Film SLR Prices vs. Digital

[rexbobcat]

I just acquired a Canon Rebel G (I say "just" but I mean like 9 months ago) for $25 at a garage sale, and I have yet to develop any film from it, but I've began wondering....


Were the price difference in the film era comparable (when taking into account inflation and whatnot) to that of the digital era? I mean, digital has what seems to be so many more "in-camera" variables, such as buffer speed, high ISO, MP, dynamic range, etc...


And an entry-level DSLR is over $5000 cheaper than the professional model from the same company.

In the film era was it like that, because it would seem that besides things like autofocus and durability, there would be no advantage to having one SLR over another because you can load the exact same film...



Or was the price range just as wide?

And if it was....why? Was it just because they could...

 

[tirediron]

The price range wasn't as wide, but there was a large range between cheap consumer and top-end pro (and don't forget too that top-end pro often meant MF; Hassy, Mamiya, Contax, etc). There were a lot of variables, especially in later film bodies, but the most important factor was build quality. Pick up whatever the Canon equivalent of the Nikon F5 was and compare it to your Rebel 'G' - you'll see the difference right away!

 

[PlanetStarbucks]

Yeh, I'm thinking it wasn't quite as wide. I can remember the top end SLRs only occasionally being above $1000. And that was for cameras that did groundbreaking things like auto-focus. Optics are still the same though. They always have had that massive range between the base lens and the high end. They probably always will.