Cost of digital vs film

Don't forget to allow for interest cost on the purchase price of the digital body. If you shoot slowly then the interest on the more expensive body will exceed the run rate of film processing.
 
sojournerphoto said:
Don't forget to allow for interest cost on the purchase price of the digital body. If you shoot slowly then the interest on the more expensive body will exceed the run rate of film processing.
Click to expand...

You meant to say- shooting with slow shutter speed? ;)

Pretty strange discussion.
If you are pro, you count everything anyway.
If you doing it for fun, why count at all?
 
Chris101 said:
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?
Click to expand...

True enough .
The reality is that I don`t really bother about any of this and just use what I feel like using.
 
how much do you shoot?

how much do you shoot?

I find it difficult to calculate how much I shoot. I made some 20 or 30 rolls only in the last year (lack of opportunity; job & family)

When moving from analog to digital, I took much more pictures than before because they were "for free". Mostly probably also because I had kids and took every shot 5 times to select later. My D700 now has around 18.000 in 4 years, this is 5 times more.

Those who calculate their digital shots in film costs run the wrong way. On film, one has to think more and shoot less.

The decision should be if one wants (and has the opportunity) to think more and select before the shot. Then, any film camera is cheaper.

(My best time was with the 4x5" field camera).
 
Sejanus.Aelianus said:
Good question. Do Israeli oranges count as African or European? And does it matter if they have the go faster stickers installed?
Click to expand...

Israeli oranges are Asian oranges. ;-)

Interesting to compare though.

Interestingly have found difficulties finding compatible cards for an older Pentax dslr so I can foresee difficulties with a ten year lifespan for a digital camera. And longevity of previous cams is no guide as newer versions have finer circuits with greater fragility. Advice here is to avoid electronic film cams like Hexar RF (10-14 years old) so what advice on a Leica M digital in 10 years?
 
ChrisN said:
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. :)
Click to expand...
Dear Chris,

Quite. Forty years ago I was articled to a firm of chartered accountants for six months and even on that scanty basis I'm sure I could do the same sort of thing even today.

Those who assume that professional photographers always do careful and rigorous cost-benefit analyses are however wrong. Sure, you buy the camera that will do the job -- but you also buy the camera you like using, not least because you know it will get you better pictures because you'll be happier using it. You may also decide to buy a better camera than you strictly need, for those occasions when you may need better quality than most of the stuff you shoot.

Cheers,

R.
 
biggambi said:
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?
Click to expand...

Why do you have to have a Leica to enjoy your hobby? If I quit taking pictures due to what I would like to have then I would think I need a new hobby.
There are many cameras you can use and use your Leica lenses on and to be honest some of the newer ones might actually give a nice new M a run for its money.
Not to be harsh but you are looking at it from the wrong angle. Digital isn't just about saving money on film and processing it's about convenience and flexibility. RAW files are very versatile. Much more so than film unless you have one heck of a darkroom.
Modern digital lenses are also miles ahead than in the past. Maybe not Leica quality. Even today's kit lenses produce very good pictures.
You could pick up one heck of a digital camera for less than the cost of one Leica lens.
 
With film, my old PC is capable to run scanner software but when I start processing RAWs from digital cameras, it's clear some beefier hardware is knocking at my door. GIMP for .jpeg's I scan is fast enough but I think modern processing suites aren't that humble to CPU cycles and memory. Yet they cost more money. Sure, one is free to use manufacturer supplied RAW processor but then I see lots of people pay on top of camera for third party RAW processors and image editors.

I am not suggesting either route is cheaper, just keep in mind true digital route is more demanding to computer and software (licences), applying also to hardcore digifilm users not happy with low end solutions. OK, one can take OOC jpegs from $1000+ camera to digital kiosk and edit them there...but is it going to happen?

Hobbies do cost money and especially, time - even if it's chess or meditation. Reading books also costs. If they wouldn't that would be just another....activity? Any better way to name it?
 
cosmonaut said:
Why do you have to have a Leica to enjoy your hobby? If I quit taking pictures due to what I would like to have then I would think I need a new hobby.
There are many cameras you can use and use your Leica lenses on and to be honest some of the newer ones might actually give a nice new M a run for its money.
Not to be harsh but you are looking at it from the wrong angle. Digital isn't just about saving money on film and processing it's about convenience and flexibility. RAW files are very versatile. Much more so than film unless you have one heck of a darkroom.
Modern digital lenses are also miles ahead than in the past. Maybe not Leica quality. Even today's kit lenses produce very good pictures.
You could pick up one heck of a digital camera for less than the cost of one Leica lens.
Click to expand...
Highlight 1: Why do you "need" any hobby at all?

Highlight 2: Hardly. Name another full-frame digital camera that tales Leica lenses.

Highlight 3: Pretty much any darkroom will do, as developing and printing tends to depend on skill rather than equipment. You can find more than adequate equipment for next to nothing.

Highlight 4: Yes, if you want to shoot using a cigarette packet with a fixed slow zoom on the front.

Cheers,

R.
 
Ansel said:
LOL. Yes, I think the OP may really be at the heart of the matter just looking to justify a new toy purchase..
Click to expand...

Actually, as I state I already own Leica lenses and I chose this system because of how it relates to my photographic experience. It is a system that feels best to me. I own several Leica lenses, an M6, and an M8 that just was damaged. It is beyond repair. I have replaced it with an M240. I shoot a lot and it is actually a very fair cost comparative for me. I also sell my work in a couple of galleries and I will recoup my equipment and travel costs.

Your camera may only be a toy, or you may just enjoy being flip. But, do not make a false assumption that others are of the same ilk.
 
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136824

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136824

i use both film and digital.
i think film is better and safer..
Recently a memory drive could not be opened.
Film is probably good for a very long time..
One shoots film totally different from digital.
The viewfinders are usually better on older cameras..
The newer digital cameras all require a photoshop of some sort!
The Leica really only shoots Raw.
i use point and shoot digitals.JPEG only.
Last roll in Rolleiflex took 2 months..10 keepers/12
Last roll 220 film in Rolleiflex took 18 months.23 keepers/24.
Any event in digital a few hundred..Editing a real pain.
Reason one cannot really see what will be delivered on monitor..
It makes no difference if it's a Leica M digital(i have used),
or a lousy porroflex DSLR from most makes.
The EVIL finder, aptly named.
A tragedy added to already poor concepts of design and construction.
One make the numbers positive as an investment in digital.
Or one can be realistic. The great bank failure or green economy.
would i buy a Leica digital? No. Reason need to do RAW.
i am streamlining the remainder of my life,
needless complexities are gone.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Highlight 1: Why do you "need" any hobby at all?

Highlight 2: Hardly. Name another full-frame digital camera that tales Leica lenses.

Highlight 3: Pretty much any darkroom will do, as developing and printing tends to depend on skill rather than equipment. You can find more than adequate equipment for next to nothing.

Highlight 4: Yes, if you want to shoot using a cigarette packet with a fixed slow zoom on the front.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. I tire of people trying to equate other equipment with the same experience. Or, the old song of it is being purchased for reasons other than what it offers as a photographic tool. Are there other tools available? Of course there are, but I choose this one for personal reasons that have nothing to do with it being a brand. It is and has been a unique tool that fits my use and needs in the best manner. Leica makes one of the finest mechanical instruments in the industry and to use it is a pleasure. Other equipment may produce the same quality or even better images. It does not matter to me. I choose a range finder over large format and SLR cameras for personal reasons. No further justification is necessary.
 
leicapixie said:
i use both film and digital.
i think film is better and safer..
Recently a memory drive could not be opened.
Film is probably good for a very long time..
One shoots film totally different from digital.
The viewfinders are usually better on older cameras..
The newer digital cameras all require a photoshop of some sort!
The Leica really only shoots Raw.
i use point and shoot digitals.JPEG only.
Last roll in Rolleiflex took 2 months..10 keepers/12
Last roll 220 film in Rolleiflex took 18 months.23 keepers/24.
Any event in digital a few hundred..Editing a real pain.
Reason one cannot really see what will be delivered on monitor..
It makes no difference if it's a Leica M digital(i have used),
or a lousy porroflex DSLR from most makes.
The EVIL finder, aptly named.
A tragedy added to already poor concepts of design and construction.
One make the numbers positive as an investment in digital.
Or one can be realistic. The great bank failure or green economy.
would i buy a Leica digital? No. Reason need to do RAW.
i am streamlining the remainder of my life,
needless complexities are gone.
Click to expand...

I grew up shooting Kodachrome. I think it taught me about light and composition in a way that digital never would have. I can only base this on my experience with both systems. I have to agree about archival issues. I still enjoy sitting and looking at my slides projected onto a screen. Their images are wonderful. I do like the digital work flow but this is strictly personal.
 
But, do not make a false assumption that others are of the same ilk.
Click to expand...

So you're one of those people who use both the economical Cox's Pippen and and the high speed Cara Cara?

Excellent! Variety is definitely the spice of life. :D
 
biggambi said:
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?
Click to expand...

In support of the OP and to stay on topic , we're the OP making the choice today it would be between a new M7 and a new M240 ( about $3k) so the price gap is closed at about 7000 actuations based on his calculations.
Depending on the type of photographer you are this could be easily reached in a year or two
 
biggambi said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think we can agree that even the best digital cameras aren't made to last several decades and be passed from father to son, are they? Not that they will necessarily stop working and be impossible to repair, but at some point their technology will likely feel outdated compared to newer products, and we'll probably want to move on anyway (GAS will help for sure). Repair of a broken shutter, sensor or LCD in a Leica M9 doesn't get cheaper just because there is now a new digital M on the market. I have a feeling that if most M9 users would have accepted to have their shutter, or display or sensor replaced when the camera was 1 year old, many fewer would when their M9 is 10 years, the repair cost being almost the same. At that point they'll face a new major investment if their ambition was to replace a former state-of-the-art digital M with a current model (right now, a 240).

This prologue and a few arguable assumptions lead me to think that if my economy is such that buying a new digital M is a major effort, I need to consider that its cost pr. image won't go to zero after any number of images, no matter how high, as a new major investment may be unavoidable (or feel like a smarter option) in 5, 10 or whatever number of years.

Replacing my old M6 with another film camera in mint conditions, if necessary at all within my life span, is much less likely to be a major effort. At least as long as the used market is full of treasures and as long as they make some new film cameras that cost a fraction of the high end digital equivalent. But I do accept that my assumptions are arguable and I may be missing something.
 
Andrea Taurisano said:
I think we can agree that even the best digital cameras aren't made to last several decades and be passed from father to son, are they? Not that they will necessarily stop working and be impossible to repair, but at some point their technology will likely feel outdated compared to newer products, and we'll probably want to move on anyway (GAS will help for sure). Repair of a broken shutter, sensor or LCD in a Leica M9 doesn't get cheaper just because there is now a new digital M on the market. I have a feeling that if most M9 users would have accepted to have their shutter, or display or sensor replaced when the camera was 1 year old, many fewer would when their M9 is 10 years, the repair cost being almost the same. At that point they'll face a new major investment if their ambition was to replace a former state-of-the-art digital M with a current model (right now, a 240).

This prologue and a few arguable assumptions lead me to think that if my economy is such that buying a new digital M is a major effort, I need to consider that its cost pr. image won't go to zero after any number of images, no matter how high, as a new major investment may be unavoidable (or feel like a smarter option) in 5, 10 or whatever number of years.

Replacing my old M6 with another film camera in mint conditions, if necessary at all within my life span, is much less likely to be a major effort. At least as long as the used market is full of treasures and as long as they make some new film cameras that cost a fraction of the high end digital equivalent. But I do accept that my assumptions are arguable and I may be missing something.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Highlight 1: Why do you "need" any hobby at all?

Highlight 2: Hardly. Name another full-frame digital camera that tales Leica lenses.

Highlight 3: Pretty much any darkroom will do, as developing and printing tends to depend on skill rather than equipment. You can find more than adequate equipment for next to nothing.

Highlight 4: Yes, if you want to shoot using a cigarette packet with a fixed slow zoom on the front.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Sony is about to release a full frame NEX I imagine the image quality will surpass anything Leica has on the market and probably at half the cost.
I love Leica don't get me wrong. But not going digital just because one can't afford a digital Leica is silly. There are far to many options out there.
Lightroom 5 will edit any RAW file on the market for the cost of a good enlarger lens.
I want a medium format digital but setting back on an old Mamiya 645 or nothing would be wasting a lot of my time waiting on something I may never can afford. But to each his own and it's the OPs choice to stay where he is at or try something new.
 
Roger Hicks said:
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.

R.
Click to expand...

I don't ignore this fact. I even agree with it, but I doubt that very many digital shooters stick to their cameras for much longer than the time it takes to "free"them. I have of course no reason to doubt that you will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom