Depends on the film. 5 rolls a month of inexpensive B&W film (Arista for example) souped in Rodinal is around $15 a month.
E-6 is expensive. C-41 less so and B&W can be dirt cheap. -Adam On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Luka Knezevic-Strika <[email protected]> wrote: > 50 dollars or even a hundred is peanuts compared to the cost of film > and develompent only for shooting 4-5 rolls a month for a year. > > On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Adam Maas <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Bob W <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Anybody else read >>>> http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photograph >>>> er/2009/05/a-leica-year.html >>>> Mike Johnston's little ode to simplicity and the Leica as a teacher. >>>> >>>> I'm seriously thinking about giving the basic concept a try. Not with >>>> a Leica though, but rather with either a Yashica FX-3 or Nikon FM2n >>>> and a fast normal. I don't feel like paying the Leica tax and my FX-3 >>>> in particular cost less than the eBay/Paypal transaction fees on even >>>> a cheap M. >>>> >>> >>> The follow-up piece is quite interesting too: >>> http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/05/why >>> -it-has-to-be-a-leica.html >>> >>> The Leica 'tax' is a myth, as he points out. I have recently sold my M4-2 >>> which I had for about 8-10 years for about the same money I paid for it. >>> Admittedly I spent £150- on it a few years ago for a service, but for a 1968 >>> camera it did pretty well. My E-1, on the other hand, is worth nothing now. >>> >>> The older photographers among us had little choice but to learn the way Mike >>> suggests. My early photography was with an MX which I bought by not smoking >>> for a year. I generally shot black & white and rarely had anything enlarged >>> because I couldn't afford it - just the contact prints. I still have all the >>> negs and contacts and there are probably hundreds of photos I should scan >>> and enlarge. But I can't be arsed. >>> >>> Bob >>> >> >> The Leica tax is not a myth. Even if you consider the capital >> expenditures a wash, a comparable 35mm SLR of similar vintage to an M4 >> will cost no more than $50 and is often available much cheaper than >> that. In other words buying the SLR will cost you less than shipping, >> fees and taxes on the Leica, which you won't recover when selling it. >> Heck, my FX-3 cost me $5 out of pocket and $25 total (traded in a FR >> on it, payed $20 for the FR, got $20 trade-in value). Even a Nikon F >> can be had under $100. >> >> With very few exceptions, and nearly all of them fully-featured pro >> bodies, 35mm SLR's are available for the price of beer. >> >> -- >> M. Adam Maas >> http://www.mawz.ca >> Explorations of the City Around Us. >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. >> > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
