$800 for a 35mm film camera? That doesn't really sound like a great deal to me. 35mm Film cameras should be rock bottom, and almost certainly cheaper than a similarly well-built digital camera. I sold a 1D Mark II for less than $800, and I imagine I could find an original 1Ds for just a little bit more than that. And they don't require me to buy film every time I want to make 36 exposures.
I love my 1V-HS. It doesn't get much use anymore and it is rather battered after it got taken out loaded with Tri-x and was used to shoot a nightclub event where i ended up in the middle of a large fight. Thankfully, camera is just cosmetically bruised and still works beautifully! It's hardly worth selling now so i can see ill keep it forever.
Minimum of $8.00 to produce just one (1) single image just to look at on a computer, before any printing.
(Based on the $2.99 film + $1.99 c-41 processing + $2.99 scan to disc Costco prices quoted above by Lee).
$8.00 minimum, just to email a pic to a friend.
And this 10 fps capacity of the 1V... wait, isn't that for sports? Shooting sports at ISO 100? Maybe that will work if the sport is grandma playing bridge on Wednesday at the Senior Center, but my recollection from 10 years ago is that Fuji and Kodak wanted quite a bit more money for their 800 and 1600 ASA film.
I loved the 1V. It was the first and only camera that made me want to cheat on my F5. But the medium by which we share and use images, both personally and professionally, has forced many films and film processing into a discontinued destiny. It's fun to see an old Model T on the road once in a while, but I wouldn't want to commute in one.
jbfaulconer wrote:
Those film cameras sure are a lot more expensive to operate. I save thousands a year not buying film and not having to have an expensive scanner.
So, how many rolls of film could you have used, spending only when you wanted to shoot, in that period while saving $5,000 (or more) on the depreciation of a throw away digital camera? Oh yeah, don't forget to add in the outrageous cost of CF cards back in the early part of the decade, like when I purchased a Sandisk 4GB card for $265 and knew it was a "smoking hot deal"... Why not buy a few and add more to the cost of digital?
EOS 1VHS - the best Canon camera ever made IMO, was the zenith of their film cameras. It can still be fixed today if something goes wrong, almost a decade after introduction.... Try that with a digital camera. Try that with ANY digital camera. I dare you...
Yeah, digital saves everyone a lot of money. remember that when you're tossing your expensive digital camera in the trash because Canon won't fix it any more..
A wise man told me when I was planning to stop shooting film and go digital, "You won't spend less on photography". Boy was he right! I spend it in big chunks instead small ones on film and processing.
So, how many rolls of film could you have used, spending only when you wanted to shoot, in that period while saving $5,000 (or more) on the depreciation of a throw away digital camera? Oh yeah, don't forget to add in the outrageous cost of CF cards back in the early part of the decade, like when I purchased a Sandisk 4GB card for $265 and knew it was a "smoking hot deal"... Why not buy a few and add more to the cost of digital?
EOS 1VHS - the best Canon camera ever made IMO, was the zenith of their film cameras. It can still be fixed today if something goes wrong, almost a decade after introduction.... Try that with a digital camera. Try that with ANY digital camera. I dare you...
Yeah, digital saves everyone a lot of money. remember that when you're tossing your expensive digital camera in the trash because Canon won't fix it any more..
There is no doubt film is popular and new film emulsions continue to be developed. Whether film is more expensive to use that digital is up for debate...it depends on the individual.
I will always remember a magazine article about an English photographer working on his next book. He used 35mm film exclusively...and only left the house with one roll on him. His comment was that he wouldn't even find 36 things during the day worth photographing....
There are visual and aesthetic reasons for using film as well; trying to put a price tag on them is pointless......but one thing is for sure....I could sell my 1V HS for double what I bought it for; whereas the 10D I used at the time is almost worthless now despite it costing 3X as much two years earlier.
The 1V is like a sniper rifle, you can only get 36 shots before needs to be reloaded. The 1D is like a Gatling gun, you have better chances of hitting your target. It's true that film is cheaper overall to shoot, but if you use your camera to make a living in sports, news media, or gossip then go digital. You don't want to miss a Kodak moment.
