Mike, It still doesn't account for the fact that he's had to shell out the $2000 USD plus storage etc. to get 16 shots (and then more) instead of paying $20 for 16 shots each time. You can't say someone is "saving" when they in fact have to shell out cash to buy something - that's part of the problem with our consumer based society - we've been duped into believing we're actually "saving" money by purchasing something we don't necessarily need. We may want it but we don't _need_ it.
All I'm pointing out here is that for some people, maybe professionals and those who review digital cameras for a living (Michael Reichmann, Phil Askey, Dave Etchels et al) it may make "sense" for them to cough up the dough-ray-me but for the large bulk of us on this list (at least) who consider themselves, hobbyists, rank amateurs etc. we can only aspire to maybe justifying one day the ownership of such equipment. Would you ever own a Lamborghini if you never were allowed to drive over 55mph? Probably not. Why? Because it just doesn't make sense to do so when you could spend the same amount of money on a Ford Focus and a whack of fuel for said automobile. At some point in time digital SLR's will come down enough in price so that everyone who can afford one and who wants one will purchase one, but at this point in time, I can only see myself pondering the following dilemma: "Hmm.... do I spend the extra $13,000 CDN I have laying around on a used automobile or do I buy that EOS 1Ds SLR body?" As a friend of mine says, "it's nice to have the EOS 1Ds but you can't exactly hop into it and head north to the cottage now can you?" It's a matter of practicality in my eyes, and seeing as how it's my $$$, my eyes are the only ones that matter. :-) Pondering my dinero, Dave -----Original Message----- From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 6:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE tv wrote: >35mm - $20 >120 - $20 >220 - $30 >Roughly. Dave wrote (smirkingly): > 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"? Smirking Dave, In this case he literally *IS* saving, because every time he takes 36 digital pictures he's paying nothing instead of paying $20. --Mike
