Sunday, February 3, 2008

Film and Digital


I've got a bunch of cameras - both 35mm film and digital. I have a Nikon F body (no idea how old it is) and a Nikon FG (I got this one for my birthday about 25 years ago). I haven't touched them in years, and both are in need of a good cleaning and servicing. Recently, my dad gave me his Nikon N8008 camera, and I've been using it quite a bit.

So you may say, "Why bother with film? Digital is so much better!". Well, is it? I say both have their merits. But I do tend to agree that the advantages of digital photography outweigh the pro's of film. So, I've been considering buying a digital SLR.


The one I'm leaning towards the most is the Canon 40D DSLR. The kit (body + lens) for the 40D runs $1499 almost everywhere you look. So, I thought I'd figure out exactly how much film I'd have to shoot before I spent that much on film & processing with the Nikon N8008.

So here we go: I've been using one of the local pharmacies for my photo processing, and their prices are pretty competitive. I bought a 5 pack of Kodak ISO 400 film for $9.99 - it was on sale. Normally it runs $13.99, so we'll use that price. That means the film is $2.80 per roll. Film processing is $6.99 for 24 exposures, and I get the digitized on a CD as well for another $2.99.

So the total cost to get 24 pictures on my computer is $12.60, or $0.53 per picture. Not too bad so far, right? Well, that means that I'll break even on the cost of the 40D after I take 2,829 photographs. That's about 118 rolls of film.

Wow - I'll NEVER take that many photographs! Right? Well, on my Canon SD110 Digital Elph I'm up to 5,250 pictures. that means that if I had taken that many shots with 35mm film, then it would have cost me $2779 in processing. And I've got two other digital cameras!

Digital is even more attractive when you consider that even with careful planning, the most good shots I typically get per roll is about 10%. Now, I'm not saying that the other shots aren't clear, in focus, or otherwise correct. I'm saying "good" as in artistically exactly what I want - or close to it.

What's more, it is undeniable that Digital is a huge advantage when is comes to the instant feedback you get right after the shot - you know if it's worth saving, or whether you should take another.

So let's sum up: assuming that only 10% of my pictures are "good", and that a film picture costs $0.53 each, that means that in order to get 2,829 "good" shots, I'll have to take 28,290 photographs - and with a film camera that cost is $14, 994!

OK maybe that's a screwy way of looking at things - but it sure makes the cost of a new digital SLR seem a lot less painful, doesn't it?

2 comments:

Sarah Regan Snavely said...

Thanks. I've been thinking about a DSLR but haven't taken the jump yet.

Did buy more film for my old 35mm...

Been wondering if a DSLR was worth it, guess so!

NJGSP said...

I'm just waiting for my tax return so I can help "stimulate" the economy!