I'm in need of a little feedback, to justify one or another decision. I'm currently still on film (35mm) and will obviously go to a 10D in the near future. That decision is made. It's the timing that's under debate. The trouble is I have a large stock of good film, which I'd hate to see go to waste.
A while ago I bought a Kodak film scanner (RFS3600). At the time they had a "rebate" where they'd send you 100 rolls of film for your purchase. I chose lots of Portra print film (160VC, 400VC, 400NC, 800) and some E100 slide film. Seems to be pretty good stuff.
I still have 60-70 rolls remaining, and therein is my delimma. Do I continue to shoot film until it's gone, then buy the 10D? Or do I sadly bury so much good film and go digital now, which is where I do want to end up?
Each roll costs roughly $5 to process, or $10 to process and scan. For batch scanning I'd rather have someone else to the tedious work, then do a really good clean scan of the best stuff. So that's $300-$700 of processing/scanning. Scans are nice, but of course digital images are (usually) cleaner and less dusty.
The logical choice is obvious - in the long run I'd have cleaner images and more money if I just bought the 10D. But the logic is combatted by the loss of valuable film (money already spent) and some sort of religious attachment to The Almighty Film. An interesting dilemma, and perhaps one to cause interesting discussion.
