The Price of Photos

Okay.

Good math but just get a Sony A6000.

>>2785475

Also you forgot depreciation.

Also also, your math would be marked incorrect in any engineering, math or physics course for including that many decimal places. Learn to round.

I pay less than 2eur per roll of Superia 400 (not expired) and 0.95eur for development. Do the math again please.
Also consider external HDD for backup as your photos consist only of 0 and 1.

>>2785477
Where in this would you apply depreciation and how?

>>2785473
I don't shoot film because it's cheap.

I shoot film because I enjoy it more than digital.

>>2785478
* 2 Euro = $2.20
* 0.95 Euro = $1.04
* $3.24 per roll with development
* $3.24 / 36 = $0.09 per photo in a 36 exposure roll

* $0.00000348 per photo with XPro1

* $400 / $0.09 = 4444 photos on film
* $400 / $0.00000348 = 114942528 photos on XPro1

* 4444 photos * $0.00000348 = $0.01546512 for same amount of photos as film would have at $400

$399.98453488 left for other camera purchases

External HDDs (1TB to 2TB) range from $50 to $80 on Amazon.

>>2785473
Incorrect. You forgot about the crop factor.

>>2785479

The easiest way to do it is cost/expected lifespan.

Cost is obvious. Expected life can be in any unit. You can calculate your yearly depreciation, but in this scenario it might be easier to calculate by frame.

So, a used xpro will cost you $367. That's the price on keh, a useful industry standard. I don't know where you're finding them for under $200, doesn't matter.

Let's say our remaining shutter life is 50,000 frames. That's generous, but reasonable.

$367/50,000 = $0.007 a frame. If we shoot a standard 36 exposure roll, that brings our depreciation cost up to $0.26 a "roll".

Now, granted, the film camera is depreciating as well, but not by as much. This is because we know the salvage cost (how much you can expect to sell the camera for when we are done with it). Salvage cost is typically not much lower than the used cost. In some cases it might be higher.

It's also worth noting that this is just for a used camera. We can use straight line depreciation for that. New cameras have a much steeper depreciation curve and thus need a different formula.

but really, I have to ask:

Why?

>>2785473
that's the single most retarded thread I've ever seen, and I browse /b/ way more than I browse /p/, so congrats on that
your life is probably dependent on foodstamps though

>>2785950
There's been a bunch of these lately.

They're just about the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen on /p/. As if you can even begin to make a straight up comparison between film and digital's cost without factoring in all of the immense advantages that digital has.

At least digital comes out on top in this one, as it should. There's another where somebody's trying to say that film is the better option.

>>2785473
...so digital you have to spend more upfront, but it's cheaper in the long run, and with film you spend far less in the beginning but spend more money over time?

I'll be damned this is literally all kinds of new analysis that's literally never, ever literally been ever literally stated before. Literally.

The best way to do these kinds of comparisons is fully digital and fully analogue processes against each other, through to the final, printed images.

Digital costs: Camera, lens, SD/CF card, computer and peripherals, software, storage hard drives, printers, ink, paper, etc.

Analogue costs: Camera, lens, film, darkroom developing kit, darkroom printing kit, all required chemicals, negative storage files, etc.

Factor in expected lifetime of a camera based on number of frames per year, and other variables like chemicals or hard drives needed.

Generally, for occasional shooting (250 digital frames, or 108 film frames per month), film will come out on top, mostly due to the cheaper buy in cost of manual SLR's. For any enthusiast or professional work, digital ramps up in economy very quickly, and past roughly 504 film frames, digital is way ahead..

so, your point is that digital photos are cheap?

FILMFAGS BTFO AND SUICIDE WATCH

>>2785966
The thing that even this doesn't cover is the frustration and wasted time of film, too.

I went to photo school in the late '90s and my first job at a magazine mostly consisted of me spending 8 hours a day in a darkroom. I can pretty confidently say I've shot and processed more film than almost all of /p/ put together. You're talking about 10+ minutes per roll of development to get one worthwhile photo, hours spent with a lupe in the lightroom (hah, I bet most on /p/ don't even know that lightrooms were a literal thing before they were an Adobe app), hours spent making contact sheets, test strips, manually burning and dodging, spotting negs, etc. That's not getting into the actual shooting parts, either - being stuck with one ISO and "white balance" until the roll is over, ISOs over 800 being garbage, "chimping" your lighting setup consisting of an endless cycle of polaroid shots, waiting 5 minutes for them to develop, and repeating, and having spent $30+ on test shots before you're even ready to roll chrome.

I take film cameras out every now and then, as much because it feels like a waste to have these obsolete skills and not at least get some use out of them. It's still fun shooting with old mechanical cameras, because by the time I was in the biz we were shooting F5s and shit, but I always have those moments where I start kicking myself for loading 400 when I wish I had 100, or when I wish I had an LCD to chimp, or when I get home and realize that I have to soup negs and then scan them before I can actually do anything useful with them. Digital is fucking glorious.

are digifags shooting digital because they enjoy it, or are they just very poor?

>>2785496
>crop factor

/thread

File: IMG_6174scaled.jpg (338KB, 1280x720px)

338KB, 1280x720px

I enjoy shooting my film camera.
I am happy with the easy use of my FED 3.
If it was digital but exactly the same I would be even happier.
But at the cost of shooting film I would still rather use a camera I enjoy than digital for convenience.

>also poorfag cant afford leica/epson rd-1

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS Kiss X4
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Photographer	Jake Revell
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:03 18:10:16
Exposure Time	1 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/11.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2785980
They're usually very poor or elitist gearfags.
I know a near full digipleb who's poor and shot 3 rolls of film last year because he "can't afford it". He's also saving up for an 85mm lens for his APS-C body.

>>2785486
thanks. I got a Fuji X-E1 (= XPro1 without ovf) anyway and can switch all my glass between it and my film cameras.

>>2785473
Nigger, everyone knows by now that digital is cheaper in the long run. cost is not the reason why people shoot film.

>>2785473
I was at ~$3.25 a roll (for film + development) for Superia 400 for the last 5 years or so, only recently got bumped up to $4.25. Most people in my area are probably looking at $7 or $8 for the same (my pricing is with discounts). I've never ran the numbers for per shot / per roll when home dev'ing b&w, but I'm guessing it's lower.

I know for me, and the cameras I like to shoot, it takes ~2 rolls a week for 5 years before the digital equivalent becomes cheaper. For most people the cost is much higher and it's closer to ~2 rolls a week for maybe 2 years, but more likely just 1.

>>2785479
I bought a film camera about the same time the X-Pro1 came out. If I purchased both at the same time and were to resell today, I'd make ~$150 profit on the film camera, and be out ~$1300 on the X-Pro1. So I'd have to spend $1450 on film stuff before it'd be more cost effective (convenience aside).

>>2785992
So much this.

For 99% of people it's not worth it, but for certain needs film can be cheaper (MF, RF's, etc).

35mm film is actually pretty shit.

>>2786265

lol okay.

let me know when you start shooting more than a dabbler's format.

>>2786290
What?

>>2786291

huh?

>>2786294
How is him saying "35mm film sucks" something to deride him for in a conversation about how 35mm film sucks...

>>2786290
I haven't exposed a single frame of 35mm film in a good 6 months.

I shoot predominantly 6x6 (Hasselblad). I'm also shooting 4x5 at the moment, for a project of mine. It's already set to be exhibited, too.

>>2786295
>How is him saying "35mm film sucks" something to deride him for in a conversation about how 35mm film sucks...

Because he's being a condescending twat, when in reality he only shoots medium format because he got lucky and found a cheap hasselblad in a secondhand store.

>>2786296

Cool, I told you to let me know when you shoot more than a dabbler's format. You did. Let's see some.

>>2786298
WHAT???

>>2786299

HUH?!

>>2785966
>through to the final, printed images.

Prints are not necessarily the endgame. And it's hard to factor them in, as the prices are all over the place depending on print size/materials/printing method.

>>2785980
Could be both. Ultimately, digital is better in practically every cost-image quality trade-off.

On the high end, digital has surpassed film in almost all regards for years now.

On the lower end, it's the same and cheaper.

>>2786265
>35mmbandit
>35mm film is actually pretty shit.

weirdo.

>>2785980
I mainly shoot digital because of time. In the end, the dollar amount costs end up pretty close at how often I shoot, but film ends up being much more of a time sink.

The pisser is that much of what I shoot is destined for digital consumption of some form or another. If it weren't for that, film would be faster, but as is, I end up having the much same workflow of digital when shooting film plus developing and scanning, and I haven't found a fast enough scanning method to make it worth the jump.

That said, I'd probably shoot digital anyway simply because I'm not someone who really cares about the process. I care about the results.

>>2786311
>I care about the results.

if you were, youd be shooting film.

you are a wedding/product bitch with time constraints pressuring you all the time, thats why you shoot digital.

>>2786321
>if you were, youd be shooting film.
if you did, you'd have learned to process a raw file by now instead of needing the decisions to be made for you by choice of filmstock.

>>2786321
>if you were, youd be shooting film.
Nope. Film isn't best for everything. I love film, but it's just not for me. The workflow isn't right and the aesthetics aren't right for what I do.
>you are a wedding/product bitch with time constraints pressuring you all the time, thats why you shoot digital.
Nope. Deadlines aren't why I value my time. I enjoy living my life friend. Scanning film is not something I enjoy doing nor gives me enough of a difference to make it worth putting up with the headache. If that's not true for you, then cool, have fun.

File: 1454353241191.jpg (342KB, 1260x1782px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1260x1782px

>all these digicucks desperate to defend their decision and validate themselves

>>2786327
when you leave the meme-world and enter the photo-taking-world, drop me a line with your work, I'll give you some C&C :)

File: rawmastery.jpg (836KB, 1575x1570px) Image search: [Google]

836KB, 1575x1570px

>>2786331

Ok, how could I better learn to process this photo?

>>2786334
By deleting it in camera.

>>2786336

I think the highlights are a little cooked, and maybe it would have been better on film with an nd grad, but i'm not sure. I've heard that digital can do it all.

>>2786334
I can drop you the raw if you'd care to give your attempt.
I do see your inability to recognize choice over error.

Thank you for validating my suggestion that I am a photographer and you are not, however. :^)

>>2786342
Actually, I'd like to play with the raw.

>>2786334
It looks great. Film and digital are both great. I'm going out to take photos.

File: FOTO1798_v1.jpg (478KB, 950x723px)

478KB, 950x723px

>>2786337
Your talking points reveal your lack of experience with varying digital technologies, betraying the true reason for your use of film; you have a flea market film camera and can occasionally afford to put film in it, but you never have a large enough wad of cash to afford a modern digital camera.

I feel u lil homie.

>>2786342
>I can drop you the raw

do it already, faggot.

>>2786348

Nah, I've got a D810, x100s, cambo 4x5, and a shit ton of 80's 35mm. I just like fuckin' witcha, girl.

>>2786346
I probably should have checked to see if I still had the raw to that before making the suggestion, lel.

To those with a lesser spatial lighting awareness, the 'overexposure' (nope, check it) of those clouds is simply a lighting condition that east and west coasters tend to be unfamiliar with.

When the sun rises or sets on a south-facing beach, you have a very different cloudscape than facing directly towards or directly away from the sun (as in east/west orientation)

>not understanding light oblique and angle

>>2786307
>On the high end, digital has surpassed film in almost all regards for years now.
kek

You enjoying that shit Dynamic range s e n p a i ?

File: FOTO4657_v1.jpg (353KB, 648x1025px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 648x1025px

>>2786356
that flash-in-the-pan glow occurs for less than 5 minutes however, usually being the end stage (or beginning, depending on what way the suns oriented) of the extremely pink/orange clouds that are typically seen due south at a rise or set.

Pic related.

File: FOTO1801_v1.jpg (560KB, 648x1025px) Image search: [Google]

560KB, 648x1025px

>>2786362
digital dynamic range is only shit if you have a canon aps-c, or don't know how to process a raw file

otherwise, the dynamic range is actually much greater with digital. You just have to *not be shit at post* to utilize it.

Pic related. Dynamic range is not a modern digital concern.

In similar news, phones can now record video. Just in case you weren't aware of other recent developments.

>>2786367
Nah. I respect your opinion isi, but nah.
Digital still has massive issues in dealing with highlights.
Unless you're shooting a stationary target or flat out bracketing then you've got no hope.
>In similar news, phones can now record video. Just in case you weren't aware of other recent developments.
nice desu ne

Do they shoot boolets yet tho?

>>2786369
>in dealing with highlights
confirmed for someone that thinks he can read a histogram, but cannot actually read a histogram.

Specular highlights (which are going to usually blow out on either medium) are basically the only place where this is true.

Now, if you don't understand exposure and think the idea is to zero out the meter every time, then yeah, you'll struggle with digital's dynamic range, for the same reason that your film work probably lacks shadow detail. You failed to expose with regards to your recording medium.

If you expose for highlights, and you have a camera that can recover 3 stops well, then you do not have a dynamic range problem. You have a thinking problem.

>its a /p/ tripfag has a self steem crisis episode

>>2786369
if what you were saying were still true then her photo wouldn't contain a well exposed black man's face and a well exposed sky.

I'm just saying.

File: FOTO6941_v1.jpg (394KB, 650x1025px)

394KB, 650x1025px

>>2786375
Nice projection, friendo.
This is now an xpro1 photos thread.

>>2786373
>If you expose for highlights, and you have a camera that can recover 3 stops well, then you do not have a dynamic range problem. You have a thinking problem.
Clearly these two shots show that you have a dynamic range problem.
>>2786367
>>2786363

Maybe you need to calibrate your brain desu

File: FOTO4734_v1.jpg (477KB, 950x723px)

477KB, 950x723px

>>2786378
This post simply illustrates that you have a "leaving your house when the light is not directly overhead" problem. A visual interpretation problem.

Sometimes shadows simply are dark. That's what makes them shadows. A dynamic range issue rears its head when it's impossible to portray luminosity in the scene as you perceived it. Not the case here, as I'm sure anyone that's ever been awake for a sunrise can relate. Pretty dark time of day, dude.

>>2786376

lol wut

>>2786384
next post you're going to be asking what an ev is, huh?

File: lackofcontentlackofcreativitylelletsaddsomewhitebordersandgainatripcodemaybethentheyllappreciatemysupersonicphotographypowersdesu.jpg (188KB, 1822x302px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1822x302px

>>2786382
>This post simply illustrates that you have a "leaving your house when the light is not directly overhead" problem. A visual interpretation problem.
I only leave my house when the moon is up desu
thanks for all the reposts tho

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2016-03-06T20:37:59
Flash	No Flash, Red-Eye Reduce
Image Width	1822
Image Height	302

>>2786386
one of the posted photos is from yesterday
what'd you shoot this week? :)

thanks for all the 2015 memes tho

>>2786386
I can actually feel myself becoming an autistic memer reading your posts.

>>2786395
Want me to adopt a tripcode? You could have one too :3

File: FOTO1714_v1.jpg (451KB, 650x1025px)

451KB, 650x1025px

>>2786396
I'd rather you adopt a backbone and post your photos :^)

>>2786398
I don't really feel like processing film this late at night.

Maybe on Tuesday, k?

>>2786403
You shot your first roll this week, anon?
Congratulations!

Maybe stick to the sidelines for a bit tho if that's the case. :^)

If you bought the X-Pro1 beta camera at launch for 1700$ (plus tax and shipping without a lens or memory card) it would be worth 300$ today (minus shipping costs and fees). That is a loss of 1400$ in 4 years. You could have been spending 350$ a year shooting film and still be able to buy an x-pro1 today. That is insane.

I think digital is great and the x-pro1 seems like a great camera but as a filmfag I know what throwing money away looks like. I rather throw my money away on film than to the sands of time.

>>2786422
>he thinks his film cameras that aren't leicas are investments
lol
I'm not sure if you've ever used a camera, but that anon, is where you're supposed to find their value. In using them.

A camera should be viewed as an investment into your capabilities, not your finances. Silly consumercucks.

>>2786434
fuck off

>>2786437
sorry 4 lancing u

File: isi's deepest desires.gif (476KB, 268x179px)

476KB, 268x179px

>>2786451

>>2786453
I don't mind this meme that you're trying to force, but I do not understand it either.

>>2786456
You don't need to.

And in it's own cruel , dark way, that sort of makes it better.

>>2786460
Whatever breads your sandwich, Kid Cadet

File: when isi realizes i'm carb free.gif (1MB, 250x185px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 250x185px

>>2786465

>>2785473
Now compare medium format.

>>2785953
film looks better, deal with it

>>2786334
HAHAHA! You post a photo called "rawmastery" and it's got clipped highlights. How full of yourself are you?

You've got to be so fucking arrogant to post a photo saying that you've "mastered" raw processing. Put the raw up, and see what other people can come up with, if you're so confident with your raw prowess

>>2786771
it's one of isi's shots he posted as a joke, lurk more

>>2786771
This board is beyond a joke now if people can't tell the difference between blown highlights and desaturated ones

Those highlights are nowhere near blown, but the clouds are clearly pulled back from a glowing hot pink. The way they're rim-lit makes that incredibly obvious.

I don't think it looks great, but it certainly looks intentional

>>2786780

It's a shame that isi "lost" the raw so we'll never know.

File: histogram.jpg (31KB, 420x528px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 420x528px

>>2786801
???
why will we never know without the raw file, its there in the jpeg?

>>2786809

looks clipped, family.

>>2786811
you should wake up in time for sunrise one day it will blow your mind dude lmao get off the memes

>>2786816

damn, you told me.

>>2786816
>>2786811
>>2786809
It is clipped. Just because you can bring a clipped highlight down from 100% blown out, doesn't mean there's still information there. Photo BTFO

>>2786824
If you can't see any information in those clouds your monitor is severely fucked up, probably your gamma settings.
Try using the paintbucket tool on the places you think are clipped.

lol its clearly not blown out if you convert it to black and white
the color information is clearly incomplete or incorrect but there is no luminosity clipping.

Just because highlights look unnatural doesn't mean they are clipped, /p/. Please broaden your vocabulary.

>>2786830
>color information is clearly incomplete

that's called clipping, son.

File: IMG_1913.jpg (191KB, 1540x1293px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1540x1293px

>>2786832
Maybe if you're in highschool and literally have no understanding of common photographic terms.

Those of us that know what words mean call it desaturating, because those are desaturated candy clouds like pic related.

I don't know why she processed them the way the did, I suspect because its from instagram or something, but I do know it's not clipped because I'm not a visual illiterate.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Photographer	Picasa
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1540
Image Height	1293

>>2786835
>Those of us that know what words mean call it desaturating

lol what

>>2786839
If you don't know what desaturation means then why are you posting on this board?

>>2786844

If you don't know what desaturation means then why are you posting on this board?

File: because I actually know what it means.jpg (28KB, 495x391px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 495x391px

>>2786847
Because I do know what it means. Do you think it means converting to greyscale?
You can desaturate individual channels, you massive retard.

>>2786303
The only reason I say through to prints is that a developed film negative isn't an end goal either. You have to the do more to be able to enjoy the final picture.

Scanning negatives introduces a lot more variables, like scanner, computer, printer, ink, hard drives, etc. It begins to create a gray area between film and digital, which isn't conducive to the analogue vs digital comparison.

Isi why why the fuck do you always have to ruin threads? 99% of the times you post, it derails everything into a pissing match of ineptitude.

>>2787021
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Translated by Bing!

looking back at how much I spent on film equipment:
camera: $250
enlarger: $25
enlarger lens: $50
trays, tanks, lab glass: $100
that's $425
l can see the cheapest used X-Pro 1 + kit lens on ebay for about 800. The difference is going to get ue about 5 years worth of film, paper & chemicals. But I'm gonna end up with actual prints whereas the X-Pro 1 user will get just digital files.

>>2787021
Why the fuck do you have to escalate it. What are you proving

File: 20151011_200048.jpg (230KB, 562x1000px)

230KB, 562x1000px

>>2787032
that's called a false dichotomy, class.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG
Camera Model	SAMSUNG-SM-N900A
Camera Software	N900AUCUDNL2
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1836
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:10:11 20:00:47
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
Metering Mode	Average
Focal Length	4.13 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1836
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Night Scene

>>2787043
You can print digital photos, but then it's only gonna take longer for the higher initial investment in digital to return.

>>2787049
>he doesn't know he's paying for his prints because they tell him its free with processing
haheaheahehehehooo what a doozy

>>2787053
I process and print my photos myself.

File: fujifilm-instax-share-sp1-kit.jpg (117KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 800x600px

>>2787055
Me too.

isi do you really need a trip to perform tremendous faggotry? everyone else manages just fine on anon. photo threads I understand since they're your photos, and I understand eggy tripping since he's a wealth of knowledge (albeit on some very specific topics but the nonetheless). Your trip serves no purpose other than to designate you special snowflake gurl photog

>>2787065
isi is incredibly knowledgeable from what I have seen
shes also a tremendous faggot but I like that in a lady

>>2787072
>lady

Isi is a 6'4" Alabama cage fighting champion

>>2787058
fucking lol

>>2787058
What a brilliantly executed show of bantz

>>2787065
Be grateful for the trip. You can filter it. All people as shit-posty as her should be forced to trip.

>>2787117
what's yours?

>>2785992
>epson rd-1
those gauges are so tacky, what is this.. steampunk?

File: rd1-2.jpg (17KB, 268x231px)

17KB, 268x231px

>>2788445
>>epson rd-1
>those gauges are so tacky, what is this.. steampunk?
That's not the RD-1 senpai. This is.
It pretty much looks exactly like a Bessa.

>>2788455
i know, look at the fuel gauges on the top plate

>>2785980
Virtually everything I shoot will end up in a digital archive being viewed on a monitor.

Film adds a load of additional time and steps just to end up at pretty much the same result.

>>2790423
>Film adds a load of additional time and steps just to end up at pretty much the same result.

thats because you're a bad photographer, not because of film gives "pretty much the same" results as digital.

File: 1456975289851.jpg (197KB, 684x925px)

197KB, 684x925px

>>2785473

Here's some math for you:

Nikon D3: $2000
Nikon 50 f/1.8: $200

Nikon F5 second hand: $500
Nikon 50 f/1.8: $200

Price difference? $1500. I can get 100ft rolls of BW film for $30-50 (more for some nice Ilfod). Lets say 40. Thats about 37 100 ft rolls.

At a rate of 19 36-exposure rolls per 100 feet that is 703 rolls of film or about 25,000 shots.

If you want great quality on the cheap you could really get big bang from your buck shooting film.

Film isn't for professional usage anymore, those days are long dead. But film isn't as expensive as you would think when you compare apples to apples. Sure it is pretty costly in the long run, but shoot less and think more and you can make beautiful art with those 25,000 pictures.

No beginner will ever benefit (or even understand the benefits) from film; much too unforgiving. Far too many pros these days will balk at film, either citing cost or inconvenience. Anyone who can spend $8000 on a new camera body shouldn't think film is expensive at all.

The D5 is $9000 where I am. Price differential to a kitted out F5? $8,300. That is nearly 4000 rolls of 36-shot film. or 141,588 shots. Sure you don't get the latest AF performance with the F5 but you get a beastly camera that would give modern crop SLRS a run for their money.

>>2786334
Beautiful photo. Love the color palette.

>>2791798
>ignores cost of dev
>ignores time sinks

File: 1401475413762.jpg (74KB, 500x400px)

74KB, 500x400px

>>2792173
>>ignores time sinks
>implying your time is worth anything

>>2791798
how do you plan to display those images? it costs money to dev and print ("cheap" paper is about 1USD per 8x10"). a scanner would add additional cost to the system.

>>2792378
When did we start adding prints into the mix? A scanner may cost additional money but can be picked up for a marginal cost, or free.