I think Thom was right, again...

Started Mar 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
michaeladawson
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,960Gear list
Like?
Re: No, he was wrong.
In reply to coudet, Mar 27, 2013

coudet wrote:

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:

Some time ago Thom Hogan posted that digital might not actually be cheaper than film, because you end up buying new bodies so often. I'm starting to agree with him, even though I shoot far more digital shots than film.

No one forces you to upgrade.

Do the math - how many shots you take with digital and how much would it cost to shoot that much on film?

There's both truth and fallacy in your opinion that digital is cheaper.  Your main premise that it is cheaper is based on a cost per shot.  While this is true, it does not necessarily make it cheaper overall.

Imagine going to a high class $50 all-you-can eat champagne brunch and pigging out.  If you go and itemize the cost of everything you ate and compared that to what it would have normally cost ala carte you could make the statement that the brunch was cheaper than going out and ordering the same food at a restaurant.  But that is not really a sensible way to look at it.

But in fact that is what we do when shooting digital.  We take tons of pictures that we never would have taken in the old days.  We buy the fastest computers.  We buy hard drives and then we buy backup hard drives.

Digital may in fact be cheaper on a per shot basis.  But the truth is that I am spending way, way more on digital now than I ever spent on film.

-- hide signature --

Mike Dawson

 michaeladawson's gear list:michaeladawson's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 Nikon D200 Nikon D4 Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR +17 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
Duh!New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow