Cost of digital vs film

[peterm1]

For me cost is not really the deciding factor. I am not rich but I am middle class so have some $ to indulge my personal pursuits. For me I can only say that digital photogrpahy has made me a much more accomplished photographer. It has given me the luxury of being able to shoot more images and whats most important to me - to learn from this experience, day in day out. Some thing I could never do in film days as all too often half used films sat in cameras for weeks or even months before I could finish the roll to see what was on them. I still have a couple of film cameras but this more than anything is the factor preventing me from using them regularly.

Having said that you gotta admit that digital presents a pretty cool business model for the camera companies - if you can suck people (me included) into buying new cameras every year by adding new gadgets and doodads and software and by clever marketing, then that's about as good as it gets.

OK they tried to do it back in the old film days but most people bought less frequently and lets face it most money went into buying film day in day out week to week. For serious shooters at least.

One of the old camera selling inducement tricks that I really love was with two of the early Pentax cameras the S1 and the S1a (I think - from memory). The S1 itself was an upgrade in that it was a camera that had a maximum speed of 1/1000th of a second. Cool. So it was marketed as a camera for enthusiasts.

Then they decided that they needed to expand their market by having a cheaper camera model for shlubs who did not need such "high end" capabilities. So they took the same camera body, internals and all, changed the shutter speed dial to only have a maximum speed of 1/500th and sold it as a cheaper mass market model. It was cheaper to do this than to redesign the camera internally and have a new production line for it.

This camera still could be used at 1/1000th if you knew the trick - to turn the shutter speed dial one click beyond 1/500th to an unmarked position. Ahhhhh the power of marketing.

OK this is not exactly the same as selling the new camera to the same person who bought the first camera, but it does demonstrate well a creative solution to the problem that every camera maker has - unless they can sell another camera this year they are as good as out of business.

I try to manage my buying by never buying new (unless I really really cant help myself) and by waiting till the model is slightly out of date. Also by buying the best I can afford - my main cameras are a Leica M8 and a Nikon D700. I figure if I cant hang onto these cameras for several years then there is no hope for me at all.

 

[biomed]

Good usable film camera - $150 + film and development
New digital body and lens - $1.5K and up + associated computer, etc.
Enjoyment of photography - Priceless

Please no haggling over above dollar amounts. I just made them up.

Mike

 

[Vics]

Everybody I know in digi-photo has bought a new cam really often, for whatever reason. I've been shooting the same camera for eight years and have no plans to change, as the camera is a 1958 model and is not likely to give up soon.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

One of the old camera selling inducement tricks that I really love was with two of the early Pentax cameras the S1 and the S1a (I think - from memory). The S1 itself was an upgrade in that it was a camera that had a maximum speed of 1/1000th of a second. Cool. So it was marketed as a camera for enthusiasts.

The pair of cameras you're thinking of are the S1A and the SV. The SV was fitted with a "better" microprism spot, self timer (around the rewind knob) and the f1.8 lens in place of the f2.0. Oh yes, plus that all important engraving on the shutter dial.

I still have my SV and it's just a so much better camera than that cheap, amateur S1A...

 

[Roger Hicks]

The pair of cameras you're thinking of are the S1A and the SV. The SV was fitted with a "better" microprism spot, self timer (around the rewind knob) and the f1.8 lens in place of the f2.0. Oh yes, plus that all important engraving on the shutter dial.

I still have my SV and it's just a so much better camera than that cheap, amateur S1A...

Well, the SV microprism WAS a lot better. A second-hand SV was my first camera and when I first encountered the S1a I found it much harder to focus. The self-timer is neither here nor there for me but allegedly the f/1.8 was a better lens than an f/2. I don't know 'cos I've never had the f/2.

Cheers,

R.

 

[btgc]

Then they decided that they needed to expand their market by having a cheaper camera model for shlubs who did not need such "high end" capabilities. So they took the same camera body, internals and all, changed the shutter speed dial to only have a maximum speed of 1/500th and sold it as a cheaper mass market model. It was cheaper to do this than to redesign the camera internally and have a new production line for it.

Nowadays people do this by toying with firmware, gaining access to features present on more expensive models.

 

[peterm1]

Nowadays people do this by toying with firmware, gaining access to features present on more expensive models.

All too true, I fear!

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Well, the SV microprism WAS a lot better.

Fair cop, guv'nor.

I was exaggerating a little too much. I actually think the SV has the best screen of any screw mount Pentax I've owned. Neither the original Spotmatic nor the ES suited my (admittedly odd) eyes as well as the SV does.

 

[furbs]

Everybody I know in digi-photo has bought a new cam really often, for whatever reason. I've been shooting the same camera for eight years and have no plans to change, as the camera is a 1958 model and is not likely to give up soon.

This is why I don't see myself putting any more money into cameras; just film. The two cameras I use most are from 1959 and 1967, have recently received CLAs, and barring unforeseen circumstances, should keep my wallet safe for a good long while.