Ray - , Feb 07, 2012; 04:16 p.m.
With the Nikon D800 came out it has made me think again about the price justification. I guess for pro's it could be justified for the convenience of a digital workflow and that you can shoot as much as you want. But for the amateur, the Nikon F100 or the Canon EOS 3 didn't cost that much right. $20USD might get a roll of slide film with processing included.
Even something like a D90 which more amateurs buy, would be equiv to say 50 rolls of slides bought and processed. However the D90 price might be okay as in the film days as in some countries outside the USA, a F80 did cost $1,000USD equiv.
So I am thinking that ... maybe FF cameras are justified for a pro and a DX camera is justified as being not too bad from what a film camera of that league used to cost.
Matt Laur 
, Feb 07, 2012; 04:34 p.m.
$20USD might get a roll of slide film with processing included
And if you shoot a hundred rolls over the entire life of the camera, that's $2,000. And that's only 3,600 exposures. Some people, even the thoughtful ones, including amateurs with kids in sports and whatnot, can exceed that in just a couple of months of shooting without trying very hard. Regardless, it's the immediacy that matter to some, the ability to rapidly shift ISO and WB from shot-to-shot for others ... and the X Camera = Y Number Of Rolls math never even enters into it. The fact that it's cheaper than film is a happy extra bonus, for me, as long as the output is useful.
JC Uknz 
, Feb 07, 2012; 04:43 p.m.
If you are concerned with operating costs and prepared to work with less than the latest gear you can set yourself up in digital at not too much more than film. I don't shoot wildly being used to film but in my first six months of digital I shot about the same as the previous 15 years with film .... from then on I was shooting for free ... until I upgraded :-) I didn't really need to but market pressures ... you know :-)
Digital was a liberating experience for me.
Bob Sunley 
, Feb 07, 2012; 04:45 p.m.
The new top end DSLR's aren't much more expensive that SLR's were back in the late 60's when you adjust for inflation.
Even way back then, well heeled amateurs spent lots of $$$ on gear. Why do you think you can find Nikon F - F3's that look new out of the box.
parv . , Feb 07, 2012; 04:49 p.m.
Now, it is certain that sky is falling ...
"I didn't really need to but *market pressures* ... you know
:-)
*Digital was a liberating experience* for me." -- JC U
... of all the people, JC U fell.
;>
ross b , Feb 07, 2012; 06:22 p.m.
Well I shoot film and digital but I mostly enjoy shooting the Kodak BW400BN film. It's really nice. I don't care if it takes a little pocket change to shoot it. I hope it helps the job market just a little in the US.
mark kittleson 
, Feb 07, 2012; 07:10 p.m.
Plain and simple, photography costs money. If you are an amateur or professional there is a cost associated with it. Since I do not make any kind of living at it, it is a hobby for me. I enjoy my darkroom, my digital camera, my film cameras, my new wide format printer. I don't think twice when I release the shutter on whatever camera I am using "what is this going to cost?" My printer was over 300 bucks, the ink etc. I could spend 7000 on a "classic" car. I would have insurance, maintenance, gasoline, etc.
Statistics can be manipulated to make us see whatever we want...and carried to the "nth degree"
To me the justification is the end result of what your needs are. I am positive there are pros that have shot with a "bridge" or compact camera and never told anyone as long as the end result is acceptable.
FWIW I do in fact have and use a D90 and an F100. Both produce stellar results and I am very satistfied with them.
It is the price of my hobby and I accept that.
Leslie Cheung 
, Feb 07, 2012; 08:02 p.m.
So I am thinking that ... maybe FF cameras are justified for a pro and a DX camera is justified as being not too bad from what a film camera of that league used to cost.
Wrong way to think about it all...
Jeff Spirer 
, Feb 07, 2012; 08:08 p.m.
Leslie is right.
Plenty of pros don't shoot with full frame cameras. The requirements for print are satisfied with cameras from two generations ago (with the possible exception of noise issues with some of the older sensors) and, if super-wide lenses are not needed, there is no need to use a full frame camera. Most of the pros I shoot with use either 1.3x or 1.6x cameras. I've never even seen one using full frame except when video is required, then it's usually a 5D. If there's a team, they will all use 5Ds.
Scott Ferris , Feb 07, 2012; 10:20 p.m.
Pros shoot with whatever gets their images, many are using X100's etc, some combined with medium format digital backs, some ff, but most I know are using 1.5 Nikon crop cameras, it just depends what they want.
My experience has been keen amateurs are far more interested in gear than most pros.
$3,000 for the D800 is a crazy good bargain, I paid $2,000 each for my last two film cameras. D&P along with the cost of the film in the first place soon takes up the extra $1,000 plus anything I ever spend on computers, which nearly everybody has anyway.
