The concept of "saving" money by having to outlay more money always perplexed me. I'm as guilty of thinking about things this way as anyone else.
The problem is, Tom has to fork out $2000 USD to get the Nikon in order to, potentially, (assuming he continues to shoot at the rate he does) not have to buy film further down the road. Where is he "saving"? (i.e. how much moolah has he been able to stock away by having to outlay $2000) I'm so confused... Smirkingly, Dave Original Message: ----------------- From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:12:31 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE <snip> Which means that with 20 months use at a rate of 120 rolls per year, the DSLR is free. Beyond that, you're in the black--SAVING money over the cost of running a film camera. </snip> -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
