Originally posted by creampuff What about developing cost for your films? How about costs to scan and digitize your negatives or slides? How about the time waiting to process? Time to print?
I do all of these things myself, so the cost is negligible. Also the time arguement is pointless, as I usually don't bother scanning anything. I make my prints the "old film" way, in a darkroom, with an enlarger and chemistry. Doing so is both faster and more fun, at least for me.
Quote: Is it really meaningful comparing a discontinued film camera which is fully depreciated vs a new digital camera that's just being launched?
I am comparing a price that is more than I paid to a hypothetical future price. If I wanted to be really honest I would say what I paid for the Mamiya, which is roughly $130, and use the list price for the 645D which is going to be over $10,000 with a " normal" lens when it is first available.
Quote: If you want to stick to your old film ways, that's fine but if you can't or are not prepared to pony up the cost for digital MF, then such math is too simplistic and useless.
I didn't realize this forum was full of nothing but the filthy rich of the world. I was also unaware that Pentax is right up there with Leica and Hasselblad. I guess I'm the only person on this forum that still sees the importance in doing a value equation when considering a multi-thousand dollar purchase.
Just to make sure we are clear, even if I was Bill Gates rich I still don't think I would spend the money on the 645D. Digital MF is simply not worth the money for 99+% of photographers.
Quote: I'll bet the percentage of keepers with digital MF is gonna be way higher than film because there will always be a percentage of dud frames.
Funny, I get easily 10 times more keepers on average out of my lowly P3n than I do out of my K10d. I think that you will find many others on this forum that feel the same.