The 2.1 megapixel Olympus C2100UZ (pictured above) was quite
unique when it was first released in 2000. The camera sported
a fast f/2.8-3.5 aspherical lens that featured 10X optical zoom
and optical image stabilization. Way ahead of its time!

While these things may be standard on many cameras today, it was
most definitely not common in the digital world of the year 2000.
Heck, even today, that's pretty high specs!

In the early days of digital, a key ingredient in trying to "sell"
consumers on the benefits of a digital camera was to point out
the "filmless" nature of digital cameras. The implications are
that you would no longer need to pay for film or to deal with
film's "cumbersome" ways.

It was (and still is) often said that digital requires more expense
initially (ie, the cameras cost more) than film equipment, but that
it will save you more in the long run because you save on film and
development. As the years have gone by, I think they left out one
VERY important caveat..."Upgraditis" or that insatiable desire
to "upgrade" your camera when newer models appear and your
digital camera feels like an old computer :-)

In the glory days of film, it usually took years before the replacement
model came out. So is the idea that digital is "cheaper" than film in the long run
really true? Look at it this way...high end pro or enthusiast cameras
like the Nikon D700 or 5D Mark II cost between $2000-3000. The upgrade cycle
nowadays is usually 18 months to two years on higher end models.

Now, although I shot a bit of film back in the day, I don't think I ever spent $3000
in one year on film and development! Sure it is certainly true that professional
shooters have spent much more than that a year on film costs, and thus digital
is far more effective, no doubt.

But for the average Joe, like you and I, I don't believe the cost of film and development,
per year, was all that bad. I have to point out that I was never a "spray and pray" shooter.
I believe in making every shot count. That's how I learned it with film, and it's the
same philosophy I use with digital. But I understand every shooter is different, there's
no right or wrong way, so price wise, YMMV or "Your Mileage May Vary." Obviously, with
digital, since it's "free" you tend to shoot more so it's unfair to say "well, if that
was film..." because you might not be pressing the shutter as much if you were in
the same situation during the film era.


Yes, it adds up, but for me personally, I think it's much worst now every time
I upgrade to a newer, "better" digital camera. I think I have spent more on digital
gear than I ever did with film equipment. If you are one of the rare breed who
can buy only one digital camera and use it for years, without feeling the
need to get the latest and greatest, I say may you be blessed! :)

So has the "filmless" anthem of digital worked for me? No, I still
use film. I can't honestly say that I've "never looked back" after using
digital, because I have. I've shot film since I was a kid and I have been
shooting film side by side with my digital cameras every year since I bought
my first digital camera. Maybe I shoot less film these days, but I still love it.
But, I love digital too! Is film better? That is a topic for another day. The answer
may surprise you :-)