I was out taking photographs yesterday using slide film and I realised that I'm not actually loosing all that much money on using film instead of digital. Heres what I figure. I want good quality photographs, so I have two choices. A) The Digital Kit: Nikon D70s with 18-70 mm lens: £669 Nikon 35 - 300 mm lens: £300 1 GB Memory Card: £50 Total: Aprox £1000 B) Analog Kit: Nikon F75 with 28 - 100 mm lens: £200 Nikon 35 - 300 mm lens: £300 Total: Aprox £500 Money left for film and processing: Aprox £500 Now if you shoot fujifilm Sensia 100 and purchase your film from www.fujilab.co.uk you can get a roll of film and processing, and digitizing to cd for £10.5. That means that for £500 you can shoot about 47 rolls of film which equals 1692 photographs (when i load my camera I usually get 37 photographs on one roll but I've used 36 in my calculation since that's what the box says). You will have both a slide and a digital copy of your photograph. Now take into account that you will probably buy a new digital camera about twice as often as you would buy a film slr and you'll see that digital photography is not much cheaper than film photography. If you replace your dSLR every 3 years that 233 pounds a year (presuming that you spend £700 pounds each time). Now a film SLR you can get for about £200 pounds and I doubt I will replace that for another 6 years. That's £33 a year. Now If we look at a period of ten years thats £2330 for digital gear and £330 for analog gear. The price difference is £2000 pounds which means that you can develop 190 rolls of film which is 19 rolls a year. Now my conclution is that digital probably is cheaper in the long run, but it varies very much from person to person. It all depends on how many photographs you take. I'm not saying that one is cheaper and/or better than the other. I'm just trying to defend us film users by saying that digital is not as cheap compared to film as many would want you to think, but of course it all depends on choice of gear and how much film you plan to develop.