Which is cheaper for the next five years?

[dave lackey]

Just for fun...because I am tired of bag, lens and camera threads for now. How about something interesting? A simple Leica kit.

The question is whether to

A. shoot all film for five years (hypothetically) at a rate of 50 rolls per year, develop and scan at home, using current a Leica M3 camera with only one fast! lens purchase needed....or

B. shoot all digital with a Leica M9, no computer upgrades contemplated, no software, same fast lens purchase is needed, and, no backup camera...or

C. shoot all digital with a Leica M, new computer needed (PC), new software may be required, a single fast lens is required as above....and no backup camera.

I may be off on what is or is not needed so help me out...🙄 I am not interested in an M8 as an alternate, only full frame Leica. I am not interested in any other camera choices for discussion other than the three mentioned above.


I am looking forward to YOUR math and recommendations as I am too exhausted to get out of a chair, much less think.🙁

So, at the end of five years, which path, A,B, or C will be the cheapest?

Which will be the wise path?

 

[JoeV]

I don't understand why the M9 wouldn't require a computer upgrade but the M240 would. Files from either are large enough that if the computer chokes on the M files it should choke on the M9 files too.

A vs B/C: comes down to a lifestyle choice here, and overall cost, too. Do you want to process and scan film? Will film give you that something extra that the M240 won't? How about a MM instead? Closest digital solution to film-like B/W files. But the all-film solution will be cheaper, though a slower throughput, process-wise. You simply can't shoot, process and scan as many images as quickly as you can with the B/C choices.

~Joe

 

[dave lackey]

Yeah, the M9 will probably require a computer upgrade...what is that going to cost?

The number of images I take will be roughly the same whether film or digital.

There is no "lifestyle" issue. I either go one way or the other in this scenario. Presently, I do both film and digital so it is not a change for me.

Math...anyone ever done a detailed cost analysis on each? Or has everyone ditched film for digital because it is"easier"/faster?

In the end, I cannot buy any Leica camera that costs as dear as even a used M9. Not on SS income. It is not even possible to get a part-time job to pay for one right now as I cannot leave the house alone...and I do not know when that will or if that will change. So all of this is hypothetical.

I roughly worked out costs for film only and it works for me at 50 rolls per year. Digital solution? I haven't worked it out at all for a total cost or even a monthly cost for five years. Any help would be appreciated.🙂

 

[L Collins]

Dave,

Personally, I'd go the M3 route. No depreciation on the m3, better chance that it'll be working fine throughout. With the m9 you'd have the uncertainty of electronics and possible failure, coupled with the uncertainty of resale value. Plus, with the m3 you'll have tangible proof of your work I.e. negatives. With the m9 you'll have a hard drive with a lot of x an o's. Try bequeathing THAT to your grandkids!

 

[L Collins]

. But the all-film solution will be cheaper, though a slower throughput, process-wise. You simply can't shoot, process and scan as many images as quickly as you can with the B/C choices.

~Joe

I actually think that's a good thing. Makes you slow down and enjoy the process.

 

[noimmunity]

Just for fun...because I am tired of bag, lens and camera threads for now. How about something interesting? A simple Leica kit.

The question is whether to

A. shoot all film for five years (hypothetically) at a rate of 50 rolls per year, develop and scan at home, using current a Leica M3 camera with only one fast! lens purchase needed....or

B. shoot all digital with a Leica M9, no computer upgrades contemplated, no software, same fast lens purchase is needed, and, no backup camera...or

C. shoot all digital with a Leica M, new computer needed (PC), new software may be required, a single fast lens is required as above....and no backup camera.

I may be off on what is or is not needed so help me out...🙄 I am not interested in an M8 as an alternate, only full frame Leica. I am not interested in any other camera choices for discussion other than the three mentioned above.


I am looking forward to YOUR math and recommendations as I am too exhausted to get out of a chair, much less think.🙁

So, at the end of five years, which path, A,B, or C will be the cheapest?

Which will be the wise path?

I went through the same thing, and decided for digital. (I haven't decided, though, if I shouldn't just leave the M system altogether, but that's for another thread).

Once I moved to France, the total cost of Velvia became exorbitant. I tried sending it back to Taipei for development, but the process was waayyy too slow for me, sometimes close to two months before I'd get the scans back (and the negatives would't get back until one of my trips back to Taipei).

But there were other factors besides cost that played into it for me. Dust never bothered me in Taipei, but here in Lyon it drives me nuts.

Once I saw the results I could get with the DP2M, my addiction to Velvia was permanently cured. 😀

I was shooting a lot more than you. 50 rolls isn't that much. In your case, if you like the results you are getting already with film, I would just stick with that for sure.

 

[noimmunity]

Um, excuse me, but what kind of film are you using?

I'm sure there will still be film in 5 years, but maybe not everything that is available today. You've been following that thread on Fuji Neopan 400?

 

[goamules]

First I thought, "why didn't the original poster do the math, he took all the time to think through and write the scenario?"

But the basic math seems easy. Assuming color film.

- Film for 5 years. $6 roll x 52 week = $312 a yr. 5 years = $1560
- Processing for 5 years - hours and hours and hours of your time. 3 hrs/week minimum to dev/scan/postprocess = what is your time worth?
- Prints? You wanted some prints too, right? Add hours.
- M3 camera and one lens - $1,000

So there you have it, film would cost you $2560 in expendables and equip, and many hours of time lost to other purposes. Like shooting.

 

[Pioneer]

There are a few things that would be handy to know but I can give you a rough idea based on my own situation. I too spend most of my time at home and am retired early so I can care for a disabled spouse. All but one of my grown children live near me so I can occasionally get out of the house when they come over.

I shoot about 50 rolls of film per month. Most of what I shoot right now is T-Max 100 which I hand roll from 100 foot bulk rolls. I am buying my Kodak from Adorama for about $60 per 100 foot right now though that will likely go up a bit. I shoot in Leica or Contax using their metal cassettes that were purchased some time ago so I do not count the cassette cost. I get approximately 25 rolls of film per bulk roll (I am getting between 25 and 26 frames per roll). Right now my film cost is $2.40 per roll time 50 rolls per month times 12 month per year plus 10% for personal screw ups and inflation comes to $1,584.00/year. To make things easier I round this up to $1,600.

I develop exclusively with Rodinal (R09 One Shot) which I purchase from Freestyle for about $20 per 500ml including shipping. My fixer is inexpensive Arista EDU fixer which sells for approximately $20 per gallon. I use 4 ml of Rodinal and 60 ml fixer per roll of film. If you do the math I am spending 48 cents per roll to develop my film. I also use a touch of Kodak Photoflo but I have never calculated that cost. Lets say for the sake of argument that I am paying about half a cent per roll on Photoflo so I am spending 48.05 cents per roll. Since I am shooting around 600 rolls per year then I am spending about $288 per year on developing. For the sake of this little exercise I have rounded that to $300.

I updated this section in a subsequent post. The numbers are not correct. I do a contact sheet for every roll. I usually check the negatives on the light table before I actually do this but let us assume I am totally awesome and did not screw any roll up so bad that I did not want a contact sheet. 600 rolls divided by 25 frames comes to 24 sheets of 8x10 paper for contact sheets and 24 Printfile Archive pages. Developing costs are about the same at 50 cents per sheet, paper. Paper runs about 80 cents a sheet. Printfile pages run me about $4.50 per 25. The binder is $15. I am paying about $50 per year for contact sheets.

Film, developing and contact prints are about $2,000 per year roughly. For 5 years that will be about $10,000.

Without calculating digital numbers that gives you a small idea of what it costs me to shoot film right now. Hope it helps.

 

[alexnotalex]

me? M3+summilux = £1200
bulk loading Ilford Pan 400, Diafine. £2.50 a roll x50 = £125 a year x5 = £625.
Scanner £200.
comes to around around half a used M9 body.

Maybe i'd shoot more and have more fun.
But would the M9 still be working in 2019 though?
Or maybe that X20 could tick the boxes...

Hmm....

 

[dave lackey]

There are a few things that would be handy to know but I can give you a rough idea based on my own situation. I too spend most of my time at home and am retired early so I can care for a disabled spouse. All but one of my grown children live near me so I can occasionally get out of the house when they come over.

I shoot about 50 rolls of film per month. Most of what I shoot right now is T-Max 100 which I hand roll from 100 foot bulk rolls. I am buying my Kodak from Adorama for about $60 per 100 foot right now though that will likely go up a bit. I shoot in Leica or Contax using their metal cassettes that were purchased some time ago so I do not count the cassette cost. I get approximately 25 rolls of film per bulk roll (I am getting between 25 and 26 frames per roll). Right now my film cost is $2.40 per roll time 50 rolls per month times 12 month per year plus 10% for personal screw ups and inflation comes to $1,584.00/year. To make things easier I round this up to $1,600.

I develop exclusively with Rodinal (R09 One Shot) which I purchase from Freestyle for about $20 per 500ml including shipping. My fixer is inexpensive Arista EDU fixer which sells for approximately $20 per gallon. I use 4 ml of Rodinal and 60 ml fixer per roll of film. If you do the math I am spending 48 cents per roll to develop my film. I also use a touch of Kodak Photoflo but I have never calculated that cost. Lets say for the sake of argument that I am paying about half a cent per roll on Photoflo so I am spending 48.05 cents per roll. Since I am shooting around 600 rolls per year then I am spending about $288 per year on developing. For the sake of this little exercise I have rounded that to $300.

I do a contact sheet for every roll. I usually check the negatives on the light table before I actually do this but let us assume I am totally awesome and did not screw any roll up so bad that I did not want a contact sheet. 600 rolls divided by 25 frames comes to 24 sheets of 8x10 paper for contact sheets and 24 Printfile Archive pages. Developing costs are about the same at 50 cents per sheet, paper. Paper runs about 80 cents a sheet. Printfile pages run me about $4.50 per 25. The binder is $15. I am paying about $50 per year for contact sheets.

Film, developing and contact prints are about $2,000 per year roughly. For 5 years that will be about $10,000.

Without calculating digital numbers that gives you a small idea of what it costs me to shoot film right now. Hope it helps.

Wow...that is cool. 600 rolls per year! For $10,000. And I shoot maybe 1/10 th of that. 😎 Thank you for that detailed estimate!

Digital costs are a bit daunting. Still need to get a handle on that one...

Thanks, Pioneer!!!🙂

 

[Pioneer]

Your welcome Dave. I was a bit in a hurry when I estimated the contact sheet costs so the price is actually about $520 in a given year to process my contact sheets.

Actual 5 year cost increases to a bit over $11,000 for film.

On the surface that sound like quite a bit but the truth is that the 5 year digital costs will be in the same ball park, assuming you stay with Leica.

Calculating digital costs are not difficult. To work with digital the minimum you need will be a digital camera, a lens, a storage card, a computer to download to, hard drives to store your files, back up software to protect your files, software that downloads and works with your image files.

The costs for film vs digital really turn out to be a wash. A lot of people like to make a big deal about these costs but your choice should be more about how you prefer to work. Since I prefer to work with old Contax and Leica rangefinders I'm really not going to find anything similar in digital. I do own an M9 but I will probably sell it since it spends the majority of the time on the shelf.

Combining both workflows also sounds tempting to many but the reality is you are really increasing your costs for minimal benefit. On the front end you are still paying the bulk of the film costs and on the back end you are facing a lot of the digital costs. Ergo, you are not really saving money.

Anyway, enjoy, I hope this helps clarify some of your own decisions.

 

[Godfrey]

Just for fun...because I am tired of bag, lens and camera threads for now. How about something interesting? A simple Leica kit.

The question is whether to

A. shoot all film for five years (hypothetically) at a rate of 50 rolls per year, develop and scan at home, using current a Leica M3 camera with only one fast! lens purchase needed....or

B. shoot all digital with a Leica M9, no computer upgrades contemplated, no software, same fast lens purchase is needed, and, no backup camera...or

C. shoot all digital with a Leica M, new computer needed (PC), new software may be required, a single fast lens is required as above....and no backup camera.

I may be off on what is or is not needed so help me out...🙄 I am not interested in an M8 as an alternate, only full frame Leica. I am not interested in any other camera choices for discussion other than the three mentioned above.


I am looking forward to YOUR math and recommendations as I am too exhausted to get out of a chair, much less think.🙁

So, at the end of five years, which path, A,B, or C will be the cheapest?

Which will be the wise path?

Dave, your math and my math don't align. If the goal is to save money, buy an older, quality digital camera and a lens, a couple of batteries, and a couple of cards. Case in point: my 2003 E-1 cost me $300 in 2008. A 35mm Macro f/3.5 is a terrific lens for $175, as is a 25mm f/2.8. For $600-700 you can get a Summilux-D 25mm f1.4 ASPH for it, or a superb ZD 11-22/2.8-3.5 too. Add some memory cards and a couple of BLM-5 batteries, so for a max of $1000 or so you have a pro quality camera, the excellent 5Mpixel raw files from which are a piece of cake to process even on the oldest hardware/OS capable of running Lightroom or PS CS2. Mine hasn't cost me a dime since I bought it, 12,000 exposures ago. Which is just about your '50 rolls of film a year' mark.

If the goal is to justify buying a Leica M9 or M, for the quantity of photos you suggest, forget economy. It doesn't make sense.

If you already have an M3, buy a lens and go make photos. In five years it will cost you more than the E-1—through film, processing, scanning expenses—but if you really want to shoot with an M, it's much more economical than buying an M9 or M(240).

 

[alexnotalex]

Buy a bottle of single malt whiskey each time you develop a roll as a reward for sticking with film.

That'll bring the cost up to digital Leica level, you have the best of both worlds.

 

[dave lackey]

Buy a bottle of single malt whiskey each time you develop a roll as a reward for sticking with film.

That'll bring the cost up to digital Leica level, you have the best of both worlds.

LOL....🙂...

 

[dave lackey]

Dave, your math and my math don't align. If the goal is to save money, buy an older, quality digital camera and a lens, a couple of batteries, and a couple of cards. Case in point: my 2003 E-1 cost me $300 in 2008. A 35mm Macro f/3.5 is a terrific lens for $175, as is a 25mm f/2.8. For $600-700 you can get a Summilux-D 25mm f1.4 ASPH for it, or a superb ZD 11-22/2.8-3.5 too. Add some memory cards and a couple of BLM-5 batteries, so for a max of $1000 or so you have a pro quality camera, the excellent 5Mpixel raw files from which are a piece of cake to process even on the oldest hardware/OS capable of running Lightroom or PS CS2. Mine hasn't cost me a dime since I bought it, 12,000 exposures ago. Which is just about your '50 rolls of film a year' mark.

If the goal is to justify buying a Leica M9 or M, for the quantity of photos you suggest, forget economy. It doesn't make sense.

If you already have an M3, buy a lens and go make photos. In five years it will cost you more than the E-1—through film, processing, scanning expenses—but if you really want to shoot with an M, it's much more economical than buying an M9 or M(240).

Hi, Godfrey...

That is exactly where we do agree....Other than the occasional romp with an FE2 or the new territory of the Ciro-flex, I don't want anything but a Leica. Life is too short and my interest is only in using Leica products. That's just me.

With two Leica film cameras and film being where my heart lies most of the time, I am at fork in the road...commit time and energy as well as funds to buy equipment to do all of my own processing and scanning or to try to save money.

The whole thing is daunting as I have so much on my plate these days. But trying to figure a way to go all digital Leica with computer upgrades and such is even more daunting.

The more I get input from everyone the more clear it is to me that 90% film is the way to go. I may even get to the point I enjoy my own processing but so far, I am not really into that...maybe it will become more enjoyable. We'll see.

Heck, I don't even enjoy photoshop. After decades of computer design and PS work, I avoid it when I can.🙄

 

[noisycheese]

Food for thought

Food for thought

If you are starting from scratch:
M3 cost = $1000-1500
M cost = $6950
M9 cost = $4700 and up

Another variable is the cost of film and processing - and whether you have your film processed or process it yourself.

Kodak Tri-X = $4.29/roll
Fuji Velvia 100 = 7.99/roll (and going up by 25% soon)
Fuji Pro 400H = $7.59/roll

Processing costs vary, but if you are shooting Tri-X, you can process it yourself for somewhere between $0.25 to $0.50 per roll, depending on your chemistry prices. This route will require somewhere between $75 and $100 in film developing hardware as an upfront investment.

You can develop your own E6 film at home, but last I checked, you save only about $1 per roll compared to having it developed by a lab. Back in the days of Yore (pre-digital era) you could save 50% by processing your own E6 at home.

Some people hate developing film. I happen to enjoy it. It is much more easy than the uninitiated imagine and you get a feeling of accomplishment by doing it yourself.

I would go the film route and buy an M3. The money you will save compared to buying a Leica M or M9 will pay for a long photographic expedition.

The M3 is one of the finest Leicas ever made and was built to last a lifetime - and it will. As for the M and M9, I have my doubts about that kind of longevity.

JMHO.