Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/01/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Well Don the economics make sense for professionals where the cash is related to the business but for me, an amateur with almost no free time, digital is the best thing to have happened in the 45 years I have been taking pictures. No more having to wait for the end of the roll before seeing the pictures. No more wishing I had a different film in the camera than I had. Opportunity to re-shoot if I had got it wrong. No time in the darkroom - the only bit I miss is dish developing B&W prints and I haven't done that in years having gone over to colour exclusively. That's enough for me. Frank On 13 Jan, 2006, at 14:06, Don Dory wrote: > Luis, > No, the herd mentality has set in. Most camera purchasers want a > digital > camera and would not even consider a film camera. Consider that > you can get > a new film Rebel or N55 or Minolta 50 with a modest zoom lens for > under $200 > virtually anywhere. Digital SLR's start around $699 with > equivalent lens. > In the P&S market a 35-150 zoom model can be had for less than $100 > if a top > tier brand is not required or just over $100 if you want a Nikon, > Olympus, > Canon. The digital equivalent would start at $399 and be much > larger or > much more expensive if about the same size. > > I still hold with my argument of several years ago. For the person > who > shoots the typical 100 to 250 pictures a year, an analoge camera > would be > less expensive. $100 for the camera. $20 for 12 rolls of film, and > $90 to > process it. Rounded off to $200 the first year and about $100 each > year the > camera remains operational which would probably be about five years. > Contrast that to $300 for a good 5MP camera, $20 for a reasonable > memory > card, and say an average of $1 for four prints. After the first > year it is > $200 for the analogue and $345 for the digital. After the second > year it is > $300 for the analogue and $365 for the digital. So, after three > years of > ownership assuming the analogue user shoots and has 240 prints and the > digital shooter shoots thousands but has 100 prints a year, the > digital > photographer has finally spent less money assuming that the camera > still > works. > > For the heavy shooter obviously the economics change pretty quickly. > > Don > don.dory@gmail.com > > > On 1/13/06, Luis Miguel Casta?eda <lmc@interlink.es> wrote: >> >> On 13/01/2006, at 0:01, mehrdad wrote: >> >>> i think the trend is to be done with film cameras >> >> sure, profit is higher if they can convince you to change everything >> every few years :) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information