Oh gee, digital cameras make me poor!

[FrankHoltion]

Do not throw light on this otherwise ever one will leave photography because no doubt that it is a costly hobby or profession like bodybuilding 🙂
byron bay resorts

 

[clayne]

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

You are an exception. Most people have no continual and significant issues with their film cameras and lenses besides the few oddball bodies and the like. Of course you have to buy film and chemicals. That's part of the medium. If you think this ongoing cost is somehow unfair you're forgetting that you're continually buying new raw stock from which your images are finalized onto and kept. Film is cheaper by far.

 

[Godfrey]

You are an exception. Most people have no continual and significant issues with their film cameras and lenses besides the few oddball bodies and the like. Of course you have to buy film and chemicals. That's part of the medium. If you think this ongoing cost is somehow unfair you're forgetting that you're continually buying new raw stock from which your images are finalized onto and kept. Film is cheaper by far.

I'm not sure I understand your intent, but the bolded section is pretty silly. Of course paying for film and processing is part of the film medium. I never said it was "unfair", I just said it costs more. I don't know what you mean by my 'forgetting' something ... I've been doing photography since 1965 or so, I'm not forgetting what's needed to do film photography.

Digital photography is far cheaper on consumables costs. And most of the interesting film cameras are old, and need service, to be reliable and consistent in operation. Spend a thousand dollars on a digital camera and you can make a nearly infinite number of photos with it with no additional cost at all. Spend $500 on a film camera, and by the time you've made 1500 photos with it, you've spent more than the $1000 you spent on the digital camera. And every additional photo you make continues to increase what you've spent.

There's no getting around this as, as you point out, you're replacing and processing the recording medium with every exposure. It will ALWAYS end up being more expensive if you do the same amount of shooting as you do with digital cameras.

Of course, if you just can't stop buying different cameras of either type, you'll always be spending more and more money anyway. Photography is not an inexpensive pursuit.

G

 

[clayne]

If you say so. My only recent, within the past few years, outlays have been on film and chemicals. I have no issues with the medium or the costs. My cameras do not cost 500$ and I'm not buying 2000$ digital cameras every 3 years either. I'm sticking by my argument that film is cheaper.

 

[Godfrey]

If you say so. My only recent, within the past few years, outlays have been on film and chemicals. I have no issues with the medium or the costs. My cameras do not cost 500$ and I'm not buying 2000$ digital cameras every 3 years either. I'm sticking by my argument that film is cheaper.

For you. If you buy inexpensive cameras and shoot a modest amount of film, if you are happy with that ... sure. There's nothing wrong with it. But that didn't seem to be the case for the OP, and it doesn't seem to be the case for many (if not most), on both sides of the digital-film divide.

When I was shooting 100% film, through the 1990s, my annual bill for film and chemistry, negative processing, printing materials, etc ran about $2800 per year. That's a little over 200 rolls of 135-36 film plus negative processing per year, about four rolls of film a week on average—not a lot. Medium format and large format was more expensive. Moving to mostly digital cameras in 2002, my annual expenses for consumables dropped to $100-200. And if I counted it all up, I've spent less on buying a number of digital cameras than on film and processing over the prior 10 year span, never mind buying the film cameras and having then serviced as needed, etc. I have the records to prove that (not that I'm publishing my finance and accounting for the world ... ;-).

That's why I say it is more expensive to shoot film than digital. It simply is. Better or worse, what I like or dislike, what you like or dislike, is of no particular relevance.

G

 

[noisycheese]

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

There's alot of truth to those statements.

The bottom line is this: One way or another, photography is going to cost you money whether you are a professional or a hobbyist. As I pointed out to my wife, the only way for photography to not cost money is to stop doing it - and that simply is not an option.

 

[shadowfox]

For you. If you buy inexpensive cameras and shoot a modest amount of film, if you are happy with that ... sure. There's nothing wrong with it. But that didn't seem to be the case for the OP, and it doesn't seem to be the case for many (if not most), on both sides of the digital-film divide.

(skipped)

That's why I say it is more expensive to shoot film than digital. It simply is. Better or worse, what I like or dislike, what you like or dislike, is of no particular relevance.

G

You can use the same argument that most "enthusiasts" out there *are* buying a new digital camera every 2 years or probably more often than that.

So the cost of doing this will catch up with film cost really quickly.

Having said that, I'm not into arguing which medium is more expensive.
If I like something enough, I'll find a way to fund it. For me it's film.

 

[Godfrey]

You can use the same argument that most "enthusiasts" out there *are* buying a new digital camera every 2 years or probably more often than that.

So the cost of doing this will catch up with film cost really quickly.

Having said that, I'm not into arguing which medium is more expensive.
If I like something enough, I'll find a way to fund it. For me it's film.

If I buy a new digital body for my existing lenses every two years, I'm typically spending $1000-1200 for the body. If I shoot 100 rolls of film a year, I'm spending $1300 for the pleasure.

How is buying a new digital body every two years, particularly when better quality every model costs less, ever going to catch up with spending $1300 a year? Doesn't make sense. Do the math. The only way that shooting film is less expensive is to do less shooting and consume less film. Never mind service and repair costs to keep older film cameras working well.

But like you, I don't really care which is more expensive. I have a ton of digital gear and a ton of film gear. I use all of it, and pay what it costs to do what I want with it.

G

 

[Frida]

Yeah, shooting with film is more expensive than shooting with digital. This is probably the only forum where I've seen that argued. But I do agree you can break your budget pretty easily with digital photography if you're constantly hopping to the newest gear. That's a big part of why I prefer buying used. The x100s will only be the second camera I've bought new, and I'll only buy it new this summer if I can't find it for less than $100 cheaper used. Everything else...2 D700s, a D3100, and a D3000 and several primes were all bought used. The only camera I've bought new as far as I can remember is my now 6 year old FZ7.