Wouldn't the real comparison be to include how much he spent on film
and processing in that time, as well as time spent going back and
forth to a lab and mileage and wear and tear on a vehicle? And on
what, exactly, was he spending $10k per year on in digital gear?
Lenses, printers, bodies, computers or what--and how much of that
gear would he have anyway if he was using film? I'd like to hear the
details. Oh, and does the figure for the decade of film cameras
include repairs and maintenance?
It's really easy to toss out those numbers, but the devil is in the
details.
Rich
On Dec 23, 2007, at 3:23 AM, karl shah-jenner wrote:
I had an email from a photographer recently who talls me he spend
$3000 in a decade on film cameras and $10,000 on digital gear in a
*year* ($30,000 in 3 years)
