Snowbuzz
Well-known
So weird: just an observation I made today. The total number of digital images that I've got in my library since 2004 (not including medium / large format film scans) is about 12,000. I really don't shoot much, it seems. I abandoned 35mm film some years ago and digital took its place. My medium format and large format film systems remained intact. Now I thought this move would save me some expense (and hassle) but, um, 12,000 is the equivalent of 333 rolls of film. That's about $1666. US for film, not including processing which is close to zero for me as I do most of that myself.
When I think about all the money I've spent in that time for digital cameras, computers, software and digital upgrades....well.
I'm ashamed to say. Also, I swears I've spent 1/3rd of my life for those years obsessing over what digital camera I should get. Of course, I get some money back from selling the older cameras, but it's always at a huge loss.
Anyway, I thought digital cameras would make things simpler for me, but they haven't really. Kind of strange, huh? I just bought a Fuji X-E1 today to augment my M8 (naturally, I'm planning to upgrade that too) after, ahem, reading every article on the internet written about it and after viewing 151 million pictures taken with it. I could have been taking a lot of pictures in that time.
I must say, though, that digital pictures are really convenient to view right away. I also suspect that my digital camera life-cycle will get longer as camera development has matured.
So, um, yeah. Just a stream of consciousness thing here, no worries. BTW, what the hell is up with the Leica M (240) maximum bulb time of 60 seconds?!!
When I think about all the money I've spent in that time for digital cameras, computers, software and digital upgrades....well.
I'm ashamed to say. Also, I swears I've spent 1/3rd of my life for those years obsessing over what digital camera I should get. Of course, I get some money back from selling the older cameras, but it's always at a huge loss.Anyway, I thought digital cameras would make things simpler for me, but they haven't really. Kind of strange, huh? I just bought a Fuji X-E1 today to augment my M8 (naturally, I'm planning to upgrade that too) after, ahem, reading every article on the internet written about it and after viewing 151 million pictures taken with it. I could have been taking a lot of pictures in that time.
I must say, though, that digital pictures are really convenient to view right away. I also suspect that my digital camera life-cycle will get longer as camera development has matured.
So, um, yeah. Just a stream of consciousness thing here, no worries. BTW, what the hell is up with the Leica M (240) maximum bulb time of 60 seconds?!!
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Hmm. Well, in the past year, I've spent far more in buying, repairing, and supplying film cameras with film and processing than I have made film images to show for the effort. By comparison, even though I've spent a lot on the M9 and X2 in the same time frame, they've each produced a lot more finished photos than the film cameras.
But it really doesn't matter to me now. I don't do photography for a living any more, and if I didn't have the money to spend at my discretion, I wouldn't spend it.
G
But it really doesn't matter to me now. I don't do photography for a living any more, and if I didn't have the money to spend at my discretion, I wouldn't spend it.
G
Snowbuzz
Well-known
Hmm, that's a very interesting point of view that I didn't consider. Thnx, G.
Markus
Established
+1!
I noticed the same things you mention. In my eyes there is an other reason or point to mention: Every time you buy a new digital camera, you usually sell a working camera! There is no defect with the rangefinder or mirror-system (sorry). Every time I visit my local dealer I take a look at the second hand area and I noticed over the last few years that more and more digital cameras stand in the shelfs. Instead of making the sensor changeable we throw away a working camera. And I think we liked to work with most of them and even made really good pictures with them. In my eyes it's a kind of wasting ressources!
Last weekend I took a look at the X-Pro1. It's a nice camera, but it is very expensive! Considering a price/image circle ratio, spending 900$ on the 14mm for APS-C is worse than spending 2600$ (new!) on the Mamiya 43mm with 90mm image circle. Needles to say how much bigger the slides are!
I noticed the same things you mention. In my eyes there is an other reason or point to mention: Every time you buy a new digital camera, you usually sell a working camera! There is no defect with the rangefinder or mirror-system (sorry
). Every time I visit my local dealer I take a look at the second hand area and I noticed over the last few years that more and more digital cameras stand in the shelfs. Instead of making the sensor changeable we throw away a working camera. And I think we liked to work with most of them and even made really good pictures with them. In my eyes it's a kind of wasting ressources!Last weekend I took a look at the X-Pro1. It's a nice camera, but it is very expensive! Considering a price/image circle ratio, spending 900$ on the 14mm for APS-C is worse than spending 2600$ (new!) on the Mamiya 43mm with 90mm image circle. Needles to say how much bigger the slides are!
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I am curious as to how you plan to make slides with an X-Pro1... ? ;-)
The fact that many toss perfectly good, working cameras away in some illusory search for a better camera is sad ... as if that will improve their photography. But remember that that XP1 can make 100,000+ exposures for you with no further costs past maybe a battery and a bit of storage space, where the Mamiya (I'm presuming a 6x7 model) is going to cost you a $10 bill every time you make 8 exposures on 120 film ...
G
L Collins
Well-known
Meanwhile, I just bought a mint Pentax MX with 50mm 1.7 and motor drive for $45.
I LOVEthe digital age!
I LOVEthe digital age!
Fraser
Well-known
A lot depends on how often you replace digital cameras the last digital camera I traded in had 150,000 exposures on it thats 4167 rolls of 36, £4.39 for a roll of 400iso fuji makes (i may be wrong) £18293.
Seems quite a lot please correct if I'm wrong!
The Camera cost £2500 new equivalent film camera Eos 1v was about £1500 around 10 years ago.
Seems quite a lot please correct if I'm wrong!
The Camera cost £2500 new equivalent film camera Eos 1v was about £1500 around 10 years ago.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
It also depends on whether you make a living with your gear or you're a hobbyist. I use my gear for profit, so there are other issues like writing off depreciation, expensing gear against taxes etc. etc. that make it a little more palatable. You also need to recognize that there is a threshold in technology at which it is prudent to move forward. That threshold has, since about Y2k been about every two years. As in the PC world, that threshold has now slowed to over five years and may lengthen further yet. I find that my M8 is still competent, and the way technology is progressing today, my M9P may well be competent for my needs for years to come.
I guess that the bottom line is whether you buy the gear to make images, or you buy the gear to have the latest and greatest. Frankly the images from the 5 mp Olympus E1 still stand up in the market place today. Not that my M9P's 17mp sensor isn't nice and a huge leap forward; it is. But I look back at my E1 images and they're still pleasing.
I guess that the bottom line is whether you buy the gear to make images, or you buy the gear to have the latest and greatest. Frankly the images from the 5 mp Olympus E1 still stand up in the market place today. Not that my M9P's 17mp sensor isn't nice and a huge leap forward; it is. But I look back at my E1 images and they're still pleasing.
paradoxbox
Well-known
Appreciate your digital cam for its convenience and unlimited phototaking ability.
Love your film cameras for the fact that they'll still be working 50 years from now
Love your film cameras for the fact that they'll still be working 50 years from now
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Yes. Indeed. For sure. And all that stuff.
And the E-1 remains about the nicest SLR design ever made...
G
Fraser
Well-known
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I will be dead in 50 years
There's a remote possibility that I won't be, but I'm not counting on it. I'll be 109 if I survive that long. Whether I can still hold a camera will be an interesting question...
I think I can afford another new camera between now and then, tho.
G
Fraser
Well-known
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Spanik
Well-known
Don't know how well your reasoning holds up. For me I got a digital camera, made about 6000 photo's with it and went to medium format film and a good bout of GAS. I tought a brand new 1000 euro digital camera expensive, almost on the edge of a folly. Now I spend as much on a second-hand well used lens... Got to order another batch of film and do a run to the lab. Got enough camera's for the rest of my life.
No, analog hasn't turned out cheaper for me.
No, analog hasn't turned out cheaper for me.
L Collins
Well-known
But you shoot 5x as much with a digital than you did with film. Because you can.
Snowbuzz
Well-known
Hey folks, sorry to be tardy: work day.
Ya, certainly if my output was in the 150,000 range with a digital camera I would be MUCH less put out. I mean, WOW, 150,000 pictures? I think I need to get seriously busy with these digital cameras and wear out some shutters. I think it's the large format shooting that gives me this bad habit of ponder, ponder, ponder >click< uhuh, that's enough for today.
Until the M8 came along I just wasn't settled with a particular digital camera, unlike my analogue gear which has remained the same for many years. The X-E1 is for ISO 3200/6400 shooting. I think I'm getting there. I figure that the parade of DSLRs that went before was probably me trying to figure out that it was a rangefinder-type camera that I really needed. Boy, was it expensive finding that out.
Thank you all for helping me make some sense out of this.
Ya, certainly if my output was in the 150,000 range with a digital camera I would be MUCH less put out. I mean, WOW, 150,000 pictures? I think I need to get seriously busy with these digital cameras and wear out some shutters. I think it's the large format shooting that gives me this bad habit of ponder, ponder, ponder >click< uhuh, that's enough for today.
Until the M8 came along I just wasn't settled with a particular digital camera, unlike my analogue gear which has remained the same for many years. The X-E1 is for ISO 3200/6400 shooting. I think I'm getting there. I figure that the parade of DSLRs that went before was probably me trying to figure out that it was a rangefinder-type camera that I really needed. Boy, was it expensive finding that out.
Thank you all for helping me make some sense out of this.
btgc
Veteran
I don't think people buy 100,000$ cars to make 5x more miles than with 20,000$ car. Same way with cameras.
Fraser
Well-known
Mind you this is for work, but on the other hand I have three 1 series cameras at a time keep them for 3-4 years and then upgrade. On the other hand my M9 is a couple of years old and thats only on 10000!
Markus
Established
Huh? It doesen't need film?
I just ment the size of the APS-C sensor and the slides of the Mamiya 7. Well, it makes 10 exposures per film. And yes, devolpment costs another 8$. But after the processing the material has to be archived and the work is done. And if I let a picture print, the friendly people at the photo-lab care about everything. So there is no further work for me. With digital pictures I need continuous storage capacity, electricity. Depending on how professional you want to work a good monitor is needed. With increasing megapixels you need every few years a new computer. And maybe you have to migrate your entire archive to your new computer and so on.Digital photography is getting better all the time. Color accuracy and dynamic range have improved over the last years and are a good reason for buying a new camera. So I can say, that with the next generation of digital cameras I can certainly gain better IQ. That is leading to the problem I mentioned above, but besides this digital photography makes different mistakes in interpreting signals than film. Just think of a Bayer-sensor and a Foeven-sensor. A Foeven-sensor shows much more details due to it's construction. If for example Canon develops a similar sensor I bet you will immediatly throw away your old camera.