M8 Cost Recovery

[fotografr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There's been a lot of talk about the price of the M8, so here's another way to look at it. A few days ago I went to my local camera store to buy some of the new Fuji Velvia 50 for my M6. I paid $9.50/roll for it. The same store has a lab where they will process the film and mount the slides for $8.50/roll. Total cost for purchasing and processing one roll of slide film: $18.00, or $.50/frame.

 

Considering this, the break-even point for the M8, even at $5,500, comes after just 11,000 frames. For some of us, that's about one years of shooting. So for the whole second year of warranty-covered shooting with the M8, we are saving $.50 for each shot we take.

 

So, I think what I'm going to tell my wife is that if I buy another M8 and shoot twice as much as I do now, I can save as much as a buck a shot. Hell, I feel better already.

[marknorton]

The same store has a lab where they will process the film and mount the slides for $850/roll.

 

At $850 to process a roll of slide film, the M8 will certainly pay for itself very quickly.

[adan]

Quick, Brent - edit and restore that decimal point!

 

Yep, and you are not even counting gas, vehicle mileage, your time (measured in $ per hour) and/or other expenses to take the film back to the lab and then pick it up.

 

To be fair - there are costs on both sides of the film/digital equation that are often conveniently ignored by both sides in these comparisons: additional hard drives for that growing mass of files vs. slide pages/boxes; new lenses to accomodate cropped sensors (not a trivial issue at M prices); software/computer upgrades (Ooops - CS2 is not Leopard/Vista-compatable!); scanning time (in $ per hour) for film - and on and on.

 

If one bought an M7 instead of an M8, one would have $2,000 left over for film, which even by your conservative estimate of $.50 per would mean 4,000 exposures, or 5 months of shooting.

 

And that doesn't even count SOME residual value in the M8 if one sells it to upgrade to an M9 or something else - even if it depreciates faster than the M7.

 

My 2007 picture folder is 53 Gb for 10.5 months, so likely 60Gb for the year. Figure a 40% deletion rate, and that's 100Gb, or 10,000 M8 .dngs, that I actually exposed (and that tallies fairly well with the total "counts" on my bodies). So your use estimate is reasonable.

 

My wife does our accounting - so she is fully aware of how quickly cost reductions elsewhere in my photo expenses are recovering the "hit" from the M8 purchases - although with 2 bodies to account for, it will take a bit longer than one year.

[sdai]

Labor cost shouldn't be zero ... paying 8.50/roll, you're letting others to do the job. With digital, the amount varies hugely depending on your hour rate. I'd rather waste my time on harmless chatters than doing Photoshop.

[sean_reid]

My M8 paid for itself in less than two assignments.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Guest stnami]

My M8 paid for itself in less than two assignments.

 

My car cost me nothing............... and so on

 

too many variables and uses of cameras to play....... lets put a mediocrity blanket on it ....because we want a single preconceived result

 

So, I think what I'm going to tell my wife is that if I buy another M8 and shoot twice as much as I do now, I can save as much as a buck a shot. Hell, I feel better already.

.......more rubbish

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sean: No doubt true - but was that actual film cost savings of $5000 (i.e did the two assignments suck up over 10,000 exposures all by themselves) or did that include the income earned? Which is a whole different factor - presumably shooting with an M7 and film one can also earn enough income to pay for cameras and film rather quickly.

 

sdai: Also correct - which is why it is a tricky equation, and varies from one person to another. I do all my own final image work regardless, and dealing with 100 digital originals certainly requires less labor and time than scanning 100 slides. Since I enjoy all aspects of photography, I don't count computer time working with pictures as anything but entertainment - except for those minutes staring at the screen while the scanner buzzes away.

 

I shot, edited and produced a little still-based HDTV video production from the M8 last Sunday - total production time about 9 hours including shooting, editing, sound and video conversion. It was done 10 hours before my former E6 lab would have opened Monday morning. Shooting film I'd likely still be working on it today (Thursday US).

[hankg]

Labor cost shouldn't be zero ... paying 8.50/roll, you're letting others to do the job. With digital, the amount varies hugely depending on your hour rate. I'd rather waste my time on harmless chatters than doing Photoshop.

 

Scanning and then doing photoshop is a lot more labor intensive then processing RAW files. Unless you are going to pay to get that done as well - 1,000 drum scans at $50 or $60 a pop. That would pay for 10 M8's.

[Rolo]

Considering this, the break-even point for the M8, even at $5,500, comes after just 11,000 frames. For some of us, that's about one years of shooting. So for the whole second year of warranty-covered shooting with the M8, we are saving $.50 for each shot we take.

 

This is not a criticism, but when did you last meet someone who shot 11,000 slides in a year?

 

Isn't this argument confusing trigger happy digital shooting practice with most people's careful exposure of film? I do it myself. I typically shoot 12 rolls of film at a wedding and when I started with digital the frame count increased to 1,200.

 

It's cost of photography before v cost of photography after, +/- any personal allowence for convenience/pleasure, +/- who cares anyway 'cos I'm not justifying it to you.

 

Rolo

[sdai]

Scanning and then doing photoshop is a lot more labor intensive then processing RAW files. Unless you are going to pay to get that done as well - 1,000 drum scans at $50 or $60 a pop. That would pay for 10 M8's.

 

Depends ... my photography is truly documentary style and normally doesn't need any PP if not nothing at all. LOL

 

So slides or lab prints, in most cases, are my end results ... I also have a slide feeder so just in case I want to scan some of them for archive purposes ... but who cares after 100 years ... ROFL.

 

The only two obvious advantages going to digital (to me) are ... 1) instant feedback, 2) bumping ISO at free will. all others are not important.

 

But seriously, if you're a high volume photographer ... digital is a pain in the arse too, imagine the amount of dollars some high profile shooters paying to their digital assistant. Not everyone is fancy about raw conversion and Photoshop ... more fun is the process of shooting.

[Eikonphoto]

1.5 Terabytes a year is what I am running through - after editing. All backed up to dvd for each client of course.

[fotografr]

My car cost me nothing............... and so on

 

too many variables and uses of cameras to play....... lets put a mediocrity blanket on it ....because we want a single preconceived result

 

.......more rubbish

 

 

Geez, man, are you totally humor impaired? Ever heard of "tongue-in-cheek?"

 

From Wikopedia to you: Tongue-in-cheek is a term that refers to a style of humour in which things are said only half seriously, or in a subtly mocking way.

[fotografr]

This is not a criticism, but when did you last meet someone who shot 11,000 slides in a year?

 

Isn't this argument confusing trigger happy digital shooting practice with most people's careful exposure of film? I do it myself. I typically shoot 12 rolls of film at a wedding and when I started with digital the frame count increased to 1,200.

 

It's cost of photography before v cost of photography after, +/- any personal allowence for convenience/pleasure, +/- who cares anyway 'cos I'm not justifying it to you.

 

Rolo

 

Okay folks, I give up. This was meant to be a l-i-g-h-t thread. As in, let's have a little fun.

[Kent10D]

Have to factor in storage for all those wonderful digital images.

Not long ago I found it "necessary" to purchase a 1.6 terabyte RAID array to store my growing collection of digital images. That's around US$1,200 right there. Plus around US$200 for a spare plug-in HD. That'll be fine for a while, but it won't be the end of it. And sooner or later I'm going to want a backup ...

 

The cost of digital most definitely doesn't stop at the camera.

[SJP]

No Brent please don't give up we need more like you.

 

If I bought a Hummer think of the gas I could be saving by not driving in it. Ok, ok my wife does not buy this argument but still it is worth a try :-)

[Shootist]

Okay folks, I give up. This was meant to be a l-i-g-h-t thread. As in, let's have a little fun.

That's the way I took it. Thanks and I agree. Everytime I go out to shoot some film the first thing that enters my mind is "I wonder how much this will cost to have developed" (that is if I'm shooting anything other then real B&W).

[Guest stnami]

Sad to see that Wikopedia is a source of information for some...................then it is a ill conceived thread after all:D :D

[SJP]

sigh .....

[Shootist]

And look who is calling the kettle black, that would be the POT.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Rolo]

Okay folks, I give up. This was meant to be a l-i-g-h-t thread. As in, let's have a little fun.

 

Pity you didn't make it obvious in your thread opening. I enjoy a good laugh, or even a small chuckle.

 

Rolo