Most folks today run on the assumption that digital capture is less expensive than film photography.

And on a per-shot basis, they’re generally right.

The thing is it’s not that simple.

With digital you pay most of your costs when you purchase the camera, there’s relatively little to buy after that one major expenditure. Using film the costs are broken up into small payments over a long period of time.

What it comes down to is this: I cannot afford to plunk down $1,000 for a digital camera.

But I can afford to buy a $69 ME Super with $30 M-50mm f/2 lens one month. A couple months later I can splurge on a $50 M-135/3.5 lens, and I’ve been thinking maybe one of the 28mm lenses which run about $100 might be nice to have soon. All the while buying one or two Wal-Mart four packs of Fuji film a month at $6 a pop, get them developed at $3 a roll and scan them myself on my $125 Epson V500.

And I’m not even going to talk about how the $69 ME Super will probably be running strong long after the $1,000 dSLR has bit the dust (or worse, gets thrown away in perfect working order because it’s “obsolete”). Not going to go there. 😉

This is not to say that the only reason I shoot film is because I can’t afford to buy digital. I truly prefer film photography and will willingly continue to shell out ever-increasing amounts of money to continue working in this medium.

I’m just kind of tired hearing everyone spout off about film being so expensive all the time.

Advertisements