>>3171444You ignore the fact that even comparing a brand-new flagship DSLR to a camera you found in your uncle's attic that he gave you for free because it would implicate him in the murder of your aunt if the police ever uncovered it, digital is STILL CHEAPER over the long term. And if you shoot a lot, even over the short-to-medium term.
There can be no argument against this, other than the bizarre "real photographers don't take photographs" argument you seem like you've been trying to make any time it's pointed out. Film photography has ongoing costs. Digital doesn't.
Like, let's ignore the cost of the camera, the cost of a scanner, and the cost of home development setup. Say you get all of those things for free. And, to be fair, it *is* really easy to get all of those things free.
Use your own figure of $8 for a roll of film and juice to develop that film.
Assume one roll of film per week. I can't fathom limiting myself to 8 (6x9), 16 (645), 36 (135), or even 72 (135 half frame) pictures per week, but you seem to feel like landscape is the only valid genre of photography and that the hallmark of a truly great landscape photographer is that he takes as few pictures as possible, so fine. One roll of film a week. $8, for film and developing. Assume our time is worthless, so we can achieve that eight-dollar number by bulk loading and home developing. Fine. I'm granting you all of the ridiculous premises you're using to make your side of the argument look better.
After the first year, you've spent $8 * 52 = $416. That's enough for a used Canon 5D.
After the second year, you've spent $8 * 2 * 52 = $832. That's enough for a used Canon 5D Mark II.
Third year? $1248. We're getting into Nikon D800 territory now.
Fourth year, $1664. Hello, brand new Nikon D750.
Fifth year, $2080. Brand new 6D, used 5D Mark III, used D810, used D3x.
I've been using my camera for five years. I shoot somewhat more than 72 frames a week.
Film. Is not. Cheaper. Than digital.
