. 9 x $20 (dev and scan costs in Australia) = $180. $63 + $180 = $243 to shoot nine rolls of film.
$243 x 21 days = $5103. $5103 to shoot nine rolls of film per day for three weeks, 7350 or thereabout exposures.
I spent about $9200 for my M9 a few months after it came out in Australia. If it would cost me $5103 to shoot 7350 exposures, if I shoot 10,000 exposures with the M9 the equivalent film photo cost is leveled out. I easily shot that number of exposures in the first six months with the M9.
Another way to look at it is like this:
$9200 bought me the M9 last year. For that money I could have bought a mint M7 at $3100 and $6100 worth of colour neg film plus dev and scan at the local shop.
If it costs about $27 per roll to buy, dev and scan, $6100 gives me 226 rolls of film. Assuming that film and dev costs stay the same, I could shoot one roll per week for 4.3 years.
If I buy a M9, I can shoot tens of thousands of images in that same period of time, and not have to bother with the physical issues of film.
Leave out depreciation. Leave out selling your gear. Think about what it costs to shoot, dev and scan x number of exposures in your favourite film, and work out how much of that is covered by a digital purchase.
That's close to 10 rolls of film per day. Call it nine. 9 x $7 = $63 of film per day. 9 x $20 (dev and scan costs in Australia) = $180. $63 + $180 = $243 to shoot nine rolls of film.
$243 x 21 days = $5103. $5103 to shoot nine rolls of film per day for three weeks, 7350 or thereabout exposures.
I spent about $9200 for my M9 a few months after it came out in Australia. If it would cost me $5103 to shoot 7350 exposures, if I shoot 10,000 exposures with the M9 the equivalent film photo cost is leveled out. I easily shot that number of exposures in the first six months with the M9.
Another way to look at it is like this:
$9200 bought me the M9 last year. For that money I could have bought a mint M7 at $3100 and $6100 worth of colour neg film plus dev and scan at the local shop.
If it costs about $27 per roll to buy, dev and scan, $6100 gives me 226 rolls of film. Assuming that film and dev costs stay the same, I could shoot one roll per week for 4.3 years.
If I buy a M9, I can shoot tens of thousands of images in that same period of time, and not have to bother with the physical issues of film.
Leave out depreciation. Leave out selling your gear. Think about what it costs to shoot, dev and scan x number of exposures in your favourite film, and work out how much of that is covered by a digital purchase.
dave lackey
Veteran
My M3 is 50 years old. Bet ya a thousand dollars in 50 years, that an M9 will not be usable. Or desirable.
Good luck on collecting if I am wrong.
Good luck on collecting if I am wrong.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
You are absolutely right, but there are plenty who are incapable of thinking rationally.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
All true, but would you shoot 10 rolls of film a day? And when do you have time to look at 7350 pics? After a two or three week trip I find even a few hundred pictures time consuming to process and select.
Cheers,
R.
dave lackey
Veteran
At least I am thinking, right? The lack of actual thinking about the future is not rational.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to have an M9. But this computer I am working on will be in the landfill is less than 5 years. Why would I expect a new M9 to still be working and/or desirable in the year 2061?
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Dave,
Unless you're envisioning to turn into a crack-wedding photographer who does 52 weddings a year, or a sport-sideline hugger jostling with other pros on the field, I'd say skip digital RFs.
A film M-body and a compact mirrorless digital like the Olympus Pen E-P2 should be enough to cover any people-interacting projects (I'm assuming this based on our correspondence regarding small towns).
Unless you're envisioning to turn into a crack-wedding photographer who does 52 weddings a year, or a sport-sideline hugger jostling with other pros on the field, I'd say skip digital RFs.
A film M-body and a compact mirrorless digital like the Olympus Pen E-P2 should be enough to cover any people-interacting projects (I'm assuming this based on our correspondence regarding small towns).
Roger Hicks
Veteran
At least I am thinking, right? The lack of actual thinking about the future is not rational.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to have an M9. But this computer I am working on will be in the landfill is less than 5 years. Why would I expect a new M9 to still be working and/or desirable in the year 2061?
Not 2061, probably, by why not 2021 or even 2031?
Stuart John's point, and mine, is that as long as something goes on doing what you want, only a fool would stop using it because it is 'outdated'.
Of course, 'what you want' can vary. If you just want to take pictures (as you and I do), it's a bit different from wanting to be seen as the possessor of the latest toy. But sticking with 2-d photography, and given that an M9 is just about OK at A3, it's hard to see how you could tell a 500-megapixel camera from an 18-megapixel at A4, let alone on screen.
Besides, I'd be 111 in 2061, so I'm not so fussed about many things lasting that long.
Cheers,
R.
dave lackey
Veteran
dave lackey
Veteran
Done the latter, done with it now. Started the former. But, Riccis is doing a magnificent job with his two MP's!
Selling my last DSLR this week, so the decision to stick with M-body film cameras is made.
archeophoto
I love 1950's quality
No I'm sorry he is not correct. If he wants to do the comparison as he intended he has to compare a used M8 with a used M6. Then the whole calculation changes dramatically.
It's very difficult to compare used gear with new gear and make a cost comparison.
It's very difficult to compare used gear with new gear and make a cost comparison.