Janie said that digital cameras are “cost effective”. Considering extra costs of digital is that really true?
Posted on Nov 01, 2008 under Digital news and reports |http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Air2eYD_hS8uQjuUvLgKXheNxQt.;_ylv=3?qid=20081025193411AA3h7oH
Media cards, $1000 dSLR, USB Hardrives, Photoshop, Towers, Monitors, etc.
It adds up. You can get into a exceptional pro Nikon F4 camera for only $400.
November 1st, 2008 at 8:40 am
Would you rather buy film or reuse a memory card?
November 1st, 2008 at 8:40 am
In the *long* run it can be.
Do you know how expensive film, chemicals, photographic paper, enlargers etc. are? Because you will have to pay all of that, since as far as I know (or at least, around here) you just can't send your film off to get developed, you have to develop it yourself, since digital cameras are now dominating and film-based ones are been forgotten.
With memory cards, you can just reuse them (upload your photos onto a computer first if you want), so you'll only need one.
November 1st, 2008 at 8:40 am
I’m guessing Janie is one of those people who have a $100 digital camera and use it often… memory is cheaper than film.
November 1st, 2008 at 8:40 am
I have fewer "extra costs" since I went digital. I can take an unlimited number of pictures on a 2 G memory card that I already own. When I look at all the pictures I have never missed a good shot and have not consumed my usual several rolls of film each day. After I choose the winners, I can get them printed on SNAPFISH for 9 cents a 4×6 print or I can print them myself on an Epson Photo printer up to 8×10. If I really love them I can get them done poster size for less than a poster-size film enlargement.
November 1st, 2008 at 8:40 am
I just answered that question a few minutes ago. I have to disagree with her. A used 35mm SLR with a lens is around $150, in the U.S. Twenty-four exposures of most black and white film is around $4. Color film is even cheaper.
A modern digital SLR equivalent is around $1000, without a lens. The camera will then be obsolete in a few months, then replaced in about 6 months to a year.
Sure with digital you can take 10,000 images, and then some, without having to worry about the costs. But as I stated in my first post, quality is better than quantity.
November 1st, 2008 at 8:40 am
what extra costs do you really need to incur? You can have your memory card inserted into a printer and have your pics done without a computer. Think also of the time you save taking film to a store and waiting for them to be developed, only to find that 2 out of the 36 exposures are worth anything. Nikon point and shoot digital cameras are cheap and perfect for the casual photographer. Nothing better to have while on vacation. Digital is cost effective compared to film in every way.
November 1st, 2008 at 8:40 am
First off, I am offended by that comment Eye Candy! I have a decent camera. I asked about it the other day on here and people told me it was LOL (*oh, but my digi is only a "bridge" camera)
What I meant is it costs more to make mistakes with film then it does with digi. With the digi I can see instant results and simply Delete the mistakes; a luxury one does NOT have with the film.
November 1st, 2008 at 8:40 am
I think you need to level the playing field first. If you are including Photoshop and computers, you need to include a darkroom, including an enlarger, etc
It is very difficult to make one to one comparisons. I took over 20,000 images last year. That’s well over 500 rolls of 36 exposure film. The only thing is, if I were paying say $10 to purchase, develop and print a roll of film, I would not have taken 20,000 images.
If you are buying a camera every three years, that’s your choice, but you could buy a new film camera every three years, too. Given that the F4 you mentioned hasn’t been made in a few years and is more susceptible to failure now should also be a consideration.
Heck, think about the other technology advances - how many bad flash pictures have been eliminated because of better ettl (in canon’s case) technology? How many more timely shots can people take with a digital because you can can ISO for every image, not once in a roll of film?
November 1st, 2008 at 8:40 am
…. from Craig, “Think also of the time you save taking film to a store and waiting for them to be developed, only to find that 2 out of the 36 exposures are worth anything”.
…. and so that is the CAMERA’S fault? I actually have heard that same “reasoning” from other people. Just because the person behind the camera cannot properly set exposure and take a good photo does not mean that digital is better than film. It just means someone who can’t use a film camera properly can take a digital and take 100 shots to get one good one… even a monkey could do that. I suppose that, yes, in that context, diigital is more cost effective, but I prefer to be a photographer instead of a thoughtless digital shutter pusher.
When I have a roll of film processed, EVERY photo is usuable. I use either a light meter or know how to adjust exposure compensation with the in camera spot meter to get exposure correct. Plus, I only push the shutter button after careful thought and study of compostion.
A film camera is as good 20 years from now as it is today. I refuse to get into the “gotta upgrade”, “gotta have the latest and greatest”, gotta have more megapixels”, and on and on of the digital world.
Now… I WILL admit that I use a hybrid film / digital process. My camera is medium format film, but I do scan the negatives, thus I then have digital photos. However, my camera is not outdated in 6 months, I just enjoy the simple pleasure of USING the camera better than any digital, and it takes a LOT of megapixels to equal a high res scan of a medium format negative.
Yeah, I’m spending money on film and processing, and I DO have a Canon DSLR, … even had a 1Ds but sold it recently. I still have an old Canon D60, (yeah, Canon had a D60 loooong before Nikon). I use the digital when I HAVE to for some kind of event gig, but I hate the thing compared to my Mamiya film camera.
Everyone will justify their choice. In the end, you will use what you like best, to H*** with the cost.
steve
November 1st, 2008 at 8:40 am
I don't think so. I still prefer my film cameras over the digital.
For those than think enlargers are expensive really should check craigslist. I have 7 enlargers right now. Three color and 4 black and white. The most I paid for any of them was $100 and its an Omega 4×5 enlarger.
Film costs are negligible when you are a professional. And yes, I do all of my own black and white printing. I took a couple of negatives to a place locally that scans 4×5. The pictures suck.
All the naysayers can say what they want but film is still the best around.
November 1st, 2008 at 8:40 am
It guess the answer really depends on what you are doing with your camera. There is no “one size fits all” answer. Our studio has cut our costs greatly by using digital for high volume shoots such as schools, family fund raisers, etc. Our long roll cameras, film (46mm long roll)and processing costs went way down once we purchased 30D’s and leased lap tops. Errors in packages and expressions are down as well. We have not yet had to replace our 30d’s, although shooting well over 200 images each day per camera. In our situation, Janie is absolutely correct.
November 1st, 2008 at 8:40 am
Probably not, but if they want to give their money to the manufacturers and the retailers, who are we to argue ?
December 8th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Entry Level Mechanical Engineering Jobs…
Entry Level Mechanical Engineering Jobs…
December 11th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Sites You Should Check Out…
http://www.hyspecs.getlisted.co.nz/pumps…
December 12th, 2011 at 10:32 pm
Sites You Should Check Out…
http://www.techrentals.getlisted.co.nz/hire-thermal-imaging-camera…
December 15th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Adsense Api…
Hello, just wanted to mention, I enjoyed this post. It was funny. Keep on posting!…
December 22nd, 2011 at 3:39 am
Ultimate Seo…
Hello, just wanted to tell you, I enjoyed this article. It was funny. Keep on posting!…
December 22nd, 2011 at 4:48 am
Tamil Song Lyrics…
Latest Tamil Movie Song Lyrics…
December 27th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Sites You Should Check Out…
http://www.jucy.getlisted.co.nz/hire-a-car-auckland…
January 6th, 2012 at 5:37 am
Sites You Should Check Out…
http://www.aucklandmarine.getlisted.co.nz/nz-boats-for-sale…
January 9th, 2012 at 5:35 am
… [Trackback] …
[…] Informations on that Topic: online4best.com/2008/11/01/janie-said-that-digital-cameras-are-cost-effective-considering-extra-costs-of-digital-is-that-really-true/ […] …
January 15th, 2012 at 7:28 pm
Great Clips Coupons…
[…]in the following are some hyper-links to internet websites that we connect to seeing that we feel these are worthwhile visiting[…]…
January 27th, 2012 at 12:20 pm
No Deposit Poker…
My brother recommended I may like this website. He used to be totally right. This submit actually made my day. You cann’t consider just how a lot time I had spent for this information! Thanks!…