3 ms·
It used to be worth it, maybe in the early to mid 10s when the pros switched to digital and film stock was dirt cheap. But now a single roll of Portra is like $
by mlsu 3y ago
It used to be worth it, maybe in the early to mid 10s when the pros switched to digital and film stock was dirt cheap. But now a single roll of Portra is like $25 and even a mediocre rangefinder is $400. Nowadays, when I see someone shooting film -- I think hipster with more money than sense.
The benefit now is that nice digital DSLRs and their lenses are cheap. You can pick up a nice used a6000 with kit lens for less than the total out of pocket cost of 100 film photographs.
- didntcheck 3y agoThe cost per shot of film adds up quickly, and I'm always sure to emphasize that to friends who ask about film photography as a cheap option, but the price of the cameras seems exaggerated to me, especially given how much a used DSLR or mirrorless of equal "reputation" would cost. If you're buying one of the iconic cameras, or whatever one the "influencers" have declared a "hidden gem" this week then sure, but there's plenty of good used SLRs and point-and-shoots to be bought for comfortably under $100 (perhaps rangefinders are harder to find cheap, I've never looked). And of course there's no image sensor to differentiate the price, so a top-of-the-range SLR and a cheap one with the same lens mount should theoretically take equivalent images