lemalk
Rebel Without Applause
The LC1 doesn't hold the same resale value as the Digilux 2 - I got mine about a year and a half ago for a little over $500.
I'm sure you can find a replacement on ebay for roughly that or less...
But the Olympus DSLR is pretty tempting...
But it doesn't have a silent shutter and that wonderful lens.
I'm sure you can find a replacement on ebay for roughly that or less...
But the Olympus DSLR is pretty tempting...
But it doesn't have a silent shutter and that wonderful lens.
I've had three Barnack Leica's CLA'd and new beamsplitter put in for $100 each.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
Factor in the cost of the film and processing you didn't have to pay for when using the LC-1, and the cost of replacing the digital camera is seen with a more realistic perspective.
There's really no good reason to compare film and digital in this manner, relative to economics. A film camera is a consuming device. As much as we love them, they cost us money each time we use them. Twice.
There's really no good reason to compare film and digital in this manner, relative to economics. A film camera is a consuming device. As much as we love them, they cost us money each time we use them. Twice.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Things break and wear out ... sometimes prematurely.
Just because my toaster lets me down on wednesday I'm not going to get up on thursday and gather wood, light a fire and wait for the glowing embers to toast my bread ... I'll just buy another toaster and break that one too!
Consumerism ... you gotta love it!
Just because my toaster lets me down on wednesday I'm not going to get up on thursday and gather wood, light a fire and wait for the glowing embers to toast my bread ... I'll just buy another toaster and break that one too!
Consumerism ... you gotta love it!
photogdave
Shops local
Like I said, I wasn't intending to turn this into a film vs digital discussion but since you mention it...
If I felt I had shot my money's worth with the LC1 I wouldn't be nearly as upset. But in fact I didn't use it that much because my film cameras are way more versatile, reliable, and the IQ was better. Film is much more economic for MY type of shooting because I have an already-paid-for film scanner.
I liked the LC1 because for certain situations it was a great camera to have on hand - great lens, bounce flash, relatively compact. But truthfully I didn't actually take a lot of photos with it, so I feel like I didn't get my money's worth. This will apply to an digital camera I buy because I will always use my film cameras more.
Bottom line is I truly feel I get more for my money out of a film camera. Not to mention the wastefulness of my nicely crafted LC1 just going into the dumpster!
Sam N
Well-known
The title of this thread should really be "Another Reason To Dis Panasonic".
Any camera can break at any time. If I wanted to fix the slow speeds on my Rolleicord, it would cost more than the camera is worth.
About one year of ownership of my Canon 400D ended up costing me under $200 in depreciation. In that year I took about 8000 photos. A roll of color film with development (no prints, and the film stays as a negative so it's of little to no use for viewing) comes out to more than $6.
8000 shots / 36 shots per roll x $6 = $1,333.33
So film costs about 6x as much as digital for me. I enjoy film and I'll probably never stop using it, but my desire to shoot outweighs my desire to handle film. If I were a millionaire I'd shoot expensive $7-per-roll films (Portra) and slide films ($17 a roll after dev. and mounting) all the time and have someone else scan and catalog my shots for me. Since I'm a normal person with limited time and money, digital has enormous advantages.
Of course you could argue that I'd be more careful about my shooting and have a higher keeper rate and lower shot rate with film. This is probably true, and I do shoot less shots even with digital as I become more discerning, but I like having the freedom to take shots that I normally wouldn't waste film on, knowing it will cost nothing.
Any camera can break at any time. If I wanted to fix the slow speeds on my Rolleicord, it would cost more than the camera is worth.
About one year of ownership of my Canon 400D ended up costing me under $200 in depreciation. In that year I took about 8000 photos. A roll of color film with development (no prints, and the film stays as a negative so it's of little to no use for viewing) comes out to more than $6.
8000 shots / 36 shots per roll x $6 = $1,333.33
So film costs about 6x as much as digital for me. I enjoy film and I'll probably never stop using it, but my desire to shoot outweighs my desire to handle film. If I were a millionaire I'd shoot expensive $7-per-roll films (Portra) and slide films ($17 a roll after dev. and mounting) all the time and have someone else scan and catalog my shots for me. Since I'm a normal person with limited time and money, digital has enormous advantages.
Of course you could argue that I'd be more careful about my shooting and have a higher keeper rate and lower shot rate with film. This is probably true, and I do shoot less shots even with digital as I become more discerning, but I like having the freedom to take shots that I normally wouldn't waste film on, knowing it will cost nothing.
Last edited:
photogdave
Shops local
I give up. I'm talking about MY particular situation, not a general cost comparison of film vs digital! I should have known better to open my big mouth on RFF these days...
To summarize: I paid less than $500 for a camera that I hardly used in less than two years. I will have to pay more than $700 to repair it and it has a resale value of less than $500. It's too nice a camera just to chuck in the bin and this upsets me. If it was a film camera of the same quality (ie Leica) it would probably retain its value and be worth the money to fix. The end.
gdi
Veteran
Sam N
Well-known
I give up. I'm talking about MY particular situation, not a general cost comparison of film vs digital! I should have known better to open my big mouth on RFF these days...
To summarize: I paid less than $500 for a camera that I hardly used in less than two years. I will have to pay more than $700 to repair it and it has a resale value of less than $500. It's too nice a camera just to chuck in the bin and this upsets me. If it was a film camera of the same quality (ie Leica) it would probably retain its value and be worth the money to fix. The end.
Well I agree that it's upsetting to have a camera break in that way, but there's nothing to really discuss about that. Clearly, circuit boards are a liability, because they can't be replaced easily. This is the same reason some people avoid Hexar RFs.
My response (except for the first line) was mostly towards at other responses in this thread which were about film vs. digital in terms of cost. Your thread's title was pretty much asking for that kind of discussion, so you shouldn't be surprisedThe LC1's place in the digital world is not quite as high as that of a Leica in the film world. It's more comparable to a non-big-2 pro-sumer film SLR.
Last edited:
yanidel
Well-known
I don't understand your point then. You say $700 is too expensive too fix and you are staying with film. What most say in this thread is that film will cost you more than $700 during the corresponding lifecycle of that digital camera. This is not a film vs digital in terms of quality or preference kind of answers.I give up. I'm talking about MY particular situation, not a general cost comparison of film vs digital! I should have known better to open my big mouth on RFF these days...
To summarize: I paid less than $500 for a camera that I hardly used in less than two years. I will have to pay more than $700 to repair it and it has a resale value of less than $500. It's too nice a camera just to chuck in the bin and this upsets me. If it was a film camera of the same quality (ie Leica) it would probably retain its value and be worth the money to fix. The end.
IGMeanwell
Well-known
I think Sam N is correct
This has less to do with the fact that your camera is a digital and more a comment on Panasonic; especially with the quoted price for the new circuit board
With electronics comes the increasing instability as it ages, no matter if you use your Panasonic or a Yashica T4 .... the big difference is in the cost of the replacement part(s)
So perhaps this is more an argument of electronic vs. mechanical
This has less to do with the fact that your camera is a digital and more a comment on Panasonic; especially with the quoted price for the new circuit board
With electronics comes the increasing instability as it ages, no matter if you use your Panasonic or a Yashica T4 .... the big difference is in the cost of the replacement part(s)
So perhaps this is more an argument of electronic vs. mechanical
Sparrow
Veteran
The meter hasn’t worked on my om1 for 30years, and I’ve only had it a little over 40……..now that’s what ya call unreliable
S
Socke
Guest
The meter hasn’t worked on my om1 for 30years, and I’ve only had it a little over 40……..now that’s what ya call unreliable
But consistent at least
Better use a well known workaround than fiddling with a fix which might turn up other problems.
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
I totally agree with him. If you're in business as a photographer ( esp. using digi) you should factor in the need for upgrading your camera bodies every two/three years. In which time the value of the old ones make it barely worthwhile selling, its easier to keep them as back-ups to your back-up. I still use an old D1H when on holiday or if I'm on the street but want the flexibility of digital....I get some odd looks from people with a mix of M6 and D1H, but hey...whatever works for me.
photogdave
Shops local
I can see the point that is being made that my argument can apply equally to a film-based electronic camera as to a digital. However the fact is the camera that broke IS digital and I think it's an inherent problem with digital cameras that to fix them outweighs the replacement cost.
I could see this applying to some film cameras but it would be the exception, not the rule. If the LC1 was a film camera I would probably fix it because I could put whatever film I wanted in it and enjoy it for years to come. Unfortunately it's a nicely designed camera body with a fantastic lens that houses four-year-old technology that is quite out of date. Fantastic image quality at 100 ISO, useless above that.
As far as "staying with film", I've already said I shot much more film while using the LC1 anyway and am looking at an Olympus DSLR for an upcoming trip. My Leica CL will be on that trip too. It cost me half its value to repair and was worth every penny!
I could see this applying to some film cameras but it would be the exception, not the rule. If the LC1 was a film camera I would probably fix it because I could put whatever film I wanted in it and enjoy it for years to come. Unfortunately it's a nicely designed camera body with a fantastic lens that houses four-year-old technology that is quite out of date. Fantastic image quality at 100 ISO, useless above that.
As far as "staying with film", I've already said I shot much more film while using the LC1 anyway and am looking at an Olympus DSLR for an upcoming trip. My Leica CL will be on that trip too. It cost me half its value to repair and was worth every penny!