3. The 'per frame' cost of film is lower than digital, because the camera doesn't cost as much as a small car.
Stop talking about things you clearly don't understand.
For an amateur... yes...
For those of us who shoot 1000+ frames per week... no.
"Stop talking about things you clearly don't understand"
I'm not suggesting film for a pro - that just would not make sense in this day and age. So yes, good point. But I don't expect to have to write small print on my posts... and the nonsense being spouted by the earlier poster did get me kinda riled.
Film is fun, and if folks out there have never tried it, they should. My point was: it's not expensive to give it a try out, and for lower volumes is way cheaper than digital.