noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
Good points.
Digital is quicker than film. It produces prints that are sharper than film. Those are the only two advantages of digital that I can think of.
Some claim that digital is "cheaper" than film because you don't have to buy rolls of film and chemicls to process them with. Hmmm...
I have serious doubts that digital is "cheaper" than film, particularly when you factor in the never-ending camera trades and upgrades that digital shooters do.
In the last ten years, I have purchased two cameras - a new in box Leica M4-P ($1400) [admittedly around 10% overpriced] and a Rollei 35SE ($350). I wonder how many cameras the average digital enthusiast/prosumer has purchased in the last ten years? I also wonder how many thousands of dollars they have spent on camera upgrades in the last ten years?
akptc
Shoot first, think later
In the words of Barney Stinson, "new is ALWAYS" better" 
Chris101
summicronia
Let's see, Nikon 950 - $1000, Nikon D100 - $2000, Logitech QuickCam - $300 (for 2 cameras), Olympus D-100 $125 (present for mother), Canon A1200 - $100 (present for daughter), Nikon D2x - $1000, Lytro - $400, iPod - $300, Nikon D700 - $2500. Totals to $5025 since 1994. I'm thinking that's on the low side, works out to about five bucks a week.
I shoot that much in film easy.
lynnb
Veteran
While digital technology is still maturing it may make sense to upgrade if the improvements make a significant difference to your picture-taking. An example is street shooting in low light where low noise high iso improvements have been significant. Also improvements in focus speed and accuracy, particularly in low light. In this situation I see the upgrade cycle as a form of rental rather than ownership: buy each new model on release and sell the old one quickly before it depreciates too much. Probably much the same as renting in cost terms.
When improvements are significant with each new model there is a disincentive to hold on to older camera bodies as they depreciate so quickly, even though they are capable tools. Given the fast depreciation I wonder if it actually cost less over the long term to buy and sell with each new digital model than to hold on to one body and see it virtually worthless when you want to replace it?
This will change when the technology gets "good enough" (which seems to be starting to happen now) - most people will see no advantage to upgrading their digital bodies.
Personally I'd rather spend more time thinking about taking good pictures than the latest tech!
Film camera technology reached a mature, good enough stage decades ago.
When improvements are significant with each new model there is a disincentive to hold on to older camera bodies as they depreciate so quickly, even though they are capable tools. Given the fast depreciation I wonder if it actually cost less over the long term to buy and sell with each new digital model than to hold on to one body and see it virtually worthless when you want to replace it?
This will change when the technology gets "good enough" (which seems to be starting to happen now) - most people will see no advantage to upgrading their digital bodies.
Personally I'd rather spend more time thinking about taking good pictures than the latest tech!
Film camera technology reached a mature, good enough stage decades ago.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I was totally silly today. Purchased used DR timer for $7, 8x10 Kentmere photo paper for $70 and passed by digital sections without any interest.
New toys are for regular boys. Old ones are for silly boys!
New toys are for regular boys. Old ones are for silly boys!
sleepyhead
Well-known
The cost of digital also includes regularly upgrading computers, software, screens, storage space, and back-up solutions.
willie_901
Veteran
I believe we are in a transitional period where the rate of improvement in sensor technology is leveling off. This means the reward for spending money on a new model is smaller than it was two or three years ago.
Of course there will be improvements down the road. For some people theses improvements will be vital to their work and livelihood. I can see how people who regularly make very large prints will benefit from an upgrade test doubles pixel density. I can see how people with a large collection of M/LTM lenses will benefit by having a diverse choice of brands that perform well with these lenses. But most of us can do everything we need to do with what we have on hand. Spending a lot of money for relatively small improvements in performance isn't worth it unless the benefit is truly significant.
I had a busy fall season and realized I had the funds to upgrade my D700 bodies. But for the work they do, the improvements are not worth the cost. So I upgraded my lighting equipment and post processing software instead. I have a friend who bought every major new prosumer Nikon DSLR as soon as they were released. He has upgraded at least every two years for a long time. I saw him the other day and asked him to stop by so I could play with the new Df I assumed he was picking up this week. He told me he thought about it but realized his D700 really didn't need replacement. He knew the Df was better but he didn't care because the D700 was the first camera he owned that completely met his needs. Of course other brands and camera systems are no different. All the brands and systems are very good at what they do. We have our pick of numerous high performance cameras with outstanding dynamic range and signal to noise ratios. This was not the case just four or five years ago.
Still, the upgrade habit is hard to break. For a couple of hours last weekend I considered ordering a new XE-2 body. But I realized there was no real need. While the XE-2 is an improvement over the XE-1, the impact on my work would not be worth the money. In my case I t would be much better to spend that money at the lab for decent sized prints... and this is what I plan to do. This year I went from two XF lenses, to five. So I also spent money on lenses instead of the latest and greatest body. And I certainly not motivated at all to switch systems.
So lenses are another story. Experimenting with off-camera lighting, gradient ND filters, or other new methods could be more productive than chasing more megapixels or one more stop of dynamic range or signal to noise ratio.
Of course there will be improvements down the road. For some people theses improvements will be vital to their work and livelihood. I can see how people who regularly make very large prints will benefit from an upgrade test doubles pixel density. I can see how people with a large collection of M/LTM lenses will benefit by having a diverse choice of brands that perform well with these lenses. But most of us can do everything we need to do with what we have on hand. Spending a lot of money for relatively small improvements in performance isn't worth it unless the benefit is truly significant.
I had a busy fall season and realized I had the funds to upgrade my D700 bodies. But for the work they do, the improvements are not worth the cost. So I upgraded my lighting equipment and post processing software instead. I have a friend who bought every major new prosumer Nikon DSLR as soon as they were released. He has upgraded at least every two years for a long time. I saw him the other day and asked him to stop by so I could play with the new Df I assumed he was picking up this week. He told me he thought about it but realized his D700 really didn't need replacement. He knew the Df was better but he didn't care because the D700 was the first camera he owned that completely met his needs. Of course other brands and camera systems are no different. All the brands and systems are very good at what they do. We have our pick of numerous high performance cameras with outstanding dynamic range and signal to noise ratios. This was not the case just four or five years ago.
Still, the upgrade habit is hard to break. For a couple of hours last weekend I considered ordering a new XE-2 body. But I realized there was no real need. While the XE-2 is an improvement over the XE-1, the impact on my work would not be worth the money. In my case I t would be much better to spend that money at the lab for decent sized prints... and this is what I plan to do. This year I went from two XF lenses, to five. So I also spent money on lenses instead of the latest and greatest body. And I certainly not motivated at all to switch systems.
So lenses are another story. Experimenting with off-camera lighting, gradient ND filters, or other new methods could be more productive than chasing more megapixels or one more stop of dynamic range or signal to noise ratio.
mfogiel
Veteran
It means, that you should not buy any digital camera, unless it satisfies perfectly your requirements, and in case you find one that does, you should not "upgrade" every six months, but use it till it breaks, throw it away, and buy a new one, as most likely it will be cheaper, than paying for a repair.
Rangefinderfreak
Well-known
I also was exited about everything "new", had the D4, the CFV for hassy. read thru many pages of instructions ( the worst was nokia N 97... 158 pages of "instructions"...) Then I looked at my B&W images that I had in my portofolio box... in 1968 when I got my first leica, a black M2... wow ! IT WAS ALL THERE !!. I don`t want anything else of my camera: Small, fits in my army jacket pocket, some 400 iso film in the other pocket, works everytime I push the button, produces negatives to my liking when I put one of those films in the chamber, develop it in Acufine...- Ok I scan the negatives, but also print them when I have some extra time. Now when I am retired, I got rid of ( almost) all of the digitals, yes... I have the M8. It produces also B&W images, no scanner necessary, but for prints, it is definitely the film negatives... I have three leica M bodies, enough for me now...
Digital cameras are not meant to last forever (like any other computer). If you photograph a lot, then the depreciation should be countered by the fact that you don't have to buy film to use it. The best way to deal with digital these days is to buy a camera 1-2 years after it was released. This allows you to spend half as much cash compared to new and get a camera that isn't really outdated.
oftheherd
Veteran
Sorry, sounds like a film vs digital debate. Certainly in the answers. I have a digital P&S. Other than that I still prefer film. That's just me. Nobody else has to feel that way, nor justify their preference to me.
RichC
Well-known
Digital camera sensor technology is levelling off with regard to image quality. I have a Nikon D800E, and I can't think of any technological innovations that will make me upgrade. It has a resolution and dynamic range that slaughters 35mm film and approaches medium format film. (I still prefer the look of film, and shoot Portra with my Mamiya 645 when I don't need the speed and convenience of digital.)
In short, I'll keep using the Nikon until it stops working or I lose it!
There's no need to stay on the upgrade treadmill if you don't require new fe atures.
In short, I'll keep using the Nikon until it stops working or I lose it!
There's no need to stay on the upgrade treadmill if you don't require new fe atures.
The cost of film is a darkroom (enlargers, trays, easel,
chemicals, space, timers, safe light, etc.) as well as film and paper. You also have to have storage for physical negs too... a good cabinet, binders, neg sleeves, etc.
Neither film or digital are particularly cheap.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Or...
Neither film nor digital are particularly expensive.
It depends on how much time you spend on it.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
I think it depends on an individual's resources. What an American banker considers inexpensive will be an unatainable luxury for a factory worker in India.
Margu
Established
spending money on something tangible, a camera, which can be sold later on is not silly, when it comes to silly things in photography, paying thousands for workshops takes the cake. that is closely followed by using gimp or other silly software and finally, shooting jpg only.