Cost of digital vs film

B

biggambi

Vivere!
Local time
9:48 AM
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
134
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?
 
I think this is more viable as digital technology has matured. When the M8 came out we were all clamouring for a full frame version and it really wasn't all that long in coming and the M9 has sufficient image quality to keep most shooters happy for many years.

My D700 which is now four years old is also a mature camera which will probably serve me for at least another couple of years with little point in upgrading because I really wouldn't gain much in image quality.

A decent full frame digital can now be a camera for the future for many years and this is where digital has finally become a viable alternative to film regarding costs over an extended period.
 
I have to agree with Keith. Its only recently that full frame digital has matured to the point where it is stable enough to justify* the long term purchase model.
I'd have to add though, that I shoot a lot more frames with digital, for roughly the same number of keepers, about 3-4 times more in my case, so its not really 14k actuations, its more like 50k.
I'd prefer to liken it in terms of time rather than frames. For me to shoot 14k frames of film, it'd take about 9 years (1 roll/week on average). So relating back to Keith's point, its only very recently that I'd consider keeping a digital camera for 9 years, maturity to that point is a new phenomena, but one I look forward to. I think as many others do, that we're pretty much at the "last camera" for a lot of people, where upgrading isn't important, and you only need to buy a new body if you break the old one.

But... I can get cheaper film if funds are tight, but not so with digital.

*we don't really need to justify it do we?!

Michael
 
To complete the analysis the cost of a computer and software necessary to process raw files should be calculated as well. Unless you are going for jpegs in which case why would you need a high end camera, such as any of the new Leica M's, to produce them?
 
right now i am going through my 100' bulk of tmax at around 64dollars
that's around 3.2 per roll
1 roll takes around 2-4weeks to finish, so that's 3.2/month or 6.4/month

i bought a coolscan iv for 250 recently, developer solution $25 every 10rolls

assume the next feasible FF will be around 2500
2500 = 250+(6.4+2.5)x

according to my fussy math that's around 250months before breaking 2500

even if i were to go crazy and shoot 1roll a week, that's still 125months to break even, then if we factor in any leica CLA fetish and 2nd body, (say, a hexar rf, m7 or m6), we could go down to 60months and that's still 5 years worth to BE.

now let's assume my FF camera breaks every 5years or new tech that urges me to upgrade... breakeven at infinity :)

one could argue if my scanner breaks, sure but let's not complicate the math here and allow myself to feel good
 
rpsawin said:
To complete the analysis the cost of a computer and software necessary to process raw files should be calculated as well. Unless you are going for jpegs in which case why would you need a high end camera, such as any of the new Leica M's, to produce them?
Click to expand...

I'll bet there aren't any film shooters here who don't also own a computer though.
 
I used to work in Government, doing costing work. Give me any position and I can come up with a set of assumptions and numbers to prove whatever you want. :)
 
Chris101 said:
I'll bet there aren't any film shooters here who don't also own a computer though.
Click to expand...

This may be or may be not so. Film shooter can have older lightweight hardware sufficient enogh for web browsing and such, but not comfortable (or even not suitable) for CPU intensive image processing. Add here more or less good display, too.

Compared to expensive digital cameras this isn't biggest expense, to be true, but lets count all beans.
 
With a digital camera, the expected lifetime = warranty duration. Once the warranty is over, you own something, which from one day to the next can become a paperweight. Therefore, ponder the idea of paying to extend the warranty. Buying a second hand digital camera past the warranty period is like buying lottery tickets. The only digital camera I have ever owned, died peacefully in sleep...
 
Don't forget the cost (and quality, or lack of) prints if you must view Photography as a financial rather than an aesthetic exercise... or are you basically saying digital photography is for people with no money?

Personally I have never found any type of photography to be particularly cheap... and if you are looking at a new Leica then money should not be an issue either way.
 
btgc said:
Film shooter can have older lightweight hardware sufficient enogh for web browsing and such, but not comfortable (or even not suitable) for CPU intensive image processing. Add here more or less good display, too.
Click to expand...


Yep ..that`ll be me .
My six year old Vio isn`t the fastest thing around. :)
 
Ah ...good I am not alone :)
Seriously though I think its a contributing factor.

I bought a new GRD 4 in June and have just sent it back.
Didn`t like the files and found it difficult to work on them to the extent that they seem to require with my current PC and software (PSE 6).
I may be wrong but it seems to me that the latest sensors need more post work than earlier ones although I`ve never seen this discussed.

I sure lack of skills was a contributing factor too :(
 
btgc said:
my desktop is about ten years old, matching age of my istD :)
Click to expand...

Michael Markey said:
Ah ...good I am not alone :)
Seriously though I think its a contributing factor.

I bought a new GRD 4 in June and have just sent it back.
Didn`t like the files and found it difficult to work on them to the extent that they seem to require with my current PC and software (PSE 6).
I may be wrong but it seems to me that the latest sensors need more post work than earlier ones although I`ve never seen this discussed.

I sure lack of skills was a contributing factor too :(
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you guys (and probably RFF in general) are outliers. A very common (I don't have the data to say "most" common but I suspect it is) way to shoot film, is to scan the negatives.

Should we add the cost of a scanner AND a computer to the price tag of a film set up?
 
Sejanus.Aelianus said:
It's always seemed to me that discussions of this nature simply come down to comparing the fuel economy of apples with the maximum speed of oranges.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Don't be ridiculous.





You forgot the most important variable, though...






















are they African oranges or European oranges?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom