>>4290939>>4290941>Digital being cheaper is why there were professionals saying "film's over!" at 12mp when the lowest estimates for 35mm color film resolution today (professional stock) are closer to 24mpProfessional needs aren't relevant to hobbists and enthusiasts. Of course pros want film dead, it cuts out a massive chunk of time and repeated cost. So as soon as they became viable they abandoned film because most pros don't care about aesthetics, quality or tactility. They care about shitting out something good enough that someone who knows nothing about photography will pay them.
> Most people I know upgrade their camera or buy a lens each yearIf you're buying a new camera or lens every year it doesn't matter which is cheaper, you can afford it. Besides, if you shoot film, you're not likely buying a bunch of new lenses/bodies on a regular basis. I think if anything the startup cost of film is a bit higher due to needing a scanner, but that's offset by the fact the bodies and lenses are cheaper, but needing to buy a scanning setup means you probably break even, which lowers your cost over time.
Now if we assume that on digital you buy a new lens/body every year it actually becomes cheaper over time to shoot film, and the more you shoot film, the more likely you are to develop and scan it at home, making it even cheaper still.
I still think it's about the same either way if you're shooting 35mm film, you just have to pick your poison, or if your the rare person who shoots digital but doesn't get GAS
