Is digital really less expensive?

<p>I don't think a comparison with 1960 is relevant. Most of us aren't octogenarians here, and what my father used has nothing to do with what is used today.</p>

<p>I can give a far better comparison that makes sense, given that it really doesn't need to take into account inflation.</p>

<p>I bought a Mamiya 7 with "standard" lens (80mm) for $2500. A medium format film scanner cost me $2800. A computer sufficient for managing the scans was $2000 and a high quality 20" monitor was $1200. My total fixed cost was around $7500 not including extra discs and tape backup.</p>

<p>Fast forward 12 years. A Canon 5DMkII is $2200 and a fast 50mm (not that you could get a fast standard lens for the Mamiya) is $350. A computer sufficient for processing, including monitor (iMac) is $1700. Fixed cost is $4250.</p>

<p>Then there's processing. A roll of 120 (the film I used only came in 120) was $5. Color processing and contact sheet was $15. That's for 10 exposures, so it's $2/exposure.<br>

<br />So on the one hand, I have $7500 plus $2/exposure, with about 2000 exposures/year. On the other hand, I have $4250 plus $0/exposure. It doesn't seem like the math is too difficult here.</p>

<p>David Cavan,<br>

"He had that Topcon until the early 80's when he switched over to Canon. "<br>

=============================<br>

Well then, he got a good 20 years out of his initial investment. And hey, you still have it and I have to assume that it takes fine photographs to this day. I was getting fantastic negatives from my 1948 Ikonta until I sold it last fall.</p>

<p>Do we think people will be using today's $2500 dSLR in 2035? How many dSLRs have people already bought? Just an anecdote here, but my family had the same telephone during my entire childhood - right up to maybe high school graduation. My wife and I together have gone through maybe 8 cell phones in 12 years. </p>

<p>BTW, hanging on to your dad's cameras for your son is a really nice thing. </p>

<p>Jeff - I think your comparison of current technology and process is very valid. If someone were to try to start today with current film cameras, scanners, etc. they would be going against the grain, since most of the r&d, marketing, processing and scale is in digital. It would not surprise me that it would be However, the point was made earlier that it someone in 1960 would be spending less using film than someone today would spend on digital, based on income and that was what we were going back and forth about. My theory was that it is not that different today to have a camera hobby than it was 50 years ago so that's what I set out to test. That is where comparison of our octagenarian parents hobby in their youth is at least an interesting comparison, and perhaps a validation of the long-term strength of photography as a pursuit.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>@m - the point about the longer-term use of a single camera as an investment is a good one, but I was comparing the initial cost of the investment vs an annual salary. There are so many other factors to consider. We didn't talk about what my father spent on projectors, storage boxes, screens, albums for prints, for instance. So it would take some more digging to come up with the total cost of his hobby, vs. mine. And I still push back hard on this notion that digital cameras are "obsolete" when the next one comes out. I see it is entirely possible that my current gear will last 10 years.</p>

<p>There is also the real problem with comparing photography then-and-now, and that is that it is a very different pursuit now. As an example - when I was first married in 1972 we received about 100 photos of that wedding. We had three children married in this decade - each of them had more than a thousand photos of the event to pour through (with both professional and serious amateurs at the event). We record our breakfast on camera phones at a whim, and think nothing of shooting hundreds of shots of a weekend away. When my wife and I cover a racing weekend we will shoot 1500 photos for various purposes. It is a very different pursuit now. I can't think of a good analogy, but I do know if my father had shot a fraction of the photos that we now consider our normal production he would have driven us into bankruptcy. Just think of the per-shot cost now - I'll bet mine is a fraction of what my father spent for each precious slide or print. So although there is a base-line comparison (the year one investment) the rest of it starts to fall apart in terms of comparisons.</p>

<p>@Jeff - my apologies - my fingers got ahead of my brain on that post. It should read:</p>

<p>Jeff - I think your comparison of current technology and process is very valid. If someone were to try to start today with current film cameras, scanners, etc. they would be going against the grain, since most of the r&d, marketing, processing and scale is in digital. It would not surprise me that film would be more expensive in total, and per-shot.</p>

<p>However, the point was made earlier that it someone in 1960 would be spending less using film than someone today would spend on digital, based on income and that was what we were going back and forth about. My theory was that it is not that different today to have a camera hobby than it was 50 years ago so that's what I set out to test. That is where comparison of our octagenarian parents hobby in their youth is at least an interesting idea, and perhaps a validation of the long-term strength of photography as a pursuit.</p>

<p> I think over the last 6 years I have spend more shooting the DSLR then shooting my film camera. Probably something like $40.00 a year for film and maybe double that for the DSLR. I am counting the cost of the camera's, batteries, film, memory cards and such. As far as computers, printers, lenses they are all the same for both camera's. I guess probably financially the biggest problem for me is the bulk of money required to buy the D200. For me it was a chunik of change to spend $1250.00 on a camera body all at once. My F100 was $400.00 which was a good amount for a birthday present. The thing is I do not shoot a lot of photos. Maybe a roll of film a month and the DSLR I hardly use at all as I just prefer the F100. However when I do use it I tend to shoot it a lot. I think last year when we went to Hawaii and I took the DSLR I probably shot maybe 200 picutres in one week. </p>

<p> However on the flip side if I shot a lot of pictures and was not so cheap about film processing and such the film camera would easily outspend the DSLR. But having kids in college I do not spend money without some serious thought. If you have ever educated a bunch of kids you would know what I mean. If you are going to educate your kids just make sure you are pulling down some serious income. </p>

<p><strong>"Just curious...why exactly is digital boring?"</strong><br>

<br /><br>

Girls loved to hang out in the wet dark room, wanting to learn how to print...but no girl has ever said "Hey, can you teach me lightroom?".<br>

<br /><br>

<strong>"Is digital really less expensive?"</strong><br>

<br /><br>

Obviously. What else would account for displacing so many professions, so quickly, as everyone raced to the bottom giving jpgs away for free?<br>

<br /></p>

<p>I actually had one girl want me to teach her Lightroom.</p>

<p>I had a beautiful woman ask me to teach her how to use photoshop - does that count? Of course it was my wife, and I can hardly get to the desktop anymore as a result of that teaching, but she is better than I am at it, which surprises no one apparently.</p>

<p>My wife took my D50 about 4 years ago and I went totally on film ever since. She is still happy with D50, I have got plenty of film cameras, so digital is cheaper by 2 or 3 orders of magnitude.</p>

<p>I have posted a few times already so I'll make this one brief. <strong>Digital is cheaper</strong>. I think we can see that. But I'll say it one more time: digital is cheaper, assuming disciplined expenditure.</p>

<p>As a separate issue, I am not certain of Jeff's analogy comparing the cost of the Mamiya 7 of 12 years ago with a current DSLR. I prefer it like this: F100 (T90, OM-4, etc, take your pick) is $200, 50/1.8 D is $100. Use your current computer. Epson V700 is $500 unless your lab scans your negs to nice, big TIFFs. Film is anything from Ektar 100 to Tri-X to Portra etc. The 5DII will do better at low ISO compared to those films, though, but won't beat Ektar. Don't forget darkroom costs and maybe rechargeable AA cells. Go from there.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I have posted a few times already so I'll make this one brief. <strong>Digital is cheaper</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let me just counter that <em>'one size fits all'</em> response with <strong>Film is cheaper.</strong></p>

<p>Neither of our statements are correct. It is a personal thing depending on various factors such as amount of use, final output, etc.</p>

<p>Digital might very well be cheaper for you, film cameras, photographic paper and an enlarger are far cheaper for me.</p>

<p>In 1974 I took a round-the-world trip for a construction company. I took along a picnic cooler filled with 100 rolls of K64 135-36 and about 20 rolls of High Speed Ektachrome. Keeping the film cool as I traveled through Africa and the middle East was a major pain, as was making sure that none of the film got pilfered along the way. <br>

This came to mind when I was posting to another forum on problems with the use of Kodachrome back in the day. I had just put two new 128 Gig CF cards in my Nikon D3x and it occurred to me that they will let me shoot more pictures than that whole cooler full of film, with no worries about heat and no schlepping stuff through airports.<br>

My point is that the "schlepping cost" should be factored in when considering film vs. digital.</p>

<p> </p>