Is digital really less expensive?

<p>First, I lost my a-- trading in my fine film cameras for plastic slr's that all went obsolete in less than a year. I had to get a more powerful computer, expensive software (both also obsolete). A huge learning curve including several classes, my time must be worth something. And let not forget a new photo printer and those cartridges, also out of date. So, when do I break even?</p>

<p>No. Just like anything else in the modern world, convenience wins over any other redeeming features.</p>

<p>Sanford, you break even by way of knowledge and experience gained, and results produced, which ought to happen at an equally accelerated rate. </p>

<p>To make the comparison fair, you have to consider what you paid others to do with film, vs. what you now do yourself with digital. With a film camera, you outsource everything past the unloading of the film from the camera -- unless you do your own darkroom work, of course. You pay a lot of money for that outsourced work, and if you shoot and print enough, those variable costs add up quite fast.</p>

<p>With digital photography, you have a higher fixed investment in the equipment, but your variable costs are virtually nil. Whether this is economical for you depends on how much you shoot and print. I'm a moderate-volume shooter and find that digital is somewhat cheaper than film.</p>

<p>BTW, many digital photographers find it is still cheaper to outsource printing, as it is difficult and costly to maintain a large printer. With digital photography, you can cull your output to just the prints you want.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>plastic slr's that all went obsolete in less than a year.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br>

They all stopped taking photos?</p>

<p>When digital was new and we were considering the cost of film vs digital we didn't take into account how quickly we would be tempted to replace our DSLR's. I say tempted because we really don't need to replace our DSLR's every time a new model comes out. Generally I've replaced every other generation. Still that's much more ofter than I replaced my 35mm SLR's. However, there are people still happily shooting with D50's, D70's D200's, D80, etc.</p>

<p>As for computers, I don't replace them any more often than I did before I went to digital photography. As for printing, many of us were doing our own printing the last couple of years that we shot film so that hasn't changed either.</p>

Time to take up bocce ball?

That's how it is when you follow the review sites, the forums, and everything else about the hobbyism of it.

 

I do perfectly fine photography with so-called beginner cameras that are always at least one or two years behind the

new models, a single core Windows XP computer and completely free software that i can afford to keep updated. When

used in that way, digital is much cheaper than making the same number of pictures with film.

<p>I have just sold my Canon 5D for about a third what I paid for it 6 years ago. It was obsolete after about 3 years but that didn't stop me using it and getting some good shots for another 3 years. The camera lasted well and so hasn't been inordinately expensive if you spread the cost over the whole time. My computer I would have bought whether I did photography or not so I don't think you can really count that. I use reasonably cheap Elements software and for my purposes can't see why I should get the very latest. There are many recent versions on ebay for quite small anounts of money. So I don't think digital photography need be wildly expensive.</p>

<p>Lenses, now, that is a different matter....</p>

<p>Given that I save approx £4500 pa in film and processing costs across multiple MF systems, I wouldn't even get close to breakeven unless I replaced my dslr body , computer and software every year and my lenses every two years. I'm nowhere close to doing that. I also save on scanning costs and scanner. </p>

<p>I can think of a lot of reasons why I might miss my Bronicas and Mamiya. But being less costly to operate isn't one of them. </p>

<p>If you mean financially, that all depends on how many photos you shoot with your shiny-new DSLR! The more you take, the less each shot costs you.</p>

<p>I bought a Canon 7D about a year and a half ago, and have since added over $3,000 in accessories to it (EF 100-400L, EF-S 17-55 f/2.8, Tamron 70-300, Canon flash, Manfrotto tripod, etc.), and I believe that I have more than broken even, if I compare the same number of shots I've taken with this gear (running over 14,000 now), vs. the cost for a similar amount of slide film bought & processed in 36 exposure rolls. And I'm a relative lightweight in the # of shots department!</p>

<p>To be fair, I've likely thrown out - usually before the shots get to the computer - half of those shots, and yes, I'd likely have been more considerate in the shots I took, if I used film, but then again, I would likely have missed a few of the good shots I did get.</p>

<p>For me, the availability of instant feedback from the LCD on the back has done more for my photography in the past 18 months than many years of shooting with film. There's no waiting for results, no hoping I got the shot (well, less of that, anyway. I shoot birds a lot, so...), and I can often try the shot again immediately to achieve a better, or simply a different result.</p>

<p>But in the end, for me, it's a hobby, not a business, and I have no expectation that anything I do with it will "break even" in the long run. So long as I enjoy what I'm doing, and the camera and kit deliver the results, I'm more than happy with it.</p>

<p>You could calculate it. You'd need to know how much more you spend on digital equipment, how much film you'd be shooting and what you'd be paying for film and processing. E.g., I have my own film scanner that I bought for $75 and if I use my F100 and lens (used Tamron 28-75 with a good filter) that cost about $500 together, I have $575 in film equipment, and if a D800 and the same lens would be $3300, the difference is $2725. If I shoot good film - say, Kodak Portra - and get it processed locally and scan myself, that's about $10 per 36 exposure roll, so 272 rolls, which is 9,792 shots, and with the extra $5 I'll get a beer.</p>

<p>So, in my case, I would have to shoot 9,792 shots (not counting the digital throwaway photos of my feet or something because I'm being lazy about metering and equipment checks) and drink one good beer to make it more economical than film.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>that all went obsolete in less than a year... ...computer, expensive software (both also obsolete)... ...a new photo printer and those cartridges, also out of date...</p>

<p>...when do I break even?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably after defining obsolescence in more practical terms. <br /><br /><em></em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

<br /><br /></p>

<p>I would Brad if I could remember the rules.</p>

<p>Technically, break-even can only occur when revenue equals expenses, so unless you're selling photography services, the net loss you describe is pretty much expected. :-) </p>

<p>The costs are located in different areas. With film, you could use the same camera, lenses, and darkroom equipment for many years, the ongoing expenses are film, chemistry, and paper. Now, you can still use the same camera and lens for many years but there is a lot more pressure, often internally generated, to upgrade the hardware. I shot black and white medium and large format films and printed on silver gelatin paper, which were getting significantly more expensive just before I went to digital. It's hard to compare the costs of darkroom work to digital printing but paper and especially pigment ink are not inexpensive. It is a myth to think you'll "perfect" the image on the screen and get a great print the first time. Even expert printers (and I am not one) need to make a number of prints to get it right since the screen uses transmitted light and the paper reflected light. I think I spend as much or likely more time working on a digital image, but since I'm a retired bum, my time is less expensive. I have friends who love to work with film and silver gelatin paper as well as platinum and other processes. I prefer my digital images to my silver gelatin work.</p>

<p>Everybody's calculations will be different so get out a calculator and figure it out for yourself.</p>

<p>Here's mine. 36 exposure Velvia + processing + gas to lab = $7 + 8 + 3 = $18. Cost per shot = $0.47</p>

<p>Cost of new DSLR + computer upgrades = $2000 + 2000 = $4000.</p>

<p>$4000 / 0.47 = 8510 shot. I've got close to 100K digital images on my hard drive so I broke even a long time ago. Even if you add up the multiple DSLRs I have to $10K I'm still way ahead. Even if digital was more expensive I've saved so much time by not having to drive back and forth to the lab (30 minutes away) or scanning slides.</p>

 

<p>It sounds like you've fallen "sucker" to marketing and tecnho-phobic hype by selling what works, and buying whatever is new. I've been there too and one day I came to my senses and the selling/spending curve came to an abrupt decline...and my pictures continue to plug along just fine. Thank goodness I didn't sell the Leica M4 I purchased in 1968 (although I've sold and rebought some lenses). Nevertheless, I've found digital to be less expensive than film in that I can experiment all I want with virtually no incremental costs.</p>

<p>dslr become obsolete because you want them to become obsolete... i know friend that still have there Nikon D70 and are very happy. They dont need high ISO, they dont print larger then 8x10....<br>

Computer? anyone in this modern world need a computer for facebook, twitter, word processing etc... any modern PC under 1000$ could do the job perfectly; a friend of mine just got a HP something 17inch monitor laptop, cable / dvd / 2TB / 6gig ram for not even 700$! Add Element @80$, Lightroom @150$ and you got yourself a serious digital lab that fit most need for 1000$.</p>

<p>I dont think it was even possible 15 years ago to get a enlarger for below that amount.</p>

<p>I think people create there need and get the *i should get the latest thing* syndrome.</p>

<p>I find digital to be more user friendly for the vast majority of user of all age vs the traditional darkroom / film. In both case, you need experience to get the best out of your material, but i find the learning curve way easier and quicker to get good result with digital.</p>

<p>For me - I used to think shooting on film was more expensive and too difficult so I tried to stick to digital as much as possible. This year, at my Uni we actually pay more per digital print than in the darkroom because they provide the paper for the darkroom but its a pound a print on the decent digital printers.<br>

I started experimenting with Medium format photography and was getting really stressed out about how much I was spending on film and processing.<br>

But the thing that got me to go back to film is that digital printing just isn't fun. Its never as satisfying as hand printing and can be just as hard work.<br>

I suppose the beauty of digital is you don't have to print it you can just show it on the screen but wheres the fun in that?<br>

Personally I think working in film is worth every penny because there is just nothing like it!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But the thing that got me to go back to film is that digital printing just isn't fun. Its never as satisfying as hand printing</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. People hardly ever mention enjoying the process. We now seem to use our computers to listen to music watch films, send messages to people and print and organize our photographs. If we're not careful we will spend all of the time we are awake just staring at a screen.<br>

A decade or two ago we used different things for each of these processes: record players, TVs, pen and paper, enlargers.<br>

The reason I stopped using digital and upgraded back to film is that I was not enjoying having to spend even more time in front of a computer. Especially as I spend a lot of time at one whilst at work. It's nice to be able to do something without involving a computer.</p>

<p>A 36-frame ISO 400 or 800 roll of Portra, Supra, NPH, etc used to cost me most recently (c. 2-3 years ago) about $ 4 to $ 5. 5x7 in prints used to cost around $ 10 (at Long's Drugs. Hilo, Hawai'i sans scans). (In earlier years (c. 2007 & before), prints with low resolution scans were cheaper in West Viriginia for about $ 7 to $ 8.) I could go through 1 or 3 rolls per month.

 

<p>Cost per year would then be 12 * 36 * 2 * ( $ 10 + $ 4.5) = $ 12528. Oh, don't forget to add shipping from B & H or Adorama to mainland USA or Hawai'i. I used to keep anywhere from half to one-quarter of frames from a roll.

 

<p>Fixed cost would be of ...

 

<ul>

<li >

new Minolta 505si Super (Xtsi; c. 1999)

<li> new Minolta 50 mm f/1.7 (c.1999)

<li> new Tokina 28-105 mm f/3.5-4.5 (c. 1999 with rebate)

<li> used Minolta 24-50 mm f/4 (EX or EX+ KEH)

<li> used Minolta 70-210 mm f/4 (local, c. 2000, ~$ 92)

<br><i>(replaced with used Minolta 70-210 mm f/3.5-4.5 (EX+, KEH))</i>

<li> used Minolta 100-300 mm APO (EX+ KEH)

<li> used Minolta 35 mm f/2 (EX+ KEH, after c. 2001 I think)

<li> used Minolta 5400 HS flash (EX+ KEH)

<li> (used flash accessories from KEH, EX or better)

<li> new UV, polarizer filters Heliopan and B+W

<li> used Tamron 90 mm f/2.8 (EX+ KEH, c. 2001)

<li> shipping from B&H & KEH.

</ul>

 

<p>

... (man, this is becoming very depressing; anyway ...) after purchase of ...

<ul>

<li>new Sony A700 ($ 1200, c. Dec 2008), I got ...

<li> used Minolta 5600 HS (EX or +, KEH, ~$ 220)

<li> new Sony x58y flash (~$ 310)

<li> new Sigma macro flash (~$ 193)

<li> used Minolta 80-200 mm f/2.8 (EX+ KEH, ~$ 1270 + shipping to Hawai'i)

<li> new CF cards (1 GB slow; 4 GB 30 MB/s; 8 GB Lexar Professional)

3 card readers (gave 2 to others; got 1 back later)

<li> new extra battery ($ 45-50)

<li> used vertical grip (Dyxum; ~$ 180)

<li> used m42 Pentax 135 mm f/2.5 (~$ 100; useless for all practical purposes)

</ul>

 

<p>

... and shutter has been clicked nearly 17728 times; kept 4521 files (I have yet to process|see 76 of them). Only Minolta 35 mm f/2, 50 mm f/1.7, 80-200 mm f/2.8, and Tamron 90 mm lenses have been used on A700 camera.

 

<p>

As for computing hardware & software, I have not bought anything specifically for photography, other than Bamboo Capture tablet (Amazon; $ 90).

 

<p>

I am using Thinkpad T61 (new, c. 2007-2008; ~$ 1200) that I bought for general computing (personal use, programming, work, etc). That was only because I killed my T42 (new, c. 2002) by keeping a loosely capped water bottle in the bag. (Don't do that!)

 

<p>Now it is hard to find decent ISO 800 film which is not obscenely more expensive than from c. 2007. As such, Minolta XTsi is gathering dust with a ISO 400 roll inside.

<p>I'm personally into my 5th year with the same DSLR, so my answer would be a big <strong>yes</strong>. I shoot 100 images a month. At $10 per 36 that's $30 a month times 60 months or $1800 I didn't spend on film & processing. Just ask Kodak.</p>

Wow! That 10-thousand amount for constant 2 rolls/month is crazy! I will check many rolls I actually had processed.

<p>If it is your hobby, how much will it cost does not depend on you use film or digital, DSLR or mirrorless,... It depends only on how much you can spend for it or more accurately, how much your spouse would allow you to spend for it. This is why every time someone asks:"Which camera and lenses to buy?" your first response will be "How much you can spend for it?"</p>

<p>If it's a job, it depends on your customers and what kind of customers you have</p>

<p> </p>