Cost of digital vs film

[Photo_Smith]

after the equivalent of 550 rolls the M-E is effectively free..

For me that would be about 10-15 years of colour film shooting. At that rate you'll need to shoot 10 shots a day based on 550 rolls=20,000 frames and five years being 1825 days.
If you shoot B&W and process yourself or buy consumer C41 the amount is much less attractive, I shoot 100 or so films a year with costs of less than £500—but it's not about that really is it?

Point being the ME is not 'effectively free' unless you shoot lots of images, and upfront costs of £4250 (body only as I'm presuming users already have film cameras and lenses) is a difficult cost to swallow for a hobby photographer. On the other hand give up smoking/drinking/having fun and the £3.00 a day over five years doesn't seem much... 🙂

 

[willie_901]

In his post biggambi raises a valid question and asks for advice on an issue very important to him. I disagree with Ansel's suggestion that biggambi is simply asking for gratuitous justification for a "new toy".

It seems biggambi does a significant amount of color work as he used transparency film for cost comparison. I assume he also has a significant investment in Leica lenses.

Since the initial cost is a concern I think biggambi should purchase a new M9. There are a few out there, but I am not sure you can buy one at a Leica dealer. With a used M9 body from reputable dealer in hand, biggambi could conservatively the cost savings compared to a M240 and have funds set aside for expensive repairs he may never need. The M9 would be effective at the light levels biggambi is use to using with transparency film aand hi M8.

If a used camera really is unacceptable, eventually the initial M240 cost will be recovered by funds not spent on film. Since he uses a M8, biggambi already has computer resources for digital photography. If he decides to upgrade his computer system, then the film cost vs. digital cost balance changes. But film costs will increase over time.

Most people do not put a monetary value on their time. However time is is priceless. It is possible biggambi will benefit from a more efficient workflow using only digital bodies.

If biggambi sells his Leica film bodies his initial capital outlay will be reduced. While some have emotional attachments to their Leica film bodies, it also valid to think of them simply as tools to achieve our goals. If he truly misses working with film, acquiring another Leica body and having CLA'd is a practical option. Unlike many consumer items, a used Leica film body can be as reliable as a new one after a CLA/repair.

 

[Ronald M]

What i like about digital once ownership of a digital body is attained, is the long term cost. If I do the comparative calculations as to cost of actuations on a digital camera vs a film camera. It seems the cost of a Leica M240 is roughly zeroed out at 14k. As it becomes equal to the cost of the slide film and processing. I am using a current 2013 Fujichrome price with processing as being about 54 cents per picture. You may find better pricing or worse, but it really does not matter. The point is at some point the digital body is paid for in pictures taken, after which ownership of digital decreases in cost compared to film. Different digital cameras will of course reach this at different ratios. I shoot enough that this actually happened with my M8.

The difficult lies in that first bit, attainment. It just is financially more difficult to come up with the initial cost in digital. If I did not already have my Leica lenses, I do not know that I would ever be able to shoot with a Leica M. Film allowed the cost to be dispersed over a period of time and allowed for the money to go towards lenses. I drifted to the range finder a long time ago, as I liked the relationship I had with the process better than an SLR. I think this is much more difficult to do now if you are not of financial means. I am not wealthy, and the purchase of a digital M body requires a great deal of sacrifice for me. I do so willingly as I it brings me joy. But, I do not appreciate the brutal up front cost.

Now before you go and start talking about buy a used digital M. I am just going to say I began with a new film body upon starting down the Leica road. I am going to use this as my starting point of entering into Leica in the digital age. I wonder if anyone else has thoughts about this and how it has shaped the future of their Leica ownership?

How many of us have shot 14000 slides ?

Digital is fun, instant gratification. I have many. It is not cheaper unless you do many thousand images that you wou;d have made with slides ANYWAY.

Certainly I know a sports guy who has 500,000 on a camera and it is still going strong. Wedding guys who overshoot. But not most of us.

To me as a low volume amateur is my computer darkroom and the prolab extension that makes perfect prints if I send a perfect file.

 

[Turtle]

This isn't all about numbers. If photography were, there would be no difficult decisions to be made.

Cameras are tools and as such, preferences are highly subjective and do not have to be rational, but they matter.

I've tried out the X100 (this one I own), X-Pro, X-E1, many DSLRs and quite a few mirrorless cameras, but the reality is that shooting with my digital M is a very different (and preferable) experience. And yes, I can see it in the pictures, just as I could with my film Ms. I did not want to spend a small fortune on it, but did in the end because it became painfully obvious that I gel better with Leica Ms than anything else.

If a person believes they shoot best with a Leica M, maybe they are delusional and wasting money. However, maybe they are right.

You can quantify break even points and compare costs of one system vs another, but only the photographer knows which he works most effectively with. No number of 'cheap' photos are any use if they aren't very good.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

You can quantify break even points and compare costs of one system vs another, but only the photographer knows which he works most effectively with.

Spot on. 🙂

 

[Ansel]

Personally I find the entire premise of worrying about film costs when you are considering dropping $10,000 on a digital camera somewhat pointless.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Personally I find the entire premise of worrying about film costs when you are considering dropping $10,000 on a digital camera somewhat pointless.

Personally I don't. Would you care to explain your point at greater length?

Come to think of it, this is EXACTLY why digital has taken over to such a great extent in professional photography. Well, that and speed.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Pioneer]

Now before you go and start talking about buy a used digital M. I am just going to say I began with a new film body upon starting down the Leica road. I am going to use this as my starting point of entering into Leica in the digital age. I wonder if anyone else has thoughts about this and how it has shaped the future of their Leica ownership?

How has digital shaped my Leica ownership? In a nutshell it really has not changed it at all. I have always purchased Leica equipment as a long term investment in my photography. So far I still own and use all my Leica cameras and don't expect to sell them or have to buy another. They may need service occasionally, but I expect them to last me a very, very long time.

This is exactly how I look at my M9. There are lots of people who will say it is not possible, and they may turn out to be right. But I expect this camera to still be taking beautiful 18MP pictures 20 years from now. I posted it for sale a little bit ago but fortunately realized my mistake before it sold. Though I do prefer to use film, this really is not a film vs digital thing. There really is room for both, and this is the only digital camera I have ever owned that felt like my film cameras.

Save your money, buy your new digital Leica and enjoy it. Cost benefit calculations really aren't needed unless they make you feel better. Though it is certainly "brutally" expensive, if it is a tool you really enjoy working with then it is worthwhile saving for. If things work out you should not need to buy another real soon, if ever.

Now, if Pentax would just come out with a digital slr that worked like their LX...😀

 

[NLewis]

Ultimately it is a matter of taste. If you really want to shoot film, then shoot film, and don't worry about it. My BW 135 tends to cost about $10 per roll all-in, with another $2.50 per roll for pretty good scanning (I mostly scan myself). For fifty rolls a year, that's $500 which is really not too bad for this hobby. You could do it more cheaply by developing yourself.

I find that people spend as much as they want. For a lot of people it is about $3000 per year, which is about what it was in the days of film too. Now, they buy more gear, but it ends up around $3000 at the end of the day.

Of course, you can shoot more cheaply. In film, you could use a half-frame camera like the Olympus Pen F or just be more careful with film. In digital, you can use a point-and-shoot or an iPhone.

I shoot 6x7 on a Mamiya RZ67. You can shoot as much or as little film as you want with this. You can combine things like using a PS or iPhone for candid shots, and using medium format for "serious" stuff. The cost is about the same $10 per roll.

I've had many "photo outings" of two hours or so where I shoot maybe four frames of 6x7. It can take me six months to do ten rolls.

The question for the Leica M9 is whether you really want a Leica. Presumably the answer is yes, or you would be shooting a Fuji X100 ($650 these days) and not worrying about it. Then, the question is whether you would be happier with a film Leica like an M3 or whether you want digital. I went with an M2, because I find that 135 BW film does something for me that digital doesn't, even though it is a lo-res medium with about 8 effective megapixels in Acros 100 and maybe 4 effective megapixels in AP400. Either is fine for an 8x10. I use film where it is easy -- with plenty of light -- and an X100 for other stuff. I dropped pushing film, and super-speed lenses, and mostly shoot one stop slower than box speed if convenient.

 

[Bille]

What i like about digital once ownership of a digital body is attained, is the long term cost. If I do the comparative calculations as to cost of actuations on a digital camera vs a film camera. It seems the cost of a Leica M240 is roughly zeroed out at 14k. As it becomes equal to the cost of the slide film and processing. I am using a current 2013 Fujichrome price with processing as being about 54 cents per picture.

I always found the idea of calculating a "price per picture" awkward. You cant apply that sort of math to any creative discipline, be it painting, writing, music or photography.

 

[Godfrey]

Random Thoughts

• My film cameras have cost more in CLA service and repair work this year than all but the most expensive of my new digital cameras. Never mind the cost of film and processing.
  
• I bought my Olympus E-1 in late 2007-early 2008. I've made 13,000 exposures with it, some of which have won a couple of awards. I took advantage of "digital depreciation" to get this lovely $2000+ when new body for less than $300. I can still sell it for $220 or so. But there's no reason to as it is working perfectly and I still love to shoot with it.
  
• Polaroid film cameras tickle my fancy on many fronts. Three packs of film from The Impossible Project amount to 24 exposures and cost $78 (just bought three more packs today...)

Photography is an expensive pursuit. I don't think about what it's costing me very often. I just do what I can afford with the equipment I like to use and enjoy it.

G

 

[MIkhail]

This ignores a very simple truth, though. To keep the sums simple, I've rounded the numbers. An M-E is near enough $5500 US. If slide film costs $10 a roll, processed, then after the equivalent of 550 rolls the M-E is effectively free. By this criterion, both my M8 (since 2006) and M9 (since 2009) are "free" now.

And, of course, I'd still need a camera to shoot the film in...

Cheers,

R.

In my opinion, no digital can touch SLIDE film yet. I mean, sometimes, under certain condition... maybe... But consistently, no. And it is 15 bucks with development where I live. But given unlimited money growing on tree, thats all I would ever shoot...

 

[robbeiflex]

I always found the idea of calculating a "price per picture" awkward. You cant apply that sort of math to any creative discipline, be it painting, writing, music or photography.

I agree. My cost per frame with black and white developed at home is max 20 cents. My digital cost per frame is also in the same range.

The value I assign to the keepers: priceless, especially the really good ones of my beautiful bride and our two lovely daughters. The value I assign to the other (large number) of discards: worthless. This tends to make any such calculation nonsensical.

Cheers,
Rob

PS: as per the OP, I spend what I can spare on my hobby, and if/when I can spare M240 cash ( or next version, or the one after, etc.) then I'll have one. 🙂

 

[FrankS]

Cost be damned in the pursuit of passion, wherever your passion lies!
Film or digital, whatever. This isn't the kind of decision one should make based on cost! Find what works for you and never lower yourself in even attempting to justify. Just say: This is what i do, and this is how i do it.

Just my opinion.

 

[robbeiflex]

^ yes, but as I have little ones to shelter, feed, clothe, educate, etc. I also have to balance my pursuits against my budget. Not that I'm disagreeing with you., just that some of us have to account (and fund) our other priorities. 😉

 

[FrankS]

^ yes, but as I have little ones to shelter, feed, clothe, educate, etc. I also have to balance my pursuits against my budget. Not that I'm disagreeing with you., just that some of us have to account (and fund) our other priorities. 😉

That's totally part of the equation. One can do either film or digital with big bucks or with fewer bucks. But like I said, don't make the decision (film or digital) based on cost. Make it based on where your passion lies, then commit as much as is financially responsible if you have a family.

If you don't have a passion one way or the other then it really doesn't matter and photography is just a pastime.

Again, this is just my opinion and my bias which is commitment to a process/medium. YMMV

 

[Roger Hicks]

I always found the idea of calculating a "price per picture" awkward. You cant apply that sort of math to any creative discipline, be it painting, writing, music or photography.

You can, actually. Especially if you do it for a living. As I have done for the last few decades. Most of my painter friends would say the same thing: look at the price of a tube of real ultramarine, for example. Artists cut their coats to suit their cloth.

Cheers,

R.

 

[robbeiflex]

You can, actually. Especially if you do it for a living. As I have done for the last few decades. Most of my painter friends would say the same thing: look at the price of a tube of real ultramarine, for example. Artists cut their coats to suit their cloth.

Cheers,

R.

Roger, what I read from your post rather relates to a cost per work of art, usable editorial photo, etc., not a cost per shutter actuation. I guess it comes down to how each person defines "cost per picture". As a hobbyist I think of it in cost per keeper, as in family album pic, large print for grandparents, decent travel photo, etc. As a professional it should relate to the income you generate from a particular photo. For both of these reasons I find irrelevant any calculations based solely on the cost per number of times the shutter release button is pressed.

Cheers,
Rob

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, what I read from your post rather relates to a cost per work of art, usable editorial photo, etc., not a cost per shutter actuation. I guess it comes down to how each person defines "cost per picture". As a hobbyist I think of it in cost per keeper, as in family album pic, large print for grandparents, decent travel photo, etc. As a professional it should relate to the income you generate from a particular photo. For both of these reasons I find irrelevant any calculations based solely on the cost per number of times the shutter release button is pressed.

Cheers,
Rob

Dear Rob,

Fair point. But then, the number of shutter actuations and the number of keepers are related, if only loosely.

Cheers,

R.

 

[shadowfox]

What i like about digital once ownership of a digital body is attained, is the long term cost. If I do the comparative calculations as to cost of actuations on a digital camera vs a film camera. It seems the cost of a Leica M240 is roughly zeroed out at 14k. As it becomes equal to the cost of the slide film and processing. I am using a current 2013 Fujichrome price with processing as being about 54 cents per picture. You may find better pricing or worse, but it really does not matter.

This analysis is only true if you:
1. Consider no difference between digital process vs film
2. Consider no difference in the resulting image (I'm not just talking about quality)

For me, there is a significant difference in both aspects above. Therefore it's never about digital vs film when I consider the cost. Rather, I do what I must do to come up with the budget to do film photography because that's my priority.

I don't really care if digital cost me pennies while I have to save to fund consumables for my darkroom, because I like darkroom printing more than digital processes.