Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Doug, I am sure Digital is more expensive for an amateur like myself, so for me the benefits are variable iso and downloading all of a sessions pictures immediately, rather than waiting to finish a film. The pros I know, and I know lots doing my sport, tell me a digital SLR pays for itself in about 3 to 6 months compared to film. Frank On 9 Nov, 2004, at 17:48, telyt@earthlink.net wrote: > B. D. Colen <bdcolen@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> Of course digital saves money - if you buy film. > > Not nessesarily. For those of us who have to buy our own cameras the > net > cost of the hardware is a much greater with digital vs. equivalent > quality > film cameras. NOTE EQUIVALENT QUALITY, NOT D70 vs. M7. If you're a > machine-gun photographer then digital can make economic sense but if > you're > more deliberate or if other circumstances keep your film use low the > cost > of depreciation on the digital camera can be much greater than the > cost of > film. Digital cameras depreciate to nearly nothing in just a few years > while Leicas hardly ever depreciate to nothing. > > Doug Herr > Birdman of Sacramento > http://www.wildlightphoto.com > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > http://mail2web.com/ . > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >