Film cheaper than digital?

[Owen]

Is shooting film cheaper than digital? On a certain well known website Mr. R said
"A Leica M7 costs much less to own and shoot than a DSLR."

I really don't see how paying for film and the processing is going to be cheaper. Also it takes time and gas get the film and to drop it off.

Am I wrong?

Owen

 

[Richard Weisgrau]

Is shooting film cheaper than digital? On a certain well known
website Mr. R said
"A Leica M7 costs much less to own and shoot than a DSLR."

I really don't see how paying for film and the processing is going
to be cheaper. Also it takes time and gas get the film and to drop it
off.

Am I wrong?

Owen

Neither of you are wrong. Mr. R is correct that the cost of an M7 is less that that of a comparable quality DSLR (a lot less). So if you consider the cost of the camera per photograph made he is correct, in so far as the camera itself is concerned.

What Mr. R neglected to say is that the cost of photographs made with an M7 is higher than that made with a DSLR because he failed to take film and processing into consideration. Perhaps just shoots his M7 without film in it an then tries to remember what the scenes looked like.

Where Mr. R is going to go wrong is a maybe ten years down the road when no one is making film for his M7.

--
Weisgrau

'The best camera to shoot with is the one you that is with you.'

http://www.g10shooters.info

 

[Owen]

...freeze his film and still have some in ten years.

I believe there might be someone with the chemicals to process it but it will cost more while digital camera prices will have dropped.

Right now B&H have the M7 for over 4,000 bucks, my 5D mkII didn't cost that.....not even with the lens. Which is undoubtably not as sharp as his.

Owen

 

[MPCat]

...shows us that the processing costs of film lead to an enormous cost benefit for digital cameras very quickly.

That's the main reason why we shoot digital, after all.

 

[dvolk]

Some people machine gun their DSLRs. It would be quite expensive to do that with film. The more you can control yourself, the cheaper shooting film is.

Digital also induces a powerful biyearly urge to upgrade to the latest and greatest sensor that doesn't plague film cameras.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/denis_volk

 

[Gato Amarillo]

For the mom or dad who only does a few photos on special occaisions, disposable film cameras may be cheap than even cheap digials. For the artist who want to shoot large format and makes only a few prints a year film, processing and scanning costs may be less than the expense of owning a digital back.

In Mr. R's case, I guess it depends on how much you shoot, how often you upgrade the DSLR, and whether you expect the value of the M7 to appreciate or depreciate.

--
Gato

'If all moments are recorded, then nothing is beautiful and maybe photography isn’t an art anymore. Maybe it never was.” -- Robert Frank at age 83

 

[MusicDoctorDJ]

Is shooting film cheaper than digital? On a certain well known
website Mr. R said
"A Leica M7 costs much less to own and shoot than a DSLR."

I really don't see how paying for film and the processing is going
to be cheaper. Also it takes time and gas get the film and to drop it
off.

Am I wrong?

Mr. R . . . perhaps Mr. Rockwell?

By the way . . . thanks for stirring up another hornets nest here!

--
J. D.
Colorful Colorado



Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that came in it!

 

[Parisis]

No way.

First how many people buy DSLRS for $4000. My D80 was $540. Couple of lenses and a flash which you would have to buy with any camera.

Many people bring up PC costs in this calculation. That does not hold water. Our survey of our high school parents (middle class) shows over 98% have PCs at home withe most reporting high speed internet.

Some software and a printer and you are set.

If you print a lot at home it skews the results but judging from this forum not many people do. Internet and digital frames are the new photo albums. If you print at the local drugstore the cost is a wash.

I don't care to see a roll of film again.
--
Check my Photo Blog
http://parisea.blogspot.com/

 

[artyman]

I still have my Dads old Nikon FE1 film camera, but I couldn't afford to shoot the same volume of film as I do with digital. Whilst not agreeing with the shotgun approach to photography in that one shot may be good, it does enable easy bracketing, changes in ISO ratings and for wildlife the chance to shoot without worrying about the bank balance.
--
artyman
http://www.artyman.co.uk

 

[Glen Barrington]

They are two different mediums. Personally, I express myself in the most appropriate way possible.
--
Mayonnaise on white bread, mmmmm!

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.photo.net/photos/GlenBarrington

 

[tak44]

It all depends how long you can live with a camera before you decide it is obsolete. For film bodies this averaged about 10 years for me. With digital it's down to two.

I take more photos with digital than I would have done with film, but economy is definitely not a rational argument for making the switch. I think this applies to most non-pros.

--
'If the fool would persist in his folly he would become wise'

 

[Chris59]

One needs to do the calculations based on the number of photographs shot, the cameras used to shoot them and the number of photographs printed. The more photos shot, the higher the cost for film and the lower the cost for digital.

However, to say that owning and using a Leica M7 is cheaper than digital is nonsense and I suspect that "Mr R" either knows it and is being deliberately provocative or is simply a fool with an opinion that he cannot substantiate.

 

[Andkar]

I don't know which is cheaper, but I do know that I have never spent as much money on photography as I do now.

 

[MusicDoctorDJ]

I don't know which is cheaper, but I do know that I have never spent
as much money on photography as I do now.

Not taking into account the difference in dollar value between 1989 and now, I got all three of my DSLR's and lenses for less than what I paid for just one of these bodies brand new:



I paid $2500 for that body with prism and motordrive, and I have less than $2000 tied up on my DSLR stuff.

Granted, I don't have the top end DSLR's as I don't shoot for a living anymore, however, $2500 in 1989 equals somewhere around $6500 in todays dollars, which actually makes my old Canon F1n more expensive than a brand new Nikon D3 body.



Unless you add the custom paint job, of course . . . LOL

--
J. D.
Colorful Colorado

Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that came in it!

 

[luxor2]

I used to photograph dance performances, using f 1.4 lenses wide open and Fuji 800 iso negative film. A few rolls add up to real money, and still were too grainy. Now a dslr like the D300, etc, perform better at 3 time the asa, and without the annoying interruption of changing film during the performance.

Shooting static scenes in good lighting is staightforward for film cameras, but Dslrs are better and more cost efficient for action shots in low light. Also dslrs have now matured to a level that allows even "outdated" cameras to make great photos for many years.

ps. i tried to use the term for iso in caps, as is correct, but the forum thinks that it is shouting!

 

[MusicDoctorDJ]

ps. i tried to use the term for iso in caps, as is correct, but the
forum thinks that it is shouting!

I type ISO all the time without any problems . . .

--
J. D.
Colorful Colorado



Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that came in it!

 

[Gregory King]

Some people machine gun their DSLRs. It would be quite expensive to
do that with film. The more you can control yourself, the cheaper
shooting film is.

Digital also induces a powerful biyearly urge to upgrade to the
latest and greatest sensor that doesn't plague film cameras.

The more you can control yourself, the cheaper shootingdigital is.

;-)

One aspect just involves a trigger finger, while the other involves a credit card.

Greg

 

[TrapperJohn]

I did some accounting not too long ago on just that subject.

Good digital glass isn't cheap, though when adjusted for inflation, it's about the same as film glass was.

Back in the film days, I shelled out on the average around $500 a year on film, processing and prints.

In the digital age, processing costs are zero. 8x10 prints are about $1 each for really good quality, less than color 8x10 film prints.

But... I have also purchased three digital bodies in the last six years, whereas in the film days, I bought a Nikon F3 and that was it. When I average out the cost of the bodies, it comes out to around $500 a year.

What a coincidence...

 

[RedFox88]

...shows us that the processing costs of film lead to an enormous
cost benefit for digital cameras very quickly.

Some people are into the quality of the exposure not firing off 100s of shots per day to get a few good ones, sports excluded because that suits digital best.

Let's look at this example:

Someone shooting 3 rolls of Velvia 36 exposure a month and gets them developed. Film and developing costing $17 per roll. So for a year it'd be about $625. And how long will you keep your 1Ds3 before replacing it? let's say 5 years which seems to be a bit high from most peple onhere, but for 5 years film would cost $3125 and you can scan slides you want print. Slide projectors are still a great way to view slides with much higher quality than a digital projector.

So you'd have to use your 1Ds3 for 10 years to equal the cost of 1300 slide exposures a year. And if you go with the new Ektar, the cost goes down by $72 per year!

You can buy an EOS-3 now for about $300 and its digital equivelant (if scanned well) would be the $7000 EOS 1Ds3.

That's the main reason why we shoot digital, after all.

So now you're the voice of all us? When I use digital, I don't use it because it is "cheaper". I use it because of how I need to use what I'm photographing.

 

[RedFox88]

Granted, I don't have the top end DSLR's as I don't shoot for a
living anymore, however, $2500 in 1989 equals somewhere around $6500
in todays dollars, which actually makes my old Canon F1n more
expensive than a brand new Nikon D3 body.

From inflation calculators, $2500 in 1989 would be about $4500 in 2009 not $6500!