noah_addis

The issue of replacing digital cameras is a real one, but we're getting to the point with the current cameras that the replacement schedule could slow.

If your current digital camera, whether it's an M8, D3, etc., provides good enough performance for the work you do, then there is little reason to switch cameras every two years. I know some people always need to have the latest and greatest, but my 10MP M8 can do great 12x18in prints, which is as big as I ever made in the darkroom with Tri-x. It has great tonality and incredible sharpness, and since I only used to shoot Tri-x, the high-iso issue isn't a problem for me. I could be happy shooting with the M8 for many years.

I'm sure the same could be said for those shooting with D700s and 5Ds. How much more resolution do you REALLY need for the work you do, and are the Canon and Nikon lenses capable of resolving more detail than 12mp?

Back when we were shooting with 2.74 megapixel Nikon D1 cameras, we welcomed new higher resolution cameras. But I think we're at the point now where despite the new bells and whisles tacked on by camera manufacturers (S mode, anyone?), the current cameras will remain very capable and competitive with whatever new cameras may be introduced. I'm sure the camera manufacturers will continue the MP race and continue to market shiny new cameras to amateurs and pros, but the cameras available at this point could be used sucessfully for years.

For pros who shoot lots and lots of film, the price for digital is competitive, even if you do replace your cameras every few years.

The time savings depend on the way you work. I develop my own BW film and scan for proofs and make wet prints for the finished product. This takes (me) much more time than shooting digital. And that time could be spent shooting another project or marketing my work and finding new clients.

I still love the look of film though. Gotta go start editing and scanning that film I shot in May now....