Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/03/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Tina, I'm wondering if this arithmetic is skewed in the sense that with a digital, the photographer blazes away more than they would with film, and might then conclude, "Boy, all that button pressing would have cost a bomb with film!" True. Photographers might be able to work out their personal digital to film shot ratio. You might be a 2:1? And their 'Keepers' ratio, digital vs film. Regards, Rick. On 05/03/2005, at 10:06 AM, Tina Manley wrote: > At 05:54 PM 3/4/2005, you wrote: >> Who's brave enough to take this little test? :-) Add up the cost of >> all the bits and pieces you've bought for your digital photography >> adventure and then work out which Leica bodies or lenses you could >> have bought instead! Could be interesting. :-) >> Rick. > > But you would have to factor in the price of the film and developing! > For anybody who uses more than a few hundred rolls a year, digital > will save enough to pay for all of the bits and pieces. I saved > enough to pay for my Canon 1DMII the first two months I had it, but > then I would have used and processed over 300 rolls of film in those > two months. > > Tina > > > Tina Manley, ASMP > www.tinamanley.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >