Forrest Black
New member
I am not so sure about the solid resale value of digital backs. How much was the Aptus22 when it was launched and how much is its value today? Based on my back-of-the-envelope calculations, it is about a $20 000.00 loss between 2005 and 2009. That makes about $5000 each year...
A digital back can do more than an S2 because it can be used on different platforms, its sensor is easier to clean, its tethering is proven and it packs into a small pouch for carrying on a plane. Being the most expensive part of your kit, it leaves $$$ for a spare body or an additional camera, say a DSLR. It also has a solid resell/ trade-in value when the time comes to change...
Yair
OK, here comes that "what about the savings on film and processing" bit. I may make more shots shooting digitally but the number of keepers I get remain the same. In other words, I may choose to press the shutter more often with digital but my clients require the same number of shots as before. So in terms of the number of shots I have to deliver, shooting film makes it cheaper as I don't see the need to increase my shutter count by 100 times if I know what I am doing.
As an aside, the "look how much I am saving on film and processing" is the biggest red herring justification for shooting digitally because many times photographers forget that they do NOT have to press the shutter so many times more to get the shot they want. You see a scatter-shot approach ironically in those who do not know their craft and for this crowd, shooting digitally may make it cheaper.
The illogical conclusion is to hit the shutter one million times or more and then calculate the equivalent cost in film and processing to justify an expensive digital back purchase. Just because you can does not mean you must. Shooting more frames does not make one a better photographer. It just makes one appear more industrious.