The Cost of Digital Technology

[davidjmitchell]

In October 2001 I bought two camera bodies. A secondhand M6 classic

@ ?895 and a new Nikon D1 at ?3,350. Less than four years on, the

current secondhand UK retail values of these bodies is ?895 and ?490

respectively. With the Leica M series remaining relatively constant

for the past fifty years and with digital SLRs being "updated" every

six months or so, it apears that only one group gains; the

manufacturers. I will not be upgrading the D1 & at such a loss it is

pointless selling it on; just cut my losses. Is this the true cost

of the "progress" of photographic technology? For all intents &

purposes I have now stopped using the D1 &, with film processing from

the Leica, just have everything scanned to CD. The best of both

worlds at no capital outlay. Digital hasn't made me a better

photographer, just a much poorer one !

[WM]

Hi David !

I was thinking of that myself when I recently 'valued' my digital gear based on what it is being sold these days on the big auction site. Both my Canon dSLRs' are worthless now. I have now come to the conclusion that if I bought digital gear, I have to be prepared to 'write it off' completely in a few years, or else, I won;t buy it.

 

As for M's, I have never lost a cent buying an M. In fact, I have bought various M's, enjoyed using it, and sold it for the same price or even a few dollars more to cover some Tri-X cost ! Haha !

 

Cest la vie......

[wai_leong_lee]

It's not fair to compare the losses on new equipment vs the losses on 2ndhand equipment. You could lose a lot if you bought a new M6 and wanted to sell it 2nd hand.

 

However, what is clear is that the rate of loss on a 2ndhand M is very low if its condition is maintained, and that 5 years from now, the chance that someone will want to buy your M is a lot more than the chance that someone will want to buy your D1.

 

If you are a pro, the D1 should have paid for itself through your tax breaks and savings on film and processing. If not, then your money has basically vapourised.

 

There is nothing wrong using the D1 now-- as long as it works, it should still give you the same use and same pictures as it did when you bought it. The face that no one wants an old DSLR any more doesn't change its utility. You should use it, if you want to take digital pictures. Why waste a good camera?

 

Wai Leong

===

[frederick_muller]

The hardware definitely isn't economical. I wonder how much film one has to shoot before it makes more sense to go digital despite the rapid depreciation of the hardware?

[frank granovski]

Digial cameras, VCRs, TVs, are outdated in a blink of an eye. So why buy the latest consumer electronics toy? To help the economy?

[nee_sung]

>>So why buy the latest consumer electronics toy? To help the economy?<<

 

Yes. Otherwise many people (the manufacturers, designers, distributors, etc) will die from shame of irrelevance. Have pity on them!

[fotografz]

Why would the capture medium make anyone a better photographer?

 

Film scanned to a CD is better than the images from a D1? You must have an exemplary

lab, because those lab CDs are usually pretty low res.

 

However, I do agree that on strictly a cost basis, digital savings are grossly over-rated. If a

photographer isn't making fistfuls of cash with digital capture, then it's a very expensive

hobby indeed.

 

IMO, Digital's value is in the instantaneous nature of the entire process, not just shooting

and sending to the lab... which is still better and easier done with film. But, the whole

digital process of shooting, editing, and printing involves even more expensive gear like

printers and computers that become outdated and worthless just as fast as the cameras.

 

Both digital cameras and dedicated film scanners have come a long way, and provide

photographers with real choices. If you can afford the top end digital cameras, you should

be prepared to stick with it for years to come and resist the siren's song of the

manufacturers. With the D1 you were what's called an early adopter. If you were

purchasing a digital SLR now, you'd be in a better position to keep the camera because the

quality has improved to the point that it'll provide what's needed for years to come.

 

All that said, I've been through the digital mill grinder myself and have come full circle

back to film for more work than in the past few years. If I were strictly a amateur shooter,

I'd just do film and get a dedicated film scanner and leave it at that. Owners of digital

cameras don't like to hear that, but it's an informed opinion based on image quality

issues, not ease and convenience.

[sl attanapola]

I don't think that a tv(around for 50 years) or a VCR(1976) are DEFINITELY consumer toys!

 

Why did you get a D1 instead of just scanning your film?

 

You could have checked the secondhand prices of the previous generation of digital SLRs to see that the do not hold their value well.

[Karim Ghantous]

Wai-Leong wrote: "If you are a pro, the D1 should have paid for itself through your tax breaks and savings on film and processing. If not, then your money has basically vapourised."

 

Exactly. Heck, even if David is not a pro he might have saved money on film processing alone.

[daniel_taylor]

Silly me. I was under the naive impression that one purchased a camera to take pictures. I never realized that one purchased a camera to fondle it, glow over the name on the front, and treat it like a 0 interest savings account.

 

Now that I've seen the light I will definetly sell all my digital equipment and go buy a Leica.

 

(To those Leica fans who actually take pictures, no slight is intended towards this well respected line. I'm simply tired of hearing people whine that their cameras aren't like their stock portfolios. What do these same people do when it's time to buy a new car, since those lose even MORE value the moment they're rolled off the lot???)

[socke]

that is allways a problem for a collector.

You should invest in 50's Kiev and FED/Zorki cameras, they are on the rise!

[frank granovski]

I don't even buy my TVs and VCRs. People keep throwing them away. The back lanes are full of them, even computers. In another couple of years, the lanes will include discarded digital cams and P4s as well. Oh happy times.

[terry_rory]

OK I have just recently posted my last 'proper' film camera off to a new home (R3A/Summicron) as you may have read recently.

 

I am now almost completely digital (in my photography) and I am OK about the cost. Despite my D70 depreciating in value I have questioned it and guess what? It is totally unaware of its loss in financial worth! It still thinks and behaves like a good camera, we still get along and it is looking forward to new and better lenses and firmware upgrades and it will still keep its place in the camera bag even if I get a better DSLR next year. (As a worthy backup system)

 

What I really miss is 4 - 5 UK pounds to purchase a good quality film, 10 UK pounds to develop and print at a good quality Frontier lab and 2 - 3 UK pounds to have little 1840 x 1232 pixel scans put on CD (or 250 - 600 UK pounds for a half decent home neg scanner where I would do the job myself)

 

My Nikon D70 has saved me so many times those costs, that it has paid for itself a couple of times over now and given me great pleasure and given me a whole new learning curve and set of challenges to master which is no bad thing.

 

I only pay for the relatively fewer number of Frontier enlargments (12x8 or 15x10 that I have done from digital files) rather than every single shot (even the bad ones!) that I used to have to pay for.

 

However film is wonderful stuff and there is no 100 percent digital substitute for a well executed B+W print yet (It will come) but that is no great loss to me as I never had room for a darkroom and was always at the mercy of expensive labs for my B+W work.

 

Who factors depreciation of equipment when it comes to enjoyment of a hobby or passion? My DSLR has more than given me enough pleasure in return for the outlay even if it dropped dead tomorrow and became a 'digital paperweight'!

 

So I have no digi vs film agenda or argument despite going digital because everyone is different. I am a fan of both disciplines and both media when done well. Leica make great cameras and that is beyond doubt also.

 

I dislike it when people get dogmatic about one media or another and try to 'convert' others. Do the best with whatever you use and share the positive side of it (great pics hopefully) and sod the cost whether expensive or cheap. All that matters is the end results, photographs. (Unless you are a collector!)

[canfred]

Right Volker lat not least the new kid on the block Yashika GS.

I have three of them one is as new , bought for $ 30.00 some time ago.

Now the batterie problem is solved just use Wein cells. I will place them all on Ebay and buy a new MP.

[frank granovski]

My God! The cost of film in the UK is a rip-off. You should move to Canada - the best country in the world. "Guzu az aup dar umad." ---Farsi.

[watts]

You only needed to shoot the equivalent of 6 or 7 rolls a month

and you would have been ahead economically. I'm not sure if

your point is very fair. The D1 was a product aimed at

professionals. If you bought the camera as an amateur and

haven't got three grand's worth of use from it in the time you have

had it you can hardly complain about the price of progress.

Besides, the argument no longer holds. The cost of a decent

DSLR has fallen a long way since 2001, yet the cost of film and

processing has not. It doesn't take a lot of usage from a modern

DSLR to make it economical - even for an amateur who may only

normally shoot a couple of rolls per month.

[frank granovski]

Trevor comes across more like a master than a mere professional, after viewing some of his work.

[terry_rory]

Frank it is worse than that! I am actually a mere amateur thrashing around trying to learn it all and have fun at the same time. I should edit my gallery (severely) and get rid of a lot of the really old CD scans in 'paint shop pro 5' disasters that make me wince nowadays.

 

(Too many landscapes n churches too!)

 

But thank you.

[terry_rory]

And Frank, you are right about UK prices!

 

I have just this minute been stripped of 153 pounds UK for a Lee Filters 'starter kit' (2 slot holder & 0.6 ND hard grad, coral filter, 67mm adaptor, pouch and cloth) by those nice chaps at Robert White. But it had to be done.

 

Now you can all delight in telling me this costs $100 US where you guys live!

[frank granovski]

Your last old church picrure was amazing, Trevor, the one with the blossoms.

 

Here in Vancouver, the average cost for a roll of 24 film is $2. The average cost is $5 for developing and 4 X 6 prints. B&W is about $10 with prints. Filters..., they've really come down in price these last couple of years. Softars are still expensive.

[al_kaplan1]

In Miami, FL hardly a week goes by when somebody doesn't have either Fuji or Kodak ISO 200 color film on sale for a four pack at $5.99. One hour processing is another $6 or $7 for 4x6 prints, overnight is $1 less.

[terry_rory]

Frank that one you mentioned was on a Canon S70 cheapo plasticky digi P&S so you have my blessing to hate it now :)

[sprouty]

I can't decide if this is a coming out post for the newest member of the I-hate-digital crowd, or an I feel stupid post for having slept through economics 101 in college.

[terry_rory]

Yes Al but that is in Florida. Moving to FL is not necessarily the best option for me. The amount of sunshine you get is scarey.

[rick_waldroup3]

Ah yes the wonderful age of digital cameras. I just shipped off a Nikon D2Hs, less than 2 months old, to be reparied. Last year, after 9 months, I sent a Canon Digital Rebel back for repairs, after the shutter was worn out. I used a Nikon F2 and F3 for over 30 years with no problems whatsoever. I see complaints all the time on photonet about the build of digital cameras and on top of that, they lose 50-70% of their value just a few months after production. There is no going back. Digital is now the norm. I just wish someone would build a freaking camera that will actually be around just a few years from now.