I seem to have gotten lost in there somewhere <GRIN>. Make that 33.3 rolls/year (easier than changing all the numbers).
Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 9:01 AM Subject: Re: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE > Since some labs charge more for digital prints than for D&P film, someone > who bought 4x6 prints of every shot probably is paying more for digital than > the film user is. > > So on that basis lets do some calculating (for ameteur use): > > D-100 with microdrive $2300 + $1 premium for prints. 100 rolls/year for 3 > years. $2400 = $800/year cost increase. I did not deduct the $400 for the > N-80 because in 3 years the D-100 will no longer produce the same quality > images as the newer models and will need to be replaced. > > N-80 $400. (once again, I use the N-80 because they both use the same camera > chassis). > > As I have said before you can prove almost anything with math as long as it > is logical, and the above is certainly logical. It proves that for ameteurs > who are primarially interested in snapshots, not cameras, the DSLR is a > losing proposition. What is left out in almost every little bit of figuring > is the qualification that makes the figures make sense. > > Despite the undoubted truth of the above figures, would I buy a DSLR if I > had the money? You can bet your little tootsy I would. > > Ciao, > Graywolf > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 12:12 AM > Subject: Re: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE > > > > > > In a message dated 1/16/03 11:05:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > writes: > > > > >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. > > > > > I'm not sure he is paying nothing. If he wants them printed, and most of > us > > do, he's only saving the cost of film not the cost of developing and > > printing. If he does not want them printed then he would not have the film > > printed either. That reduces the total cost of print developing down > > significantly. > > Vic > > >
