Quoting Toralf Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > And that's 4 times more for equipment that faster becomes obsolete, too. > Of course, the camera won't be less usable just because something better > has been released, but I don't like the idea of spending that much money > on something that's worth nothing in a year or two. Actually, I've done > exactly that e.g. with my PC, but there at least I have an opportunity > to keep up with some of the technology without replacing the entire > unit. With a digital camera, on the other hand, you're pretty much stuck > with what you've got. You can't start using a better film, or add more > RAM or insert a faster CPU or... Oh well, You can get better lenses for > a DSLR, of course, but wouldn't some kind of upgradability in the sensor > department be nice?
It would be very nice. But you also need to update the CPU and memory to handle the larger data. So it's generally going to be cheaper to buy a whole new camera, especially if you consider that you should get more life out of the new mechanical components and you can sell the old camera for something. > And before anyone mentions it: Since I want to keep all my images, and > would like to have them as securely stored as possible, I don't think > I'd be able to make much money back by saving on film costs (I'd have to > spend most of that money on backups.) You can back up about 10x36 films worth of digital images onto a 50c CD-R. You can copy the CD-R and so have 2 backups in different places. I don't see how the backups will ever cost as much as film + processing. But nobody has to justify their choice digital/film. If you're happy with film, find it less time consuming, more enjoyable, prefer the results then great. Don't criticise other people who have chosen digital because they prefer its different benefits. All these digi vs film threads seem so pointless - use whatever you like and don't criticise other's choices. And now I've gone and contributed to it :-(
