Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/05/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]You make some good points, even if you are off by a 0 in the initial calculation-of course you mean 520 rolls/year. Although unless you shoot B&W and process it yourself, the costs of film and processing are likely to be considerably more than $5/roll, so the cost advantage of digital is even more compelling. Regarding depreciation: my 20D cannot depreciate $2600 in a year, or ever, since I only paid $1500 for it last October :-) Nathan kelvinlee@pacific.net.sg wrote: > 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. > > -- Nathan Wajsman Almere, The Netherlands General photography: http://www.nathanfoto.com Seville photography: http://www.fotosevilla.com Stock photography: http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?qt=wajsman http://myloupe.com/home/found_photographer.php?photographer=507 Prints for sale: http://www.photodeluge.com