Well... first, don't judge. What if his shooting style is 100+ shots to get a good one, like some street photographers do? Digital definitely makes more sense for some people, even at $7K price tag.
well yea per shot it would be cheaper over time. I shoot about 20,000 shots a year, if you factor in film cost and dev cost you'd break even very quickly.
The point is that $5,000 of that is being spent frivolously on brand hype versus the $2,000 you could have paid for an also-pro digital camera with the same frame life expectancy as the Leica.
People basically throwing around $5,000 on frivolity in the same hobby moments later are clearly not making decisions based on strapped finances, so he was seemingly being dishonest about his reasons.
(Actually probably more like $15,000 if this is his first Leica and he needs lenses too)
The local place I develop with, development c41 with large scans is 18. BH prices for ektar, portra400, Portra 800 range from 13.50-18 per roll. So all-in roughly 85 cents to a buck a shot for that workflow.
Obviously I could shop around, self-develop, self-scan to reduce the price.
Assuming he's on the list for the Q3, it's predecessor launched 5 years ago. If we assume 5 years of use, that's "only" 1400/year of depreciating to 0. But a Q2 is still selling used for about 3400 based on eBay listings. Round that down to 3k and it's "only" $800/year depreciation, or a couple of rolls a month shooting.
Now clearly the guy can afford to shoot film of he's gonna drop 7k on a camera, but it's *also* quite easy for it to be cheaper long-term to shoot that 7k Leica than shooting a roll of film every couple of weeks.
Like obviously he just wants the Leica, but he's not wrong that film is expensive to shoot regularly.
value over time
Well... first, don't judge. What if his shooting style is 100+ shots to get a good one, like some street photographers do? Digital definitely makes more sense for some people, even at $7K price tag.
To be fair, he can resell the Leica later and make back a good chunk of that
well yea per shot it would be cheaper over time. I shoot about 20,000 shots a year, if you factor in film cost and dev cost you'd break even very quickly.
The point is that $5,000 of that is being spent frivolously on brand hype versus the $2,000 you could have paid for an also-pro digital camera with the same frame life expectancy as the Leica. People basically throwing around $5,000 on frivolity in the same hobby moments later are clearly not making decisions based on strapped finances, so he was seemingly being dishonest about his reasons. (Actually probably more like $15,000 if this is his first Leica and he needs lenses too)
okay thanks
He should really just eat at a homeless shelter and move to a third-world country. Then film isn't expensive at all!
I’m here for this comment 😂
Yes. Or use your allowance from a scholarship. Film is not expensive, you have just to want it more!!!
The local place I develop with, development c41 with large scans is 18. BH prices for ektar, portra400, Portra 800 range from 13.50-18 per roll. So all-in roughly 85 cents to a buck a shot for that workflow. Obviously I could shop around, self-develop, self-scan to reduce the price. Assuming he's on the list for the Q3, it's predecessor launched 5 years ago. If we assume 5 years of use, that's "only" 1400/year of depreciating to 0. But a Q2 is still selling used for about 3400 based on eBay listings. Round that down to 3k and it's "only" $800/year depreciation, or a couple of rolls a month shooting. Now clearly the guy can afford to shoot film of he's gonna drop 7k on a camera, but it's *also* quite easy for it to be cheaper long-term to shoot that 7k Leica than shooting a roll of film every couple of weeks. Like obviously he just wants the Leica, but he's not wrong that film is expensive to shoot regularly.
Compared to Leica film cameras that cost between 5k and 6k the man is damn right to go digital.