> It still doesn't account [ ... ]
Oh but it does.
> [ ... ] 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.
C'mon Dave. It's not that hard a concept. There are two types of cost, the
initial investment and the ongoing operating costs.
Let's say you live in an apartment. If you don't own a washer and dryer, you
put quarters into the landlord's washing machines down in the communal
laundry room. If you buy your own washer and dryer, you have to shell out
$500 for the machines, but you pay no quarters.
In order to evaluate which way to go, you cost it out. If you spend two
bucks a week on laundry and you think you might be moving in a year, then it
makes sense to keep plonking down the quarters. If you spend six bucks a
week on laundry and you've just signed a five year lease, better rustle up
the scratch and head over to Sears for some Kenmores. Ya know what I mean?
It ain't rocket science.
I know a grandmother who shoots film with a point-and-shoot. She goes
through about one camera every five or six years, and she paid about $150
for her last camera. But she shoots 80 rolls of film a year and pays $14 a
roll for film and processing. That's $30 a year for the camera and $1120 a
year for film and processing. Now, would she be better off buying a $500
digicam and incurring no film and processing costs for the next five years?
You do the arithmetic. Would she be "saving" money? Of course she would.
It's no illusion. It's not a trick. It's an actual savings that would be
realized in the ongoing operational costs--savings that would far more than
offset the increase in the initial investment.
Here's Wayne's formula again:
let M = memory
let R = rolls of film per year
let F= film cost
let P = processing cost
Number of years it takes for a DSLR to become as economical as an SLR:
{(DSLR + M) � (SLR +RxFxP)}/ RxFxP
If you already have an SLR, then just put "$0" for SLR).
Plug in the values, cost it out. If you don't have your own capital to use
for the DSLR, then add the cost of the money to (DSLR + M). If no one will
lend you the money, well then, no problem--decision's already made for you.
<s>
Here's what happens to me when I plug in a $9,000 EOS 1Ds versus an $800
MZ-S: 11.4 years.
Here's what happens to me when I plug in a hypothetical "$1700 Pentax DSLR"
versus a $400 Nikon N80: 1.2 years.
So what I learn is that I can't justify an EOS 1Ds unless I plan to keep the
sucker a lot longer than 11 years, which is an absurd idea. But I also learn
that a $1700 Pentax DSLR is cheaper than a $400 Nikon for me if I plan to
keep using either one appreciably longer than fourteen and a half months.
That's information I can use.
Use for what, you ask?
I'm glad you asked.
For * * * E N A B L I N G * * * OF COURSE!!!!!!!!!!
=================
MMUUUUUAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>*ahem*<
*cough*
*cough*
--Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again
