Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/04/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Somewhat unfair comparison because if you shoot film, generally you are more concern about the cost and shoot less. Is it better to shoot more or shoot less? Who knows. Everyone has to make their own justification. On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Nathan Wajsman <photo at frozenlight.eu> wrote: > I find it silly to get emotional about one technology's replacement by > another. > > As for the calculations, looking in my Lightroom catalog, I see 6015 images > shot in 2009. Those are the ones that survived the usual culling, where > between 1/4 and 1/3 of the images from the card are deleted altogether. So > this implies that I shot the equivalent of more than 200 rolls of film last > year, so using your $20/roll figure this is more than $4K in one year, and > I > am an amateur. Given what I paid for my M8, it has paid for itself in cost > savings in less than 1 year. I do not count the lenses since I would need > those for film anyway, nor the computer, since I would have this iMac even > if I were not into photography. > > Nathan > > Nathan Wajsman > Alicante, Spain > http://www.frozenlight.eu > http://www.greatpix.eu > http://www.nathanfoto.com > > Books: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/search?search=wajsman&x=0&y=0 > PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws > Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog > > > > > > > On Apr 2, 2010, at 5:52 PM, Vick Ko wrote: > > > Ha ha Tina, I chuckled when I read "can't afford film and developing". I > am guessing your daughter didn't buy the 5D. > > Digital M is the epitome of "pay up front, $2500 or much much more", > rather than the roughly $20 for developing / printing a roll of film, > gradually. So $2500 is 120 rolls of film - that's more than 2 rolls a week > constantly for a year. If you are a recreational user, consider how long > it > would take to shoot that. > > Now I know, the economics change considerably with lower cost cameras. > > > > For me, I really wanted an M8 and couldn't stand the anguish of the > rationalization any more. And like Frank said, once the M8 came down to > $2500, it fell into my "willing to afford" range. I suppose an M9 is > within > what I'm willing to afford, but the M8 is just fine, thanks. > > > > And I've been selling significant parts of my film classical cameras > collection. It has been less painful (emotionally) than I thought. I > still > don't want to sell lenses, because many of them can be used on my M or Pana > 4/3rd's camera. I think adapters are just wonderful, and the lenses > provide > the soul of the image. But no more need to have "one of each" of a camera > line. > > > > And, I'm guilty of taking the digi-M out much more than a film M. Every > time I click a film M, I think "that's another 75 cents, versus no thought > of that clicking the digi-M, but in fact, I paid already up-front. > > > > ...not sure I made any sense...but, I'm a bit saddened that I might never > buy another new Leica item again, especially lenses. Too expensive. > > > > ...Vick > > > > > > > > > > Tina Manley wrote: > >> It's the same with my son and daughter who both have my old M6's. Laura > >> also has my Canon 5D and, although she prefers the Leica, she can't > afford > >> film and developing, so she uses the 5D. Tim also has my old Leica > DLux. > >> He is too impatient to wait for film to be developed and only uses the > >> DLux. > >> > >> Tina > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- // richard <http://www.imagecraft.com/> // icc blog: <http://imagecraft.wordpress.com> // photo blog: <http://www.5pmlight.com> [ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all previous replies in your msgs. ]