Hi! BD> Didn't sound like a rant, just common sense. Another way to state it, BD> is if you don't shoot more than 140 rolls of film per year, then BD> a DSLR is probably not cost justifiable. There are certainly other BD> features about that one might want to consider, but on the money/value BD> front, those who shoot ALOT, probably can justify it and those who BD> don't, probably can't.
BD> One thing you didn't factor in is the wedding/portrait guys. The cost BD> per shot/roll there is much higher than 35mm, so it doesn't take as BD> much to cost justify. Oh well, sometimes I have this hard time of putting in simple words the idea that I have in mind... You're right. There is another gotcha that was mentioned though. For me a roll of film costs $1.5 or even less. To process it I have to pay $2.5, so total *with* processing would cost me $4. OTOH, local prices of *istD are around $2,000 which albeit horrendous is the case. I think then that my numbers would be way more than 140 rolls. If I printed more perhaps it would be different, as there is a price difference (which grows smaller and smaller) between print from negative and print from file. I am working on getting me a way to process my films myself thereby making film shooting in small quantities like I do virtually free of money <g>... Boris
