Why Bother with a Digital Camera?

Is there an age requirement to be a curmudgeon?

Even with all the hype about digital cameras at this year's Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, I remain skeptical about digital photography's value to the average consumer. There's no question that, for an online news reporter who needs to e-mail photos from the scene, a digital camera is the way to go. However, if you're planning on printing out your photos -- as most consumers do -- it just doesn't make sense to go completely digital. For the quality and the cost of prints, the value isn't there yet.

First, let's take a step back and realize what I'm not saying in this column. I'm not trying to rehash the old film-image quality vs. digital-image quality debate. Some convincing arguments have been made that, with other variables held constant, a film image is roughly comparable to a six-megapixel digital image. Since six-megapixel digital cameras are in stores now, for the sake of simplification, let's take image quality out of the equation entirely.

The Debate: What This Column is About

I'm a computer science guy -- my mind works best with numbers -- so let's look at the raw financials. Consider two sets of 24 photos, one taken with film, the other with a digital camera. Our goal is to print these pictures on photo paper with a reasonable image representation -- we're not talking print-outs from a black & white inkjet printer here. To complete the equation, let's assume you need to purchase an actual camera, too.

To buy a six-megapixel camera -- the Canon EOS Digital Rebel for instance -- you'll need to shell out $899, according to CDW (at the time this article was written).

While other camera options exist in the six-megapixel range, most are even higher in price. (A film version of the Canon Rebel is also on the market and that greatly simplifies our comparison.)

Considering most people don't have photo-quality printers in their homes, we'll need to use an online service for creating the prints. A number of online photography services exist these days, but one of my favorites is Ofoto.com.

With Ofoto, you can easily upload and share digital photos directly from your camera. You can also purchase prints and have them mailed to you. (Note that I've yet to receive a bad digital print from them.)

A 4x6 print of a digital image from Ofoto costs $0.29. To order double prints of 24 photos would then cost $13.92. Shipping of the prints costs $2.49 for 3-7 day delivery. So, that's a total of $16.41.

Summary for Digital Strategy

Camera $899 Film N/A Prints $13.92 + $2.49 shipping = $16.41

The prices of SLR film cameras have been falling steadily in recent years. Currently, you can find the Canon EOS Rebel 2000, at Circuit City for $269.99. That's not bad!

Like most people, I get my film photos developed at the local drugstore. There's a Duane Reade near my home but, as I live in Manhattan's pricey Upper West Side, it's probably one of the more expensive places to get film processed. To develop a roll of 24 photos would cost $10.59, for 4x6 double prints, which would be available in 3-4 days. Now, included in that price is a Picture CD containing high-resolution digital copies of my images.

To share these images online, I can simply upload and create a free photo album on Ofoto, just as I did with the digital images (except now I also have physical prints, the images burned on a CD, and high-quality film negatives.)

Obviously, with a film camera, a roll of film is a necessity. I generally buy my film at Staples where I can get a 5-pack for a little over $12.50. In case you're mathematically challenged, that's $2.50 per roll of 24.

So that brings my total per roll, for film, to $13.09. That's a full $3.32 less than digital for every 24 photos!

Summary for Film

Camera $269.99 Film $2.50 Prints $10.59 (no shipping)

Unless you need immediate access to your images, it's just not economical to go completely digital right now. In our scenario, the cost difference between the two Canon Rebel cameras was $629.01, with the best bargain to be had by going with the film version. Although the two cameras aren't identical, they're definitely comparable -- and $629 buys an awful lot of film!

Even processing film is cheaper than processing and printing digital images (ain't that counterintuitive!)--the difference being $3.32 for every 24 photos, in favor of film. While not an enormous savings, it'll certainly add up if you shoot a significant amount of pictures.

And yes, you can delete a few photos in your digital camera before you print the roll -- but I doubt you could recoup the cost difference before your camera becomes obsolete. Plus, I would argue that, since it's so easy to delete images with a digital camera, you're more likely to take silly shots in the first place (and subsequently delete them). With a film camera, since you know every shot counts, more effort and thought will be put into each photo.

Now, I'm a gadget guy and I love technology. On this issue, however, I remain unconvinced, so I'm sticking with my film camera. I'm tired of people telling me that new technology is always better. It's only better if it provides more value. In this case, it doesn't -- not yet, anyway.

If you think I've got my story all wrong -- and I'm sure a number of you do -- let me read about it in the forum. Until then, I remain --

- Robyn Peterson, Young Curmudgeon

Copyright © 2004 Ziff Davis Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. Originally appearing in ExtremeTech.