I think you forgot some of the other costs associated
with digital in your example. What about the cost of
the printer itself? The paper & ink supplies? And
most important, the time involved to "do it yourself"?
--- Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > 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
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
