"Real" Cameras Out in Force

Bromo33333 said:

I have a D100, actually, and hate it.

Click to expand...

I have one as well. it sits unused in it's bag now. Just think how many 'real' cameras I could have bought for what this cost.


Steve.

Karl K said:

I was shooting a four-generation family portrait with my Contax NX. After about a half-dozen shots, the six year old boy came running up to me and wanted to see the shots on the LCD. When I told him that I was shooting with film and there was no LCD, he ran over to his mom for some comforting. She had to explain that not all cameras can display the results immediately. The poor little kid had never before seen a 35mm SLR . Talk about being deprived!

Click to expand...

My Baby cousin does that!
she likes the prints more though.

Steve Smith said:

I have one as well. it sits unused in it's bag now. Just think how many 'real' cameras I could have bought for what this cost.


Steve.

Click to expand...

Yes, and one of the certainties of buying a digi is that you know it will quickly become obsolete.

I have a 50+ year-old Nikon S2. Put a roll of film in it and it will take just as great of advantage of the film's capabilities as putting that roll of film in a brand-new F6.

In the past, the image sensor was replaceable (i.e. you put in another roll of film) so cameras were built to last. You don't need a robust digital camera - because it's sensor will become obsolete long before the body falls apart.

Shucks, I'm depressing myself again!

Up here in the mountain areas I am seeing more MF and 35mm film shooters also. About a week ago at Glacier Point I saw this husband and wife shooting MF and 35mm then at Point Lobos I saw MF shooters. In Yosemite Valley I am seeing more tourists shooter with 35mm film cameras also. And get this, the stores in Sonora are stocking 35mm film again and at the Ansel Adams gallery they had quite a large selection of BW film also, the top shelf was HP5+…

I was pretty happy to see it.

copake_ham said:

In the past, the image sensor was replaceable (i.e. you put in another roll of film) so cameras were built to last. You don't need a robust digital camera - because it's sensor will become obsolete long before the body falls apart.

Click to expand...

Assuming the average consumer - will have the prints developed by lab or printed out on photo printer and use the computer to "adjust" them:

If you do the math (not including accesories like tripod, light meters,bags, etc that would be the same in both systems) -
For 10 years
DIGITAL:
3 SLR camera bodies: $4500 (since digicams go obsolete every 3 years)
2 zoom lenses: $1000 (won't go obsolete if you pick the same system)
6 memory cards: $300 (assuming $50/each)
7200 pictures (assuming 21 cents per print)- prints from kiosk: $1500
Computer (assuming 33% of typical system cost is caused by camera): $1500 (3 upgrades since they go obsolete about the same rate!)
TOTAL: $8800 or $880/year

FILM:
1 camera (VC RF or equivalent SLR): $600
3 primes or a couple of zooms (35, 50, 90 - VC): $1000
300 rolls of film (C-41): $900
Developing costs including 1 set of prints: $1140
total cost: $3640 or $364/year

With this logic one could contemplate getting a brand new Leica or Hasselblad or Sinar!

Also - I was in Beijing 1 week ago and visited the Forbidden city (business trip - had 1/2 a day free) and saw about 1/3 film cameras, and 2/3 digital. Almost everyone over 40 was using film, and only a few were using film under 40. Most everyone was foreign or at least not form Beijing as best as I could tell.

I've had the same digital camera for the last 3 years and just sold it for 60% of what I paid for it and bought a new one not because the old one was obsolete, but because I needed the better high iso capabilities.

Camera cost: I've got $1400 for 2 cameras over 3 years and the new camera will be good until it literally dies on me as it gives me the 8x10 file I need for diginegs with the iso1600 results I really like.

Lenses: Why do you need 2 zooms for a digital and primes for the film camera? I've got $700 into 3 prime lenses.

Cards:Spent $80 on 2 cards which cover my needs
Images are used for digital negatives for alt processes which is what the film would be used for and would require the same computer (which I already had for schoolwork), but film would also require a scanner--don't see why I would need to replace my computer if it runs photoshop and handles the files my camera gives me. And since I've worked with 2gig betterlight panoramic files on my computer I don't see why I would need to upgrade at all in the next 5 years. As long as the computer literally runs the software then a faster computer isn't required to run the software, only to run it faster.

Total comes to $2180 or $363/year for 6 years (if I give you that I'll replace this camera in 3 more years).

Film camera: $400 +$150 for CLA every 3 years = $700

Lenses: Same = $700

Film: I'd shoot over 100 rolls/year easily, but we'll round it out to 100 rolls of Tri-X which comes to $349 = $2094

Chemicals for development: Shot in the dark and say $150/year = $900

Total: $4394 or $732/year

I love shooting film and I shoot lots of film (ask J&C about the 500 sheets of 4x5 I just ordered), but the $$$ game is no longer the reason to be anti-digital. Just work in whatever format you enjoy working in and does the best for you. Also, I would like to know who would only shoot 300 rolls over 10 years and where you can get C-41 developed and printed for $3.80/roll. Why did I drop the argument based on the average consumer? Because the average consumer spends $250 on a p&s digital, uses one memory card, and downloads the pictures to email and rarely, rarely prints images, let alone prints 720 images a year.

Jeremy Moore said:

I've had the same digital camera for the last 3 years and just sold it for 60% of what I paid for it and bought a new one not because the old one was obsolete, but because I needed the better high iso capabilities.

Click to expand...

I bought a D100 c.2002, and it is not state of the art now, to remain I would have to sell it and would sell it at quite a loss. Assuming a digital camera upgrade every 3-4 years is reasonable. You got a killer price for selling used digital gear. This is probably not most folks experience, and certianly not mine.

But the point was that the user wants to remain somewhat on the cutting edge for their digital photography. Something you may not want to.

Jeremy Moore said:

I love shooting film and I shoot lots of film (ask J&C about the 500 sheets of 4x5 I just ordered), but the $$$ game is no longer the reason to be anti-digital. Just work in whatever format you enjoy working in and does the best for you. Also, I would like to know who would only shoot 300 rolls over 10 years and where you can get C-41 developed and printed for $3.80/roll. Why did I drop the argument based on the average consumer? Because the average consumer spends $250 on a p&s digital, uses one memory card, and downloads the pictures to email and rarely, rarely prints images, let alone prints 720 images a year.

Click to expand...

1. The $$$ game is a perfectly legitimate way to choose between various formats if you can get equivalent or near equivalent results.
2. I am not anti-digital, I just like film better.
3. I am ssuming that 300 rolls is a typical photography amateur. I tend to go through about half that per year and I do not feel very active.
4. I can develop C-41 for $3.80 per roll at my local Grocery stroe (Wegman's)
5. "Average Consumer" might buy a point and shoot, but the person I was thinking of would be a bit more than that - someone like my father in-law who wants more than a Kodak digicam. He prints things out all the time.

A ten year span while technology changes is a rather expensive proposition. Digital photogrpahy will continue to chew through money.

If we were to do a low-end consumer comparo it would show that digital is more expensive than film as well.

Bromo33333 said:

3. I am ssuming that 300 rolls is a typical photography amateur. I tend to go through about half that per year and I do not feel very active.
4. I can develop C-41 for $3.80 per roll at my local Grocery stroe (Wegman's)
5. "Average Consumer" might buy a point and shoot, but the person I was thinking of would be a bit more than that - someone like my father in-law who wants more than a Kodak digicam. He prints things out all the time.

If we were to do a low-end consumer comparo it would show that digital is more expensive than film as well.

Click to expand...

3. then your total should have been 1500 rolls of film at $4500 over the course of 10 years
4. developing cost should have been $5700
- great deal at Wegmans!
5. i don't think your father-in-law would be an average consumer then... i will try to find an article i read about how many people actually make prints from their digital files.

Wigwam Jones said:

Multiple copies, offsite storage, and upgrades to newer technology when it becomes available. It is what banks do with your money - it works.

Archival film is subject to 'single-point-of-failure' loss:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/07/ltm.09.html

And some were 'saved' by inferior non-archival digital technology:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/23/national/main579722.shtml

Click to expand...

An airplane flying into a building exploding into flames and falling down 100 stories is an unusual event. Cd's with images on them as well as film would most likely be destroyed as would human bodies. Those articles weren't created to convince people to use digital technologies instead of analog...they described how new technologies can help save images created before the actual film used to create the images was destroyed (or stolen?) Digital has its place...such as news photogs instantly sending images half way around the world for publication. Since there are still glass plate negs and tin plates still around to print and since one drop to the floor of a cd I just created with scanned in digital images and the potential destruction of that cd, I would rather place my trust iin the proven (over 150 years) analog technologies than in digital.

Wow, it took almost six pages to get this poor thread to turn into a F v. D one (with undertones of F-I-D, of course). Maybe time to put it out of it's misery?

And meanwhile, I just won a Hassey 503cxi on eBay with a low-ball bid that I never thought would matter!

Now I don't know if I got a great deal or a rip-off. But I'm going to try MF.

Y&es, lets not make this a digi vs film thread.

Jeremy Moore said:

Film camera: $400 +$150 for CLA every 3 years = $700

Click to expand...

You what? My oldest Nikon hasn't had a CLA in 40 years – and it still works perfectly well, as do all the others. Well almost all: I did have an EM die on me (the electronics went) and my first digital totally died after a couple of years.


Richard

It really is difficult to compare costs between the two mediums, just as it is difficult to compare quality between them. A lot depends upon how the medium is used.

Richard Kelham said:

You what? My oldest Nikon hasn't had a CLA in 40 years – and it still works perfectly well, as do all the others. Well almost all: I did have an EM die on me (the electronics went) and my first digital totally died after a couple of years.


Richard

Click to expand...

Mine hasnt had one in 30 years

In yellowstone a few weeks ago I saw 3 hasselblads, 2 4x5's and 5 35's. Got to meet several people who were interested in the hassy (I admit it does look like a strange camera, especially when I have the bellows shade on) One guy even knew about hasselblad, I had to laugh when he said to his wife "now this guys using a realcamera!

Markok765 said:

Mine hasnt had one in 30 years

Click to expand...

How do you know? After all, you're not the first owner, are you?

A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned to someone that I only shoot film. His response was "you're a serious photographer then". I guess you could say that.

Ole said:

How do you know? After all, you're not the first owner, are you?

Click to expand...

Ole,

Sure he is, Marko is actually 43 years old and not 13.

Rich

Everybody thinks their wife is the most beautiful.

I started out with a Pentax ME super in 1983 and used it until 1991. I took a little break from photography due to school, Desert Storm, and marriage until 2000 when my first son was born. I had to buy a Pentax ZX-50 which was not my beloved ME so I went digital about 2 years later with an Olympus until I got a Digital Rebel. I agree about how many (lack) of prints that I have since I went digital so to make a long story short I purchased a used ME Super from KEH and am in Film heaven. My wife even loves it more since we have pictures now not some digtal image that you only view for a few seconds. The upgrade I am doing is purchasing a Nikon F5 from KEH, and can't wait till its here. I even am going to start using B&W in my ME Super. The local print shop near my house has been very busy with film and digital prints so hopefully film will be around for a while.

John