I think Thom was right, again...

Started Mar 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
brianric Veteran Member • Posts: 7,927
Re: I think Thom was right, again...

photoreddi wrote:

Thom may be right about the total cost per year being higher for digital cameras vs film cameras, but there's another way to look at it. I'm sure that I'm not the only one that found that the cost per photo was much higher for film cameras than for digital because there were several reasons why I shot such a smaller number of film photos per year than I shot digitally per month. There are a number of pros and advanced amateurs here that regularly wear out their shutters at 400k to 500k actuations. That amounts to somewhere between 12,000 and 20,000 rolls of film. Film and processing costs from a drugstore for this amount of photos would probably come to somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000. Pros and advanced amateurs would be more likely to use a custom lab so the cost rises. This makes DSLRs seem like the bargain of the century.

You wouldn't shot as much using film. Back in the 1970ies when I shot weddings it was 80 to 120 shots on a 6x7 camera. You took one, maybe two shots if you were lucky, of the bride going down the asile. Manual focus, manual exposure, manual flash. Last wedding I shot was with a D800, with close to 1,000 shots. Digital makes it eaiser to take multiple shots.

 brianric's gear list:brianric's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Sony RX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Nikon D810 Nikon D500 +29 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