Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/05/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Right now for an amateur digital is very expensive. The required investment is large and the usable life of the product short. I do not mean how long it is available though that is important ? heck I can still buy accessories for an Nikon F3 and that is a flash in the pan compared to an M? but how long you can get it easily serviced and repaired. Some argue that they have most of the special computer equipment already. True but I have all my film equipment already too. I just do not have to replace it every five years. I shoot between fifty to a hundred rolls a year. Some years quite a bit more but never any less. I shoot chromes and about 30% are keepers (no I am not an amazing photographer; the standards are different when you shoot mostly family). This adds up to $1000 to $1500 CAN a year in film and processing. That is a good deal of money but could I do digital any less expensive? I don't think so. Again assuming a similar output, I would be making 600 to 1500 prints a year. As I would no longer be projecting, I may have to make multiple copies so maybe add another 1/3. All of a sudden it doesn't look any cheaper to me unless I go to cheap cheap dime store 3x5s. Which, if I wanted that, why would I be shooting with Leicas in the first place? I am not arguing against digital. I am just pointing out that it is not necessarily the easy solution that everyone makes it out to be. As a pro? Sure, no brainer. Heck, fifty rolls a week and fewer keepers and we are talking huge savings. But amateurs are a different matter, at least those of you in my boat. Does this mean I am not going to go digital? No I think I eventually will. First there will have to be a decent rangefinder digital with proper controls. I just do not like SLR cameras. The Digilux 2/Lumix ? is very close but the EVF kills it for me. Second there will have to a be a way of printing slides that matches or almost matches the quality of a straight 35mm transparency. Both of these are getting closer all the time. John Collier On May 23, 2004, at 12:39 PM, Peter Klein wrote: > I'm in a bit of a quandry about the whole film vs. digital situation.