Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 35 of 35

Thread: How much does digital photography save you?

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yeocolin
    Hi. I'm a film SLR user. Would like to ask those who have had digital cameras and shoot frequently, how much has digital photography have actually saved you as compared to using film? This is especially in consideration all the other peripheral gadgets like memory cards, upgrading software and upgrading cameras etc. Just a rough estimate will do.

    Being more electronic intensive, do digital cameras, especially with their expensive CCD, more prone to breakdowns?

    Thanks.
    Having just got a film MF camera, I realised that with only 10 shots on a roll of 120 film, I have slowed down extremely to make sure I get the right shots. With my digital, I just randomly snap without knowing much about what is really going on, especially when using the Av mode. Film scares you I guess... hehe...

    How much film can you buy with the cost of one 1GB memory card? How much more film can you buy with the difference of a digital and film camera... I never thought about that until a few days ago...

    Digital is an upgrading process constantly... Right now, I'll just kick myself for wasting one shot of 120 Velvia!!!
    The equipment can only bring you so far - the rest of the photographic journey is done by you.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    West Coast of sunny Singapore
    Posts
    1,439

    Default

    1) money saved on film is poured back into equipment, no real cost savings.
    2) shoot thousands of pix on digital. (BUT, how many are keepers and which you'll print? mebbe 10%)
    3) relatively instant yields. no need to finish the whole roll. see something you like, shoot it, d/l, email it, before others have finished loading their roll of film
    4) fast learning curve. can see instantly what you shot and change accordingly.

    that's really just the tip. pros and cons really. both has it's advantages.

  3. #23

    Default

    how fast is the contiunous shots for film camera, i mean shutter lag?
    So which one is faster?

    I think its a good thing that digital camera can double up as a video camera.
    At least for my IXUS 30, i find the video quality superb.

  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Singapore & Hong Kong
    Posts
    903

    Default

    Enuf to make me restart an old hobby that I had given up due to lay-chey going to & fro labs to D & P the films.

    Yup, the savings is more on making the photos, not the equipment. Since I am on Canon, i try to get non EF-S (digital only) lenses. Maybe one day, I may get a film SLR and the lenses will be there for me.

    Is digital better than prints ? So far I am pretty happy with the 4R / 8 R prints made from my S40 (4mp), S50 (5mp). Am still practicing on my 300D to be familar with it....

    Oh, what happened to BIG prints when you need it ?
    Well, fear not - check this link that a US forumer got me...
    Interpolate This
    When I have the $$$ to make BIG prints...

    Digital, you won't regert.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    nowhere... juz a random stray.
    Posts
    2,227

    Default

    MMmmm... common debate between Film and Digital..

    Most pple talk about savings on film purchase, develop and prints... But I feel it depends on how u shoot, wad u shoot and wad equipments u have..

    U can spend $1k for a SLR and another $1k for lenses. Total $2000
    shoot 2 rolls per wkend, let's say approx $20 each for film, develope and prints. So about $160 per mth.. For 2 yrs worth of shooting means about
    $3840...

    U can spend $2k for a DSLR and say still $1k for lens.. so about $3000
    shoot about 600pics a wkend, approx 2400 pics a mth.. decide to print
    100 pics a mth.. 100 X $0.40 = $40 For 2 yrs will be $960... And yr cam
    decides to die on u after so much shots at the end of 2 yrs... so total
    u spend $3960??

    Hahaha... just some examples... Of cos end of the day, it really depends on how much u shoot on both film and digital, how much u print, how much u spend on the gear....

    Taking a thousand shots a day in digital is not difficult; but wears out yr digital faster....

    Shooting digital like the way u shoot film can save u a lot... but dun forget the extra cost spend in buying the digital in the first place and electronic items dun last as long as mechanical...

    Thank about it.

    By the way, I shoot both film and digital.. Very often both at the same time...
    As some others have commented, I too love the quality of the films, especially films like Reala or slides like Provia.... Now I also shooting Medium Format.. hehee..... even more ex!

  6. #26

    Default

    Yes, I'm always quite awed by those who shoot medium format. Its definitely way more expensive than 35mm slide, making each shot from MF camera is well treasured.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Catchment Area
    Posts
    2,441

    Default

    One aspect is the cost. The other is the time and time is also money.

    Film - you need to send to the minilab and then, get it back, be it the one in your neighbourhood or some better ones.

    Digital - time spent in the digital darkroom, tweaking and adjusting to your hearts content. Many do not realise how much time is spent in front of the computer.
    I love big car, big house, big lenses, but small apertures.

  8. #28

    Default

    Digital doesn't seem any cheaper but infact, the opposite for most

    The only thing good seems to be convienience. Less bulk needed for storage too, imagine printing thousands of pixs and trying to store & sort them.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,358

    Default

    Just got back my first medium format 6x7 velvia slides from Ruby and looked at them under a lightbox... MY GOD!!! They are like 3D stuff on 2D film! Never seen anything like this before, even on my 35mm slides (Did that once) and on digital...

    I think film does still have that physical 'shiok' feeling eh?

    Anyway, I OTed... Back to the story...
    The equipment can only bring you so far - the rest of the photographic journey is done by you.

  10. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    London, United Kingdom
    Posts
    596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nickmak
    Just got back my first medium format 6x7 velvia slides from Ruby and looked at them under a lightbox... MY GOD!!! They are like 3D stuff on 2D film! Never seen anything like this before, even on my 35mm slides (Did that once) and on digital...

    I think film does still have that physical 'shiok' feeling eh?

    Anyway, I OTed... Back to the story...
    Sadly, newer photographers nowadays don't even know *what* is slide film. Slides (Velvia in particular) are why I don't use my digital cams anymore (except for ebay, website etc.) - *to me*, the shoikness of a well exposed slide under a loupe is nothing a print nor monitor can give me. (OK Maybe a cibachrome print, but that's another story)

    And that's what I experienced with an 80 dollar, 1969 rangefinder; I recently acquired a 45mm Planar... The slides I get now are... wow....

    BTW, good for u! I have shot several hundred bucks of 120 film, but I have ZERO keepers. I think somehow I can't work with the square. Portraits are ok, my receipients love the result but I'm not a portrait guy so those don't count. 135 at least 1 roll I can get 1 or 2 shots that are worth keeping.

    Alvin

  11. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T.A.
    Digital doesn't seem any cheaper but infact, the opposite for most

    The only thing good seems to be convienience. Less bulk needed for storage too, imagine printing thousands of pixs and trying to store & sort them.
    Storage is not a problem if you are shooting slide film, since you only print your keepers.

    When using negatives, you don't have much of a choice but to print them, unless you intend to scan your negatives and thus review them via digital format.

  12. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    12,938

    Default

    spent tens of times more but I learnt photography in the process. also, with digital, I know whether I got the pic or not right after taking (intangible benefit?) and do not have to wait for processing.
    Last edited by mpenza; 21st December 2004 at 10:41 PM.

  13. #33

    Default

    What the heck .. Actually there is no much saving ..

    I ended up buying more things than I ever needs in film SLR !!!

    This includes ... Powerbook/PC, softwares, eye-one display ... printer, DVD/CD-ROMs, extra hard disks and continue to upgrading is endless ....

    No forgetting the price drop for DSLR is much much faster than film camera ... life cycle oso shorter ..
    AMPA * WPPI * J team

  14. #34

    Default

    Good to know that there are still quite a number of film users around!

    Recently came back from a trip to Australia, took pictures both using a 35mm and a MF 645, I tell you, pictures from the 645 is definitely MIND BLOWING! Although the 35mm gives a better landcape dimension, you can always get the same effect for 645 by cropping it. From now on, my 35mm SLR will just be a metering system, my 645 and 6x7 will take centre stage.

  15. #35

    Default A heck of a lot

    Lets take a 6 year period.

    approx 60,000 shots in 6 years at 60 cents per shot= $36,000 NZ -1st camera at $2,500 NZ then the second camera at $1,250 NZ........lets see that leaves a saving of around $32,250 NZ.

    Now for slides it would have cost twice as much.

    Danny.
    Gotta love marcro ;)
    http://www.macrophotos.com

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •