Has anyone done the math?

[Ben Rubinstein]

Just wondering if anyone has written an article or made a spreadsheet which can work out the economics of 'going digital' for the medium format shooter? How much film you would have to shoot per year to offset the cost of the back relative to its depreciation during that year, all the additional costings such as computer hardware, software and probably far more importantly, computer time, the possible cost of new equipment to support the back (new digital lenses, systems, extra lighting for slow backs, etc) etcetera, etcetera?

Would be a facinating study and one that I have no doubt the manufacturers have made, but would be of far more use out there in the marketplace. I understand of course that each studio has its own specific needs and calculations but such an article might well be an eye opener, a way to kickstart some photographers into gear.

Or is it redundant as most medium format shooters went over to the 1Ds/mkII and are upgrading back to medium format while already in the digital domain so that the calculation is one of whether the extra file size and quality can be justified to the clients enough to make it a paying proposition?

[Morgan_Moore]

Surely this is only calculable by each individual

Say you shoot 5 landscapes a week and have no delivery deadline then film wins

If you shoot 200 frames per day then dig wins

The more complex questions are renting V purchase etc

How many client jobs will actually be rejected on quality grounds if you use a 5d  and uprez a bit?

Internalising workflow (no lost at the lab or processed in C41 chemicals as happened to me) and time saving on self scanning and the abiliy to shoot more wacky lighting and check it on scene where what pushed me over to digital

[Ethan Schoonover]

Just wondering if anyone has written an article or made a spreadsheet which can work out the economics of 'going digital' for the medium format shooter?

It is certainly worth while doing business case modeling like this (it's how I, at least, do my annual business plans) but it has to go beyond materials alone to encompass new business acquisition, existing business growth/loss, etc.

And since my clients are all expecting (not even asking for, it's a given at this stage) digital workflow, to shoot film means that there is a real opportunity cost that I end up paying.

Digital is more expensive and more time and equipment intensive (and that equipment has a shorter life span). It's also unavoidable.

[Morgan_Moore]

shorter life span
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106446\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I dont know why digital has a 'short lifespan'

a 22mp 100 ISO file is a nice thing and will be for ever

I have nice prints four foot prints from a SLRn cropped in half on my wall they still look nice whatever other technologies are avalable

One reason that I was happy in the purchase (E22) is that I could factor it over a LONG time

If one gets caught up in the ltest and greatest race yes everything becomes obolete very quickly - but how many need to

ANd a digiback is not rendered useless by a mechanical body failure like a canon - so DBs win for longevity IMO

The money I have got poor return on is D1(3), D100(2), D70 D200 SLRn (thinking of going to 5d) and kodak proback

I new that stuff didnt do the job when I bought it - it was a compromise

I dont see current digital technology as a compromise allthough faster and cleaner is always better - current MFBD already knock expectations that one had from film sideways
SMM

[John_Black]

The business will be considerably different depending on which back you purchase and whether it's new a or used --- a used $6k USD P20 vs a new P45+ @ $27k.  Another consideration is how your equipment is handled from an accounting perspective - do you depcreciate the hardware?  And if so, over how many years.

Somebody in another post said the rule of thumb was - if you're renting 3x a month or more, then you should purchase instead of rent.  My local rental fees range from $300-$500 day, so if I rented 3x a month that's ~$1000/mo, then clearly I should purchase a back in the $12k-$18k range (ie - 12 to 18 month payback period).  And that back would still be worth around 70% of the purchase price at the end of 18 months, so clearly the purchase worked out better.  If you only need MF once every month or two, then rent one and build fees into your pricing.  

There are strategic considerations too - will a digital back put you ahead of your local competition?  If so, maybe you can charge a premium.  Or, are you simply playing catch-up?  Will a back enable you to go after new business or more profitable business?  Are working in fields where a digital back & the associated file sizes are the expectation?

If it were me and the business case was marginal, I'd buy a smaller sized back like a P21 and then also negotiate a rental fee schedule.  Odds are the dealer will want to sell the back and will agree to a reduced rentel fee schedule.  Whatever the rental fee rate is - I'd negotiate for 1/2 off.  The only problem with renting is availability.  And if you're renting, you'll probably want to shoot Hassy since the Hassy backs tend to be the most common in the rental pool.

[howiesmith]

ANd a digiback is not rendered useless by a mechanical body failure like a canon - so DBs win for longevity IMO

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106454\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And none of my film cameras have every experienced an electric failure (not even a dead battery) - and never will.  Mechanical failures are very few and a long time in between (one in thirty years).

[Ben Rubinstein]

It may become 'short life span' very fast if clients get used to and demand 39 megapixels worth as it's use gets more widespread. How many commercial photographers would be shooting with anything over 25 megapixels unless the market place demanded it of them? In the beginning the convenience and immediacy of digital meant that often the clients were willing to sacrifice ultimate quality and were happy with 35mm DSLR output. I doubt that is the case now.

Other than that, depreciation is a quantifiable measure of the monetary life span of a peice of equipment is it not? Especially in the digital world where the word 'digital' transalates as compromises. If you cannot upgrade or change system in the volatile world of digital medium format because the equipment you have invested in is essentially worthless then I would see that as a significant factor in the purchasing decision. For example investing in a digital back for a discontinued or non garuanteed system such as Contax, Hasselblad V, Mamiya, etc. For someone who needs higher ISO capability than the present line of MFDB's, to tell them that their present equipment which they have been compromising on does not have a 'short life span' when it is (relatively) worthless against an upgrade to next years back which will no longer involve compromises for their style of photography would I think be incorrect?

[Morgan_Moore]

How many commercial photographers would be shooting with anything over 25 megapixels unless the market place demanded it of them?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106458\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well a p45 is higher ISO and less moiree than a p25 - so I would suggest thats a big element of those who have changed


 

For example investing in a digital back for a discontinued or non garuanteed system such as Contax, Hasselblad V, Mamiya, etc.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106458\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sinar and imacon backs you can change system my Eyelike will work on Mam, h1/2 contax andthe future hy6 - I am unlikely to be left bodyless for some decades

It could be more of an issure for fixed mount backs (a decade)

For someone who needs higher ISO capability than the present line of MFDB's,[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106458\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If the kit doesnt fullfill your/thier needs then it is probably not a wise investment

For me and namy I would suggest the current kit if it meets your need will have a long life

Just like my FM2 and velvia 100 film I see no need to upgrade it now, before or in the furture - or in the past - it takes nice pictures that meet my needs I dont see that as being any different from a digiback

My lesson is ONLY go digital when it meets your needs because the upgrade spiral is indeed a nightmare (unlees you are a big turnover house) in which case it will pay for itself in saved film/scans in months

My big error was the Proback which did not meet my needs (no wide) that I stupidly bought because I was excited that the digital door had opened to an accessable place for me

SMM

[Ethan Schoonover]

I dont know why digital has a 'short lifespan'

a 22mp 100 ISO file is a nice thing and will be for ever

[clip]

I dont see current digital technology as a compromise allthough faster and cleaner is always better - current MFBD already knock expectations that one had from film sideways
SMM
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106454\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I should have been more specific. I fully agree with you about current MFDB back resolution. We're effectively at MF film resolution already and that will be good for sometime.

I'm mostly thinking of the three computers in my studio that need to be upgraded every 18-36 months. Turnover and cost of non-camera equipment is a higher cost than camera related equipment (lenses are more of a long term investment than hard disks, for example).

[Morgan_Moore]

I should have been more specific. I fully agree with you about current MFDB back resolution. We're effectively at MF film resolution already and that will be good for sometime.

I'm mostly thinking of the three computers in my studio that need to be upgraded every 18-36 months. Turnover and cost of non-camera equipment is a higher cost than camera related equipment (lenses are more of a long term investment than hard disks, for example).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106479\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well film shooters have computers too - I expect - and actually I dont upgrade my computers much either

I have a workflow sorted where I tend to do other things while the big processes are happening

And my last PC was about £500 I think - so cheap (compared to staff downtime) I didnt even try and mend the other one

The most expensive and most finite asset any of us have is our own time  - so workflow is a big deal and dig does not nessecarily win on this point

Best money use .. a 5d and two years sallary for a 'monkey' to do the Post ??

SMM

[pss]

Just wondering if anyone has written an article or made a spreadsheet which can work out the economics of 'going digital' for the medium format shooter? How much film you would have to shoot per year to offset the cost of the back relative to its depreciation during that year, all the additional costings such as computer hardware, software and probably far more importantly, computer time, the possible cost of new equipment to support the back (new digital lenses, systems, extra lighting for slow backs, etc) etcetera, etcetera?

Would be a facinating study and one that I have no doubt the manufacturers have made, but would be of far more use out there in the marketplace. I understand of course that each studio has its own specific needs and calculations but such an article might well be an eye opener, a way to kickstart some photographers into gear.

Or is it redundant as most medium format shooters went over to the 1Ds/mkII and are upgrading back to medium format while already in the digital domain so that the calculation is one of whether the extra file size and quality can be justified to the clients enough to make it a paying proposition?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106435\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

it is really hard to compare all this...i have been digital for more then 10 years....i have bought several computers, printers, cameras and backs......some of them became outdated, some faster, some slower...i really feel that today the Dbacks and printers(and computers actually as well) won't become outdated....my P30 will continue to provide 360dpi 13x19 16bit files at 45 frames/minute....my 4800 prints so clean it hurts....my mac can finally crunch the files i throw at it in a speed i am very comfortable with.....these items will have to be serviced, but they should really last forever....will i upgrade...hell yes....but at a much slower rate and much more selective....
i have always said that digital is cheap.....in school and after that assisting in NY i had 1000+$(easily) film and lab bills....for that alone i could lease a very nice set-up now.....and that was just for myself, no clients, just shooting for my book....ok, some small jobs here and there, but in general for my book....
1200 frames/month MF in film/processing is about$ that buys a lot of equipment....and most of thise costs should be passed on to the clients.....shooting digital isn't free....
leasing a P30 for 30 months is about 600?/month....and that back is still worth a lot after those 24 months.....
a H20 was always limited to some extent...tethered only, slow, noise,...a great back for its time, but i don't see the backs making that much progress anymore...once a back shoots the equivalent of 45 4x5 sheets neg. film per minute handheld on the beach with previews (as the P45 pretty much does) what more do we need?
if i shot landscapes or interiours.....something where i might shoot 100-200 sheets of 4x5 neg film per month..i would consider staying with film...it might be cheaper.....
but the knowledge that i have the shot (plus the fact that pretty much every commercial client now wants to make sure they have the shot as well...i might now that i have the shot...but the have to trust me that i do...), that convenience alone makes digital the way to go for me....the first time i saw it, i knew.....and i have paid a lot of beta-money since then.......
sorry if this does not answer your question...i am way too deep invested to think about how relatively inexpensive a complete new set-up would be today.....