[Leica] WAS: Summilux vs. Summicron NOW FILM COSTS.

[tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant)]

Douglas Herr responded:
Subject: RE: [Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron


> B.D., perhaps you missed the point I tried to bring up, that your  blanket 
> statement "Of course digital saves money - if you buy film" needed 
> qualification.  As a blanket statement, as you presented it, it's 
> misleading and ignores the realities of many photographers.  When each of 
> us tries to decide whether film or digital is a better choice from an 
> economic point of view, the variable costs are not the only costs 
> involved.  Econ 101.<<

Hi Doug,
Some of my colleagues who shoot nothing but stock for MASTERFILE stock 
agency, I don't mean happy snap guys, these fellas do major set-up stock 
with models and studios, not to forget they go about the world shooting 
models on locations. They make in the neighbourhood of $ 250,000 and higher 
a year as their percentage of their sold material, are shooting only 
digital. Each of them report savings of ... $15,000 to $25,000 a year due to 
not using film of any kind.

As well as an over all better economic picture with all costs factored in, 
including their computers, and all ancillary equipment.

Maybe I'm missing the point, but in the long run it must be cheaper shooting 
digital because most people who buy a digital already own a computer and or 
even some kind of scanner or printer. So it isn't as though they had to 
purchase extra equipment to use the digital camera for prints.

Sure there are the absolute diehard film shooters who'll always be around, 
many on the list. Or they'll shoot both, but on average they will save money 
everytime they fill a memory card than finishing a roll of film.

Unless of course they shoot one roll between summer holidays and New Years 
eve. ;-)

ted