I think Thom was right, again...

Started Mar 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
JTJT New Member • Posts: 2
Re: I think Thom was right, again...

For me, digital is more expensive than film.

As a finance type for work, I distinguished between "fixed" or "sunk" costs and "marginal" or "variable" costs.

So the way I look at this debate is as follows:

Digital has high fixed costs, but very low marginal costs (i.e., what it costs to take the next frame).

Film has lower fixed costs, but higher (and getting higher) marginal costs.

Digital bodies depreciate more rapidly than film bodies ever did. Hence, you are incentivized to shoot a lot to maximize your utility from your digital body purchase. Film bodies depreciate more slowly than digital; hence, you do not face the same economic pressure to shoot as much, especially since the marginal costs are higher.

The comparison may be skewed by the likely fact that more digital photographers "process" their own "exposures" than film shooters did back in the day.

Your mileage may vary, but I've purchased two digital SLRs since 2005 and I've upgraded my computer twice due to the purchases. I almost never print, but have spent several thousands on this hobby.

On the other hand, I inherited half my film bodies and spent only a few hundred dollars on the others. The only time I shot like film was free was when I interned for a newspaper back in the day because, well, it was "free" then.

Still, I continue to shoot both film and digital. Just because my analysis may be rational, doesn't mean by behavior necessarily is!

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