10MPlayer wrote:
Isn't this the third thread this week about analog vs. digital? Get over it. The world has moved on and digital is 1000 times better, cheaper, and easier to use than film. If you like film it's still out there and even making a small comeback, I hear. Go for it.
Film is 1,000 times cheaper. Let’s examine that statement. Let’s examine my 2 most recent purchases of camera bodies. A Nikon D500 and Mamiya M645.
I recently purchased a used MF kit - Mamiya 645 - for $438 including a couple of small maintenance items and a few optional parts (bracket, extra viewfinders & extra film inserts). A similarly outfit Hasselblad X1D is $20,140 (tax not included), actually, that is missing the grip, but who cares.
With a differential of $19,702 as the price of entry, I could shoot a LOT of film. Let’s say you want to shoot an even mix of Portra and Tri-X. The average price for these is currently just a bit under $6 @ B&H, lets go with $6. Add to than $2 to develop the film at home for a total of $8.00 or add $15 to send out the film for a total of $21.00.
If you self-process, you could shoot & develop 2,462 rolls of film, or at 6x4.5, 36,930 shots. If you sent the film out, it is 938 rolls or 14,070 shots. A lot of folks who shoot film also process it as that is part of the allure. For me, and the way I shoot film, I will never shoot 2,462 rolls through my M645 and certainly not during the useful life of a X1D. Remember, we have not even figured in the useful life of film versus digital and are comparing a 40+ year old film body with a brand new digital body that will have a useful life, even in consumer application of 10 years or less.
Now let’s look at the D500. When my kids were in the house and playing sports, little league through HS, I shot the games and hosted the team web sites - I shot just over 40K frames on my D200 which I used as a main camera for about 10 years, the last 5 of which the kids were out of the house and I was not shooting tons of shots of sports. So, let’s just attribute 40K of the shots to a 5 year period. Let’s also not factor in costs for lenses as I already had most of my lens kit when I got my D200 as it was preceded by a D70s and N90s - both of which use the same lenses (except for the 12-24/4 DX lens).
My D500 with grip and spare batteries came to about $2,200 last fall - I know, I could not wait for the Christmas special as I wanted the body to shoot my son’s wedding. I could easily replace the N90s for $50 including a grip. This delta is $2,150 which, using the same film cost metrics as above, is 268 rolls or 9,648 shots if you process your own or 102 rolls and 3,672 shots. In this case, even at the roll your own pricing, digital wins - assuming the same useful life. But here is where it gets interesting.
I shot my D200 way longer than most folks are keeping digital bodies in service. In fact near the end of the HS sport days for my kids, I was really feeling the ISO limitations of the D200 and was really eyeing the D4, but could not justify that outlay for shooting HS sports. The D500 scratches that itch even better than the D4 at a fraction of that cost. But let’s say the average shooter keeps their DSLR body as a primary body for 5 years. Above we are comparing a brand new D500 with a roughly 30 year old digital body that, aside from being sticky as the rubber coating has “melted” works just like new.
I have every expectation that I could put 100K frames through the N90s before it dies and then replace it with a F100 or maybe even a F5 for $300, give or take.
In summary, for MF, film is clearly the cost winner FOR ME and the way I shoot. Unless you are a pro shooter pumping rolls of film a day through the camera, I suspect that this is the normal situation. Yes, I realize I have not accounted for time spent processing and scanning film or the inability to have the client look at the shots as they are taken. Both of these change the equation for the pro shooter.
For “35mm format”, the value proposition is much closer, primarily due to the significantly lower cost of entry. I have used my D500 which is probably $500 to $800 more expensive than the average DSLR purchase. Again, it depends on how one shoots, but I have grandkids about to play sports and I suspect I will shoot their games, so shoot 10,000 to 16,000 shots per year (I have 4 grandkids versus 2 kids) depending on how many games we can make. With 4 grandkids there are bound to be overlaps. Here, like with my D200, digital wins over film due to cost at those volumes. Let’s also not forget the convenience factor.
For someone shooting a couple thousand shots a year and processing their own film, film may be the cheaper choice, but if you send your film out and shoot any volume at all, digital is cheaper. So, while your statement is probably true in most cases for “35mm format”, I would say it is, in most cases, not so for MF. YMMV.