I think Thom was right, again...

Started Mar 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
Lance B Forum Pro • Posts: 31,306
Re: Digital is cheaper than film by far. Check your cost per shot.

epozar 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.

Not exactly true.

I did think of that, but I would never have had the learning experience and therefore the ability I have now simply due to the fact that I can review my images as sson as I have taken them. I have learnt more and come much further than I am sure I would have ever hoped for in film.

We used to "click" much less than today... thinking more before pressing a shutter button.

Don't have time to think when shooting birds or animals or other uncontrolled subject matter. The beauty is, with digital I can review them and make sure I get it right at the time, whereas previously with film, I would have to say that I would shoot just as much and possbly shoot more (if that is at all possible) to make sure I got it right as there is no way to see whether your shots were spot on as you can't review.

I guess number of usable shots were the same though

I'd say less as you would have to wait until you got your shots back before you knew that they were right and then if you didn't you'd missed the opportunity and probably wouldn't have the opportunity to ever get the shots again. So, you'd have to go back and do it all over again if at all possible.

I think the thing with digital vs film argument is that film constrained you to a large degree whereas digital gives you much more freedom and immediacy. Examples like checking lens accuracy is immediate and you can then adjust for AF fine tune, a bit difficult with film.

I think sports journalists etc would shoot off just as many frame whether digital or film.

Everyone now has a processing lab in their home, rarely if even possible back in the film days. You can adjust your photos largely to the way you want them with modest software and talent and share this with your family and friends with the click of a button. Even though there are many who look at film through rose tinted glasses and believe that nothing compares, personally I feel there is just no comparison, nowadays digital is leaps and bounds way better than film ever was.


Emil Pozar, http://emil-pozar.photoshelter.com/

 Lance B's gear list:Lance B's gear list
Nikon D850 Nikon Z7 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G ED Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm F2.8G IF-ED VR +14 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow