fotografr Posted November 15, 2007 Author Share #21 Posted November 15, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sad to see that Wikopedia is a source of information for some...................then it is a ill conceived thread after all:D :D Apparently, any thread here is ill-conceived...unless started by you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 15, 2007 Posted November 15, 2007 Hi fotografr, Take a look here M8 Cost Recovery. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
andybarton Posted November 15, 2007 Share #22 Posted November 15, 2007 C'mon guys - lighten up. This is the way I justified my DMR to my wife, so let's not spoil a beautiful relationship. (Nor that with my wife... ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rono1 Posted November 15, 2007 Share #23 Posted November 15, 2007 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. Bravo! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rono1 Posted November 15, 2007 Share #24 Posted November 15, 2007 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. Bravo! Bravo! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted November 15, 2007 Share #25 Posted November 15, 2007 Apparently, any thread here is ill-conceived...unless started by you. No but you are getting better................ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertW Posted November 16, 2007 Share #26 Posted November 16, 2007 Hey I guess you never heard about the fur coat savings story. My wife came back from shopping and proudly announced I just saved you $2,000. I asked how did you do that? Oh I bought a mink coat, and it was on sale for only $5,000 when the original price was $7,000. More tongue in cheek rationalization. The best savings would have been don't buy either the mink coat or the Leica, but that's not much fun is it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1234 Posted November 16, 2007 Share #27 Posted November 16, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Using my film Leicas, I pay a total cost of under 45 cents per decent quality 5x7" matte finish print made by Kodak Perfect Touch service which is adequate for my purposes. That is film plus processing, 2 day service. No effort involved after making the exposure. No computers. How do I come anywhere close to that with my M8, even assuming camera is free? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted November 16, 2007 Share #28 Posted November 16, 2007 Using my film Leicas, I pay a total cost of under 45 cents per decent quality 5x7" matte finish print made by Kodak Perfect Touch service which is adequate for my purposes. That is film plus processing, 2 day service. No effort involved after making the exposure. No computers. How do I come anywhere close to that with my M8, even assuming camera is free? You can't, so I'd say digital would be a bad idea for you - but not everyone wants 5x7 machine prints. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1234 Posted November 16, 2007 Share #29 Posted November 16, 2007 Well I agree the M8 is capable of much higher quality output but just wondered if there is any way to get affordable "machine print" product when that is all that is needed? For an exposure not difficult to print, I find the aforementioned commercial service is really no different from that of a custom lab charging 10-20 times as much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted November 16, 2007 Share #30 Posted November 16, 2007 Well I agree the M8 is capable of much higher quality output but just wondered if there is any way to get affordable "machine print" product when that is all that is needed? For an exposure not difficult to print, I find the aforementioned commercial service is really no different from that of a custom lab charging 10-20 times as much. Drug stores in the US charge about .23 cents per print for machine prints from digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted November 16, 2007 Share #31 Posted November 16, 2007 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. Hi Andy, No, two assignments covered the cost of the M8 and then some. I haven't shot film, to speak of, since late 2002. But there have been two digital cameras (with their lenses) that have given me a look that certain clients like and will pay for. Those cameras are the R-D1 and the M8 and the lenses are the many great RF lenses. So the kinds of files that I can make with a DRF really do help to pay the bills for me. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordfanjpn Posted November 16, 2007 Share #32 Posted November 16, 2007 Have to factor in storage for all those wonderful digital images. One thing that seems to get overlooked is storage for all those wonderful film scans. And they can take up a lot more space than dng files. So let's not blame the relatively minor cost of HD space entirely on digital cameras. Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent10D Posted November 16, 2007 Share #33 Posted November 16, 2007 One thing that seems to get overlooked is storage for all those wonderful film scans. And they can take up a lot more space than dng files. So let's not blame the relatively minor cost of HD space entirely on digital cameras. Hi Bill! Fancy running into you here! The big difference is that if my scan files go up in digital smoke I still have the negatives. In fact, it's not even necessary to scan everything I shoot. But digital files ... well, they just have to be kept digitally, don't they! You either have 1s and 0s on a card or disk, or you have nothing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted November 16, 2007 Share #34 Posted November 16, 2007 The big difference is that if my scan files go up in digital smoke I still have the negatives. In fact, it's not even necessary to scan everything I shoot. But digital files ... well, they just have to be kept digitally, don't they! You either have 1s and 0s on a card or disk, or you have nothing. Funny, I was about to post the same ... It's quite simple math actually, folks. Film cost: camera, film, develop, print ... and that's it. Adding scanning ... probably 5% of your shots. 5% keeper rate worth scanning is pretty high in my case anyways. LOL Digital cost: camera, flash card, battery, computer, computer upgrade, monitor, software, software upgrade, printer, printer upgrade, ink cartridges, paper, special fabric paper, electricity, blah, blah ... and a tendency of "archiving" keepers AND garbage altogether on the HDD until you decide it's time to free up some space, which is never ... and most buy more hard drives ... in many cases. LOL 10 years later, DVDs are out of fashion, nobody makes hard drives, newer computers don't read your file formats ... and you'll spend more money, waste more energy transfer your digital archives ... and 50 or 100 years later ... who cares? unless you're Ansel Adams, HCB, Helmut Newton, Robert Capa ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpStart Posted November 16, 2007 Share #35 Posted November 16, 2007 I think between the various boards I visit, I have read more and more posts asking perfect strangers to help them develop a business case to buy one, or help them justify and M8, and unlimited variations on the same issue. 1. You don't need an M8 if the camera you have now is making you money 2. The M8 is not going to make you an award winning photographer, unless you were one to begin with. 3. There is no way the M8 is going to be an investment. No way at all. Won't happen. Nope, Nada, sorry. What ever camera you are using today is the most cost effective for you, assuming you are making money with your camera. If you are a hobbiest, well don't even ask about it being an investment, or slow depreciation, or ??? Buy the M8 if: 1. You can afford it 2. You have been or want to be a rangefinder shooter. It's a different type of shooter. It is foolish to ask other people to help you build a business case, or justify the purchase in some way. Reach down, see if you have them, and then make your own decision. DBK Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artorius Posted November 16, 2007 Share #36 Posted November 16, 2007 I guess I am the lucky guy indeed. My M8 was paid in full before I bought it. It was given with, and not part of, my retirement. The company bought it, and didn't take it out of my portfolio retirement program. I am greatly appreciative indeed. I have a brace of Nikon DSLR's, and a couple of film M's. Now, I just need to stop selling the Nikon glass to buy M glass for awhile. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_tanaka Posted November 16, 2007 Share #37 Posted November 16, 2007 Cost "recovery" is an entirely different proposition than cost "justification", which is the subject that it seems Brent actually meant to pose. Recovering the cost of the M8, or anything else, is simply finding a way to replace the capital outlay. This is what Sean reported when he wrote that he replaced the cost with earnings. Whether or not he used the M8, a jackhammer, or a firearm to earn the money is entirely irrelevant to "recovery" of the M8 cost. "Justification" of the M8's purchase is fundamentally impossible. Offering a reasoned, but not necessarily rational, "explanation" is about as close as you can get. We own this camera because we want to own it and we enjoy using this type of camera. That's the end of the story. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted November 16, 2007 Share #38 Posted November 16, 2007 Well I agree the M8 is capable of much higher quality output but just wondered if there is any way to get affordable "machine print" product when that is all that is needed? For an exposure not difficult to print, I find the aforementioned commercial service is really no different from that of a custom lab charging 10-20 times as much. Film capture has a place and fine art silver prints are a joy to behold, but with my narrow field of experience those photographers who rely soley on 35mm film with zero digital processing are being left behind in terms of image management and unit cost. If you want to compete with other pros in terms of the look of finished product you have to scan. If you want to present decent, but low cost images for printing the work has to be done before it gets to the lab. Dropping a film off at a supermarket and using the resulting prints will no prouce fine uality work. Suppyling files that have been modified by the photographer and printing at a well managed photo booth has every chance of matching prints produced by a pro lab at a much lower cost. If you shoot film, 'cos you like shooting film, or you just fondle your film M and don't shoot anything, all credit to you. The boat has left IMO. Rolo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted November 16, 2007 Share #39 Posted November 16, 2007 Funny, I was about to post the same ... It's quite simple math actually, folks. Film cost: camera, film, develop, print ... and that's it. Adding scanning ... probably 5% of your shots. 5% keeper rate worth scanning is pretty high in my case anyways. LOL Digital cost: camera, flash card, battery, computer, computer upgrade, monitor, software, software upgrade, printer, printer upgrade, ink cartridges, paper, special fabric paper, electricity, blah, blah ... and a tendency of "archiving" keepers AND garbage altogether on the HDD until you decide it's time to free up some space, which is never ... and most buy more hard drives ... in many cases. LOL 10 years later, DVDs are out of fashion, nobody makes hard drives, newer computers don't read your file formats ... and you'll spend more money, waste more energy transfer your digital archives ... and 50 or 100 years later ... who cares? unless you're Ansel Adams, HCB, Helmut Newton, Robert Capa ... The odds of someone preserving your digital files after you are gone is about the same as someone preserving your negatives. If you are having your negatives scanned you still need a computer and hard drives and printer and software same as if you shot everything digital. So unless you are committed to a 100% analogue work flow you get all the costs of film and all the costs of digital (except the Digicam body). If you are getting high quality drum scans even scanning 5% of your work will cost a small fortune. With digital every copy is an original -no loss of quality you can keep back ups on multiple discs and at remote locations for very little cost and as time goes on storage will only get cheaper and faster. With film there is only one original if you have a fire at your studio... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfdann Posted November 16, 2007 Share #40 Posted November 16, 2007 I shot 50 rolls of tri-x with my M-7 last year. At $18 roll that is $900 so it would take five+ years to pay for the M-8. Hohever, since I love the camera and have had no problems since I got the it last February, you would have to pry it out of my cold dead hands. Also the 35 and 50 crons I had work great as does the 28 Elmaret I bought with the discount. Cheers, Dan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.