On Apr 30, 2005, at 4:47 PM, mike wilson wrote:
Cheaper? Not a chance. Gross capital investment is needed and then there is the possibility of further expenditure. It only adds up if you were using a lot of film previously.
I can't imagine not shooting a lot of film -- or a lot of digital. When I was still shooting film, I averaged at least a roll per day, probably more. On a shoot, I frequently burned 15 rolls. But even at only a roll per day, my first *istD paid for itself in less than six months. Digital isn't just better, it's less expensive as well. But this is a silly discussion. We've been through it all before. Most who don't shoot digital, don't like it. Most who do shoot digital would never go back. It's pointless to go over it again.
