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.