I want to compare the cost of shooting with a DSLR verses a film SLR. For those who are still contemplating whether to jump into the DSLR bandwagon or stick to 35mm film solely from the cost standpoint, this may be an interesting case study.
I bought my D70 kit in 2004 at about $2100. I sold it recently at $800.
My shutter count at that point was around 18k give or take 1k. So I have spent $1300 for those 18000 shots.
If I were shooting film, I would have been less trigger happy, so let's assume that for every 3 shots in digital, I would have taken just 1 shot if I were using film. This will translate to 6000 (18000/3) shots in film.
6000 exposures will translate to 150 rolls (assume 40 exp/roll).
The cost of shooting 1 roll of film is roughly $15 (film~ $5, processing ~ $5, low-res scanning ~$5, conservatively).
So I would have paid at least $2250 (150x$15) if I had shot film.
$1300 for digital, $2250 for film. For the roughly the same amount of shooting pleasure.
If I had shot more with the D70, then my cost would have come down even more. Conversly, if I had shot less, then, I might have been better off shooting film.
Was my calculation flawed in any way? Please comment.