We can all agree digital photography is for poor people?

Except for the thousands of wealthy pro photographers who use them daily. Yes.

Digital had a significantly higher financial barrier of entry than film does.

Film is definitely for poorfags. Sorry kid.

If anything film is the poor, but clearly better format and digi is greedy, excessive yet inefficient capitalist scum format. Extreme poorfag but I was able to go 645 for less than a ricoh gr. Try that, digicucks.

Digital is for poor people. People who complain about little things that cost money, but never really look at how their gear loses all it's value. Digicucks are far more likely to constantly try to barter prices down because they're poor while filmbros will always buy an item full ticket.

Just like all poor people, they make poor choices. The great thing about digital is that when they upload their shit photos, the exif is there so you can see that they rely on automation anyway.

>>3100754
Can we all agree not to post shit threads like this?

I feel both are fairly equal desu. Low end digi is cheap, but you'll probably want to upgrade gear every few years. Low end film is cheap, but you're constantly paying for film and developing/scanning.

High end digi is very expensive, and you'll definitely be upgrading gear if you're a pro photographer. High end film such as LF can also be very expensive due to rarity etc, and again you're constantly paying for film and scan/dev costs where the larger the format is, the more it's going to cost.

>>3100754
> 100% replies post