Originally posted by mixalis_kalymnos1611 One thing is for sure, film is reborn a lot more expensive.
I gotta disagree with you, my friend, at least when it comes to equipment. I found an old issue of Pop Photography from '82 and used one of those handy-dandy inflation calculators. Back then you could mail-order a Pentax MX body for $140 -- equivalent of $370 now. Today you can buy one and get it CLA'd for less than $200. Nikon FE -- $235 then, equivalent of $620, today they're <$100 on eBay. A Pentax LX was $440, $1200 to us. Today you can get one for $250.
OK, film is more expensive - Tri-X was the equivalent of $5 a roll and 100' of Ilford HP-5 was the equivalent of $40. Granted those are mail-order prices. They're a couple-few bucks more today. Slide processing, adjusted for inflation, $8 for a roll, today my local wants $11. More, but not a whole lot more.
I kind of feel like we're living in the golden age. Today I can afford cameras and lenses I could only dream of back then, and the consumables costs are only a little higher. Best yet, with a $200 scanner I can easily view and crop my photos without spending big bucks on photo paper and darkroom rental.
Compare it to digital... Sony a6000 with a lens costs about a grand. For that you can buy a good, advanced-amateur-to-pro-level 35mm SLR, get it serviced, and have enough $$ left over to shoot and process a roll of film a week for a year or more. And in five years, when the Sony is obsolete and possibly broken and in need of another $1000 replacement, your film camera will still be in perfect working order.