[Leica] Just Tried an M8

[red735i at earthlink.net (Frank Filippone)]

On the financial picture of film vs digital:  100% agreed with Ted. And to 
the point about shooting sports, digital is the way to
go, IMO.

$5K is the equivalent of...... 600 rolls of 36 exposure film......  Probably 
a couple or 3 of years of shooting if you have a couple
of kids doing 2-3 sports a year each.   Certainly can be justified if you do 
this type of shooting, even as an amateur.
200 speed Fuji print film @$2 a roll
Costco processing at $6 a roll

The choice of brand is probably more dependent on what you had before you 
decided to go digital... Brand L, N, or C.   Lenses that
are useable on both film and digital camera is the cheapest solution ( you 
already have these), but new innovations can change that
equation.

One reason to go digital.... if you shoot more you will get better at your 
craft.  Shooting digital allows you to shoot lots,
without regard to cost.  You will shoot more.  The instant feedback ( 
chimping) is also an improvement issue.

There are very valid reasons to go digital.  RF or SLR.  There are also 
emotional reasons to go digital.. I want it!.....
But you still need the cash to start.....and an upfront investment of 
several thousand dollars is scary....

Frank Filippone
red735i@earthlink.net 



But if nothing else, digital certainly for a heavy duty shooter of film, 
digital is the most economical way to go regardless of the extra gear, 
computer, printer etc. In the end one can actually save money in the long 
run.

Obviously for the one or two roll a week or month user it's hardly worth the 
digital cost.

ted