"It does not make any sense to buy a film camera if you are into photography for the money or just to showing off on parties."
On the contrary. Lets say you buy a Canon EOS 30. Nowadays the 2nd hand price around $400 on CS. So your downside is $400, maximum.
If you bought a 10D two years ago, what was the price then? What is the price now? Esp now that 20D and 5D have been introduced.
Who would have lost more $$?
To use rangefinder examples, you could check the 2nd prices for M cameras in the last 5 years. A M4 five years ago would have cost you around $2,000 (great condition 2nd hand). The same M4 would still cost you around $2,000 (great condition 2nd hand). Even if the condition only excellent but not great, it would cost you at least $1,500.
The cost of film and processing is not "wasted" shots. It's only wasted if you learn nothing from it. The purpose of shooting film, shooting rangefinders, is to really learn how to shoot properly. No doubt some frames will be wasted because you "missed the moment", etc. but you learn to use the rangefinder like a sniper ("make every shot count") rather than like a machine-gun DSLR style.
Digital is not free, in fact it is quite expensive if you cost out the hard disk, CD/DVD backups, workflow software, photoshop, PC, printer, ink, etc. Of course, if you are a pro shooting 100 rolls a week, the cost of film/processing would overwhelm you, but hey, most amateurs don't even shoot more than 10 rolls a year, so lets be realistic in comparison. I'm sure you can use Excel spreadsheets to calculate the breakeven point if you wish.
It can be argued that rangefinders and film cameras in general force you to become a better photog because you learn to value film and to make every shot count. You will take better pictures because the camera forces you to, esp. if you respect the medium (ie do not resort to scanning the film and PS-ing to change backgrounds, remove distractions from the frame, etc), so you pay a lot more attention to cropping, background/foreground detail, etc. even before you shoot.
If you want to get the Leica Digital M, fine, just remember that like any digital camera, the price decline will be very steep in the initial years, and that 5 years from now, there will be machines which outclass it totally. In other words, you could lose a lot more $$ buying a digital M than a film M.
The next question is, will there be film 5-10 years from now? Honestly, no one can predict the future, except to point to analogies such as powerboats did not cause sailboats to become extinct, photos did not kill paintings, that CD's did not kill LP's, etc.
However, it is reasonable to expect that there may still be a huge market for film in the poor countries where people cannot afford a digital camera or a PC, and will probably never be able to. Film has certain advantages in some applications (eg war photogs, adventurers, explorers, etc) where there is no assurance of electricity to power DSLR chargers.
Your guess is as good as mine, but even if there's no more film, an M camera will have a certain intrinsic value simply because no one makes them any more. Like samurai swords that were handcrafted by past masters, handmade M cameras will acquire an antique status and be priced accordingly.
Perhaps the same will happen to G cameras, who knows?
sabrewolf said:
If you are thinking of getting a rangefinder, don't, get a digital slr or the upcoming leica digital rangefinder instead.
Seriously, this is what I tell my friends when they are about to buy a Leica or film camera. If you really interested in getting a rangefinder you would have bought one already. It does not make any sense to buy a film camera if you are into photography for the money or just to showing off on parties. You sure as hell won't take better pictures and you'll spend more money on wasted shots.
Buy a film camera because you enjoy taking pictures, good or bad, and love the challenges that comes with film.(also you have plenty of money to spend away).
