I think Thom was right, again...

Started Mar 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
Lance B
Forum ProPosts: 26,560Gear list
Like?
Re: Digital is cheaper than film by far. Check your cost per shot.
In reply to Dave Luttmann, Mar 31, 2013

Dave Luttmann wrote:

Lance B wrote:

Let's go back to my D700. Cost me $AU$3,100 and I have taken 14,000 shots with it. That's $AU0.22/shot. Back when I was shooting film about 10 years ago, film cost about AU$7.00 for a roll of 36 neg film, thats about the same cost per shot, but if we factor in inflation, film would probably be even dearer now. Slide film was even dearer. However, I am about to sell my D700 for about AU$1,200, so effectively the camera only cost me AU$1,900, so the cost per shot is only about $AU0.14/shot, much cheaper than film.

Fast forward to my D800. Cost me AU$3,500, sold for AU$2,000 to a friend for cheaper than I would normally have sold it. That's a cost of AU$1,500 and I have taken about a similar number of shutter actuations to my D700, 14670, so that is about $AU0.10/shot, which is much cheaper than film!

You also have to remember that you have to factor in the cost of a film SLR camera back in the film days which would have been a dearer item per shot because you have to add the cost of film and the cost of the camera together. A Nikon F6 was about $2,400 new, so almost the cost of a D800 and you still had to buy film!

I think we can assume that a camera these days is just like rolls of film, basically a throw away item and when we upgrade to a new DSLR, it's like changing films.

Nikon F5....$300.  Nikon F100....$100.

Nikon F5 for $300 when new? I think you'd better check your sources. They were about US$2,300 at introduction in 1996. We are talking about new cameras at their release and similar state of the art at release, not as an almost throw away price 17 years after introduction.

Film and processing, $8 a roll.  B&W film and processing...$3 a roll.  A roll a week of each....$11 x 52 weeks.....would take 4 years to pay for the D700.

A roll a week? Wow, you don't get out much.

Just because you can hammer a shutter and capture 14000 photos to obtain few keeps doesn't make it money well spent.

Well, actually, it does and you miss the ability to home process digital whereas with film it is a messy chemical process which most would avoid like the plague.

The beauty of being able to do this is that it greatly increases learning and greatly increases the ability to capture the perfect shot, especially when shooting birds and other lively wild animals. I guarantee that the number of superb images of birds etc captured by people today far outweigh those of the film era. Not only more but of better quality, film results not even close.

As I said, we can now chimp and perfect lens AF fine tune on the spot, can't do that with film - you'd have to wait until you developed the film and then go, oh cr@p, the lens is not spot on for focus and I missed those once in a lifetime sensational shots.

You can check all your exposures, you can check exactly how your DOF worked out etc, whether your shutter speed was fast enough, all on the spot.

The fact is, there are thousands of people who are heavily into photography simply because of the ease of getting superb results due to the fact it is digital and not film. They can also control the post processing wheras most would be at the mercy of the lab.

Sorry, digital is a no-brainer and much cheaper and easier than film ever was and the results are better, period.

 Lance B's gear list:Lance B's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 500mm f/4G ED VR +12 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