Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/05/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Digital cameras are best really, for people who actually use their cameras. Not great for people who otherwise shoot 2 rolls a year, who should then stick to film. What is the real cost of running a film camera? Assume you shoot 10 rolls of film a week. That's 52 rolls a year. Assume film+process is about US$5/roll (conservatively). That's US$2600 a year. Will your DSLR depreciate $2600 a year? For most people who use a EOS 10D or 20D , probably not. ... so the savings in film+process often makes up for the depreciation. Furthermore, I find I shoot more with digitals than I did w/ film. You can't do a 1:1 comparison b/n film and digital ... because the running cost of film camera is actually higher in comparison, for people who actually use their cameras regularly. Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 20:20:33 -0400 From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@comcast.net> Subject: Re: [Leica] Re:Second thoughts about digitals To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> Message-ID: <BEBD3191.A48%bdcolen@comcast.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Of course $650 was a very low price for a good M3 10 years ago. In fact, it was low for a good M3 three or four years ago. Had you bought a good M3 just 5 years ago, you'd undoubtedly lose money on it if you sold it today. And certainly that's the case for M6s, M7s, and M4s. Although all have held on to far, far more of their value than the high-end digital cameras. ;-)