Quote Originally Posted by stradibarrius View Post
What do you think the limitations of DSLR's are compared to a good film camera?
Hi Barry,

The economics of overhead costs and obsolescence.

The $1800 D200 I bought when they were released a few years back is showing it's age electronically, hot pixels (again), and the like. I've had it repaired several times, shutters, sensor, LCD. At $200 to $500 each repair it is essentially at the point for me where it not worth repairing. I might be able to sell it for 2-300 bucks.

That cost is a serious economic limit for a guy that is only shooting 300 shots a month. That doesn't even consider the support equipment, Computers, Printers, Software.

Had I bought the equivalent film camera, an F100 brand new for $750, instead of the D200, at 300 shots a month it would probably last nicely into my son's old age with a $150 CLA every 5 years or so.

On fine art side the cost 50-100 sheets of 4x5 Tri-X a year with the chemicals needed is almost inconsequential and it is going to be very tough to wear that camera out.

Work is actually the bigger issue for me.

For paying event work, like weddings, my strength and role is as a photographer; I don't want to be an editor, lab, or layout artist.

When I finish a roll of film and pop it out of the camera, I drop it in a padded envelope.

Monday morning the envelope is sealed and labeled and UPS takes it on a ride to Richard Photo Lab. 2 weeks later I get back all the film, prints, and scans, color and brightness corrected, ready to use and show the client. I plan on paying a buck a frame for that service.

Sure I could do the same thing digitally an have the prints and files in about a week, but I'd actually pay more. Most of the Pro-Labs charge a $1 per frame just to correct the color and brightness, plus the print cost, plus I'd need to spend time downloading cards and uploading images.

Speed comes with a price.