I can't afford to go digital -- can you?

[hayward]

I'm empathetic to your situation - we're all in it, more or less -- but it occurs to me that you could have asked the same question prior to buying your two F4s's and two SB-25s plus the lenses, accesories, projectors, etc. If you added it all together as one lump sum and adjusted backward for inflation, I bet it would be about what it take to get you the digital equivalent. If you move to digital gradually, you won't feel it (or feel it as much, anyway) and the film savings will help. If you could cut your 200 rolls to 100 - and I think you would - a D70 and SB800 would pay for itself ($15 a roll for film and processing x 100 = $1500.)

[melvin_bramley]

To all of the above re not buying film!!!! IF I take ,as was suggested,50,000 frames per year = 137 photo's per day & only print a couple of hundred of them;How much will I save? It's the images you use stupid!! This is not to deride digital but the reasons for doing so.

[loreneidahl]

I cant afford not to.

 

I can see the points made here. and yes the image yous are important , however I dont konw which ones my clients will wnat untill after I shoot them.

 

My first foray into digital was a 2mp digital PS that I used for about one roll and gave to my 10 year old to play with for all of the reasons Robert mentioned.

 

I knew there was better.

 

I am a independant computer consultant so my time is very important as that is how I bill by. I do event photography on the side and I do alot of volunteer shooting as well.

 

My favorite camera is the F3/MD4. I shoot rock concerts and have been doing this for 20 years using MF gear.

 

However I can probably shoot 10-20 rolls on any given weekend just on concerts. When I added up my hard costs - Film + developing plus my soft costs -> time to scan in all of the negs, it was getting very expensive; especially on the volunteer stuff.

 

I used to do weddings as well, however I found that for every hour I was shooting there was at least an 5 hours of non shooting work. Five hours of non shooting work billed at my consulting fees would never get me any gigs. Granted photographers dont charge computer consulting fees but 1 hour of my can either be used to write code or scan photo negatives.

 

Concert and event photography with the D2h allows me to process all of my images that I took before I leave the event and hand to the event promoter a CD with all of the Jpg's. I have set the D2h up so that I get both Raw and Jpg's that don't require post processing to be usable to my clients. ( I give them the JPG's and I keep the Raw) So when I leave an event the only work I do related to the event when I get home is to backup my images to DVD and my hard disk, and clean my compact flash cards. All of this is done while I spend time playing with my kids.

 

I can also download my images directly to my web site and have them up on my gallery in about 15 minutes after the event or set change.

 

The shutter lag on the D2h is basically non-existant, yes it cost $3200 ( and yes it hurt the pocket book and I had to save for over a year) but just my hard cost savings alone will pay for it in one year- add my soft cost in and I am already there. Which gives me more time to work on consulting gigs where I make money.

 

So for me the D2h makes me money in the sense that I can do what I love in photography without compromising my ability to meet my clients needs in my consulting gigs and phot gigs. I will be adding a second D2h real soon as it will allow me even a greater flexibility.

 

I will be adding a third real soon after that for my assistant.

 

I also shoot film because I still love using my F3's and F2's and MF lenses.

[grahams]

I always ask myself, Do you need it, or do you just want it?

 

Either way I win!

[jwhyche]

I read your post and I have to ask the question, "Why do you want to go digital?" You have to perfectly good film cameras and from what you said they suit your needs just fine. You said yourself that you are a non pro so you don't need to take lots of pictures the way pro's do. I see pro going digital because of the exact savings it makes on film.

 

I think alot of people are buy digital because it is the way to go. For the most part they are right. Film is dieing, but it will be along time before it's in the grave. I imagine you will still be able to buy 35mm film camera's for many years to come. In 10 years I think everyone will be making only digital cameras with film being used only for special cases, but they will be make 35mm film for a very long time. To many people have 35mm cameras for the just to dump the market.

 

If your happy with what you have just ignore the digital market and keep shooting. Besides, it's all about the picture and not what took it.

 

For the record I'm one of those all digital people you are talking about with a D70 and a DSC-828. But I didn't come over from a film like a lot of people. I've always been digital but if I had a lot of good equipment in film I doubt I would have jumped on the digital bandwagon for many years to come.

[brandonhamilton]

"LAG. It takes 5 seconds for this camera to wake up, then 1-2 seconds for it to fuss around before it takes the image. I can't time the shutter release as precisely as I can with my FG. After every shot, there's a delay for the camera to write to the card."

 

Robert Lai - You are talking about a low end consumer level digi-cam. You need to compare that to a disposable 35mm. What does that have to do with the discussion here? SLR = SLR. You are comparing Film SLR : crappy digi-cam.

 

Put your FG camera up against a D2H, and THEN come here and talk about "digital shutter lag". Are these people really THAT ignorant?

[james_lai]

Brandon, don't forget the issue in the original post: "I'm focusing on the cost."

 

I think the point is made when you have to compare a $30 film camera to a $3,200 D2h.

[juan_su]

I'm sure many of you have much more experience in photography then myself, as I'm just the middle of my 20's and I'm been shooting seriously for less than 2 years, but in my last two years, I've spent a S--T load of cash in purchasing the F5, F100, AFS lens, and a few other highly reveared Nikkors.

 

Why did I invest in film even though I'm very much into technology and digital photography? Simple, because at that time, DSLRs were WAY too expensive for me and the DSLRs that were out there just didn't seem to offer me what the F100 or F5 could in terms of performance. It just didn't make sense to shell out such huge amounts of cash on DSLR, when P&S shoots were becoming cheaper, more feature packed and higher megapixels than the DSLRs.

 

So what about now? Yes, the DSLRs are much better in terms of resolution, performance, compatability and yes, many of them even have megapixel counts upwards of 12.4MP and 8MP and also 14MP in diff brands, but the cost factor still hasn't really gone down for me. Yes, Canon introduced the DRebel and Nikon followed up with the D70 that were $1 less than $1000, but really, did those cameras offer what my F5 or F100 offer interms of film?

 

A picture is a pictures, whether you shoot it digitally or thru film. Don't get me wrong, there are many differences in how the picture is taken and workflow and such, but I'm just really comfortable with film now and I think I'll stick with it for a while.

 

It just seems as though many people are jumping into DSLRS and many of the people I know who are buying can't even figure the basics of SLR photography. Anyway, enough of my ranting. The answer is still NO, I can't afford it.

[Mike D]

I shoot 3-5 rolls of film per weekend and 25-30 rolls on local trips 3 or 4 times per year. That's 300-400 rolls per year. At $10+ for film and processing, that's $3,000 to $4,000 per year. Poof, that pays for a D2H and 2 1-gig cards.

[ron_stamps]

I shoot film and digital. Digital for fun, film for archiving and quality.

I worry that the film labs will go out of business due to the digital revolution.

That the film companies will go out of business due to the digital revolution.

This would be due to not enough clients using film.

Don't get me wrong now. I use a DSLR and have great fun trying to get my

photographs to look as good as my NPH,Vevia, and Kodachrome 25 shots.

I think , very many first time users automatically buy digital now, and that it will

lead to a generation of photographers that look into a LCD to see if they got it

right, instead of studying the light and art of photography.

[joe_zammarelli]

I have to agree with Robert Lai's post a while back. I, too, have an Oly, a D-560. I love it as a take anywhere p&s, but it is s-l-o-w. My Canon A70 is MUCH faster with virtually no lag time between shots, but it doesn't slide as easily into my pocket. So the digital p&s arena has lots of options.

 

My main point in favor of digital is eliminated film costs and having access to Photoshop. When I take my film cameras out, I shoot a few frames, maybe a roll or two. When I take the digital, I'll fill the card, 200+ shots, plus some (I have spare cards). Don't get me wrong, I still shoot a LOT of film, but comparing digital to film, well, it's somewhere around 100 to 1.

 

As for Photoshop, or any other photo manip software, I love the idea that I can control the messing about that every shot needs, then bring it to my gal and tell her to print it with no adjustments. Every picture needs some help. Now, with digital, I can be my own darkroom and I can create exactly the result I want. Having to learn Photoshop? That's not a negative, that's a plus!

 

I love the fact that I can switch ISOs without switching cameras as I do with my film bodies.

 

As for the computer, any computer will do. If you don't have one and feel the need to buy one just for your photographs, don't. Any processor offers a kiosk into which you can just slip your memory card.

 

No, for me, the big problem with digital is that it is an evolving technology and the $2000 camera you bought last year is worth squat today. Having said that, the $2000 camera you bought last year still works just fine and will for many, many years.

 

That and, unless you are using pro-grade gear, there are limitations. One of my p&s cameras goes from f2.8 to f8. Not enough in my view. You don't have that problem with a DSLR.

 

But your question was about justifying cost. As a journalist, you're not hauling around many thousands of dollars of gear. You need a reasonably rugged camera body, or two, and a couple of reasonably useful lenses. Going digital isn't going to break the bank here!

 

Besides, if you stay within the same company line, you can reuse lenses, flash, and all that. So it isn't like you have this one big investment in equipment that you can only use in a very narrow application, only to toss it all away in a year or so. If you shoot Nikon, stick with Nikon. If Canon, stick with them. Don't go out and buy a whole system. It just doesn't make sense. Use what you have to the extent you can.

 

All you need to do is find a body that does what you want. It will continue to do it for years to come and all the other stuff you have or will acquire will be used with the next body.

 

bon chance

[ShunCheung]

A new $2000 F5 from a year ago probably worths below $1000 in the used market now. Film SLRs are losing a lot of value because people are switching to digital in large numbers. Whether that is "good" or "bad" depends on whether you are buying or selling.

 

Meanwhile, my two-year-old D100, which I paid $2000 for, probably worths less than $1000 also, but it still takes excellent images as it did back then.