So I am having some arguments about overhead in my wedding business.

This is going to be an Analogue vs. Digital debate, I hate that, but it is what it is.

I shoot only film. I am trying to get very much more serious about my studio work. I have done a cost analysis on what my over head would be on par with someone shooting digital.

The going rate for images is about 700-1000. This is for the big expensive packages above about $2500. Using that model I did up some costs for 18 rolls. 8 rolls of 120, and 12 rolls of 35mm, all color. That's 532 images. Just to get a good mix.

My cost using the lab of my choice is $0.80/per image. That includes film cost, processing, High-rez Digital scan on CD, and 4x5 proof.

Now the argument comes in. Is the cost of shooting film equal to that of the useful lifetime of a professional digital camera? I'm not talking about a 'blad with a $50,000 digital back here... more like a Canon 5d, which is what most of the professionals in my area use.

I think that it can be done cheaper using a $500 camera that I have to buy once, than using a $2500 camera I have to buy every 3 or 4 years. Do digital cameras last that long in the professional world?


Thoughts?

Please note that if Digital wins in the cost/benefit, I will be ok with that, but I will whine about it all the way to the bank.