----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Dayton Subject: Re[2]: Behind the counter with digital
> Chris, > > I would say that for those who know how to manage their files, digital > is cheaper, but those who have no clue what they are doing, for them > film might be cheaper and easier. Especially concerning archiving. If they are managing their own files, a computer needs to be tossed into the cost equation. I realize they may already have one around, but it still counts as added cost. One of our customers was quite happy with his old 486. It did what he needed it to do, which was all text based stuff. Speed wasn't that important, nor was a big HD. He got a digital camera, and then, a short time later, spent a couple of grand on a new computer. He "decided it was time to upgrade". He uses the thing for text files and storing image files. For this guy, the digital camera was way expensive, and he knows it. When the guy at Future Shop told him the camera would just plug into his computer, he didn't ask if the thing had a USB port. Most camera users fall into the low utilization category, shooting a couple of dozen rolls of film a year or less. I don't think a digital camera could possibly amortize in a reasonable time frame compared to a similarly featured film camera. William Robb
