[Thunderhawk]

As I have said in previous posts, I am a film shooter. I have been, over the last little bit trying to learn as much as I can about digital cameras. To this end Photo Camel has been an invaluable resource. Thank you all.

I keep hearing over and over about how much less expensive digital is compared to film. At this time, with my still limited knowledge, I will have to take issue with that line of though.

1. The better digital cameras costs well into the thousands of dollars, where it is my understanding that the T2 will produce the same quality print as the 1v if all things are equal, such as film, lens and the settings. The 1V of course has a much greater range of what it can do setting wise. Couple this with the huge loss in value that you suffer with the digital camera because the tech changes so quickly. To me, this is not good value.

2. Storage. The cost of high quality cards, HD`s ect. Coupled with the emerging evidence that the storage life of these is only around 5 to 10 years. Where film, if properly stored will last for decades.
3. The cost of photo quality printers and ink and paper… Or you still have to pay a lab to do the printing.
4. The cost of the computer and the related soft ware.
5. I have been told by more than one person that I know, that digital cameras eat batteries like they were potato chips.

Digital is here to stay and it has much to offer that is beyond the scope of film, but it is not at this time the cheep replacement for film that many are saying..