I just went through the digital vs. film debate in my head.
I could buy a new digicam like the EOS 550D for between $800 and $1,000.
Add in the cost of accessories. Then figure in the cost of consumables like paper and ink. (It costs over $50 to refill my printer!)
But, instead I bought TWO 35mm cameras and only paid approx. $60 for the lot. I bought an ENTIRE darkroom setup for $200. (Enlarger, tanks, trays, utensils & everything.) With approx. another $100 worth of consumables, I am already operational and making prints today.
For consumables, I can pay approx. $6.00 for each roll of film, about $40 for a pack of photographic paper and $50 for enough chemistry to process a whole boatload of film and prints, that comes out to just two refills of my inkjet printer, not including the paper I would buy.
Okay... So I can pay $460 for film or I can pay $1,000 for digital.
So, the way I look at it, I'm getting better quality for half the price. Once I added it up, it didn't take me long to decide.
There are still people who make Daguerreotypes! Those have been "dead" for over 100 years. Haven't they?
Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac
Once it gets it gets to medium format it is even worse economically. Look at the prices for "good" digital backs in comparison to the price of a medium format film kit and the prices per roll with developing. Digital is not worth the money.
Bachelor of Fine Arts and Bachelor of Arts: Journalism - University of Arkansas 2014
Canon A-1, Canon AE-1, Canon Canonet GIII 17, Argus 21, Rolleicord Va, Mamiya RB67, Voigtländer Bessa
I am going to write a rebuttal, and I will include that as yet digital does not have the tonal range smoothness of black and white film and that if film was dead, then why are Kodak, Fuji, Iford etc still making it?
I must admit, when I first read this article I was very upset. I didn't think anyone (apart from my missus) thought that way, or was that blinded by their own intelligence (LOL).
See if you can work the money angle on this guy. What does this guy have to gain by pushing digital on people?
Advertising revenue, clearly. It's obviously a paid promo.
Originally Posted by Worker 11811
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I agree. All they ever want to do is sell you more sh** you don't need.
...Hmmm, you see, that's the exact reason why I sold my DSLR, and will never ever support Canon again. I just feel there is little point in buying (pricey) lenses (or ink for that matter) from a company that is pushing so hard on the d****** agenda, paying people to lie.
D****** is a marketing scam, it wants you to buy into an "upgrade cycle", buying a "new super duper better blah blah" version, everytime a new DSLR comes out.
It's a pity that the consumer market fell for this, in twenty years time (almost) no-one will have the photographs (or "Images"...I hate that word) that they are so merrily shooting now. Inkjet prints suck and don't seem very archival (unless you have an uber pricey printer and inkset?)
Just my 2 cents...
Long live film (and darkroom printing)
And remember this: its only a short jump from "Live Face Detection" to "Live Moonrise Over Hernandez" detection. Then it wont just be film that's dead...
None of what this fellow writes entails critical analysis or subjective, balanced assessment (that means I take the view that not all digital cameras can be seen in a favourable light); I am seriously wondering if he's into a cash-for-comment dig with Canon.
As for film being dead. Really (guffaws)? And replaced with what, exactly?
That is said, after the intro paragraph. Shallow, specious and ignorant..
I make careful, technical judgement of people based on their skills as photographers, not by what they write about the newest toy in their hands. And I don't bow to industry bigwigs like Canon, Nikon etc. I often get to watch enthusiast photographers work their way up from the mediocre to the magnificent. This guy, however, has nothing to show but talk-talk-talk. I'll recount my maxim: "In God we trust. All others bring evidence!".
As a former Canon Australia employee i can tell you that this is the view of the people within Canon and pretty much every large photo company.
If they can't make money from something, they bash it and try and discredit it.
The problem is that most *consumer* results are better from digital than they are from film. I put this down to shitty minilab printing. I can see why it has fallen away.
but slide film and B&W can not be replicated in terms of quality or colour.
the Eos5500 is the bottom end of the range. The smaller the number the better the camera. My 1978 Canon A1 and a 35mm 2.8lens will eclipse anything that camera will be able to produce and it cost 1/10th. But then again, it has its purpose as does the digital (just not in my hands). By today's standards i have a rubbish camera, but at the end of the day it is the results that matter - not the camera.
I am going to challenge this guy to a shoot off.