On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 20:23:56 -0500, you wrote: >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
The fallacy of this argument is simple. It disregards the difference between initial investment in hardware, and continuing cost of consumables. Initial hardware investment might be computer or scanner or digicam or LX or new lens or even a backpack. But the basic hardware in 35mm photography is the camera itself (and in the case of digital, the camera and storage card). The basic consumables in 35mm photography are film and processing (and in the case of digital, batteries and electricity). Comparing the cost of a film camera and a DSLR over time is pretty easy. There is the initial cost of the main hardware (say, MZ-S versus D100 with 1-gig Microdrive installed, or $800 vs. $2400: advantage, film camera by $1600. So the film camera has a $1600 head start on day one. But look three months later, with both cameras shooting 3600 photos in that time: The film camera's consumables total $1000 (a conservative $10 per roll for 36-exp film and processing). The DSLR consumables cost a few cents worth of electricity. After three months, the film camera's advantage stands at $1600 minus $1000 = $600. Still substantial, but diminishing fast. Shooting for the rest of the first year (at the same 3600 images per quarter) means the film shooter has to fork over another $3000 for film and processing. The DLSR user may have to replace a set of batteries for fifty bucks. After one year, the film shooter's initial advantage is long gone. Starting with a $1600 advantage, but subtracting $4000 for film and processing, the film shooter is $2400 in the hole. In contrast, the DSLR owner has, in fact, gotten a free DSLR camera in only one year by simply avoiding the cost of film and processing. Depending on how much film and processing per month one no longer buys, a DSLR will pay for itself in a certain number of months. It's a simple return-on-investment calculation. So every time you guys buy a brick of film, then pay for the processing, think about that money going towards a DSLR instead, which can truly pay for itself with the dollars one no longer has to spend on film and processing. Going digital is like quitting smoking. It's difficult, but you save a fortune on consumables real quick. But for the Christmas and Easter shooters, who use up a whole roll of film every year no matter what, a digicam is a toy and a luxury, not a thoughtful cost-savings decision. ...and please don't jump on the cost of a computer and hard drive. If you didn't have one of those available already, you wouldn't be reading this. So that little piece of hardware is a given, kinda like having good enough eyesight to point a camera toward a subject. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
