Interesting article. Thanks for link. At the moment as a sole trader who has to cover most expenses digital, for now anyway seems to be cheaper. That includes the cost of cameras, imac, lenses, hard drives, etc. The problem is obsolescence. I converted to digital for most of my work in 2003. Started of with D100's which really wern't up to the job, the D200 not much better. Been using D700's since 2009 and they have served me will since. But for how long? having to constantly upgrade has been an expensive nightmare, but still cheaper than using film, processing costs, time it takes to scan which is what I was doing prior to going digital and still do from time to time. I really wish that the main camera manufacturers would make the sensors in their cameras upgradable so photographers wouldn't have to fork out for new bodies every few years. But the (il)logic of capitalism dictates otherwise. Look at the M9, I wouldn't buy one even if I could afford it, compared to the D700, low light performance is abysmal, for example if you click on my flickr link you will see some photos I took of the riots last year, they were at night, flash was not an option as we would have been targets for rioters and cops alike. Had to use ISO 6400, wide open with low shutter speeds on my 1986 vintage 1st generation 70-210mm f4 AF zoom (my chronic work related back and neck problems does not allow me to carry around the heavy 2.8 zooms) for the wide shots I used used manual AI lenses, they actually work really well on the dig, also pretty much wide open. Using an M8 or M9 would have been very difficult indeed. May just have managed using film bodies and fast lenses (ideal for the Noctilux, only wish I could afford one).
