Toralf, None of your calculations are wrong!
However, there are so many more factors that ought to be in the equation, imo. Assuming you want to do the digital processing yourself, there is the extra cost of image processing software and possibly a new PC. OTOH, there is the continous cost of buying and processing film. By Norwegian prices, the *istD costs about the same as 150 rolls of 135mm Provia, bought and processed at eg. Unikum Professional Imaging in Oslo. Then again, the cost of archiving 150x36 exposures in digital format must be estimated. It will add something to the cost of owning a PC... I'm not sure what the equation is going to look like in the end, and I'm sure the different factors will weigh in differently for everyone. For me, the equation pointed in favour of the *istD, costs considered. The "instant" review, "total control", etc. were added bonuses. I have had my doubts about the quality of the digital images, but that's another story. If I have enough conciousness left after the kids are put to bed tonight, I'll post some details. Jostein the Temporary Housekeeper... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Toralf Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pdml" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 10:37 PM Subject: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...) > I thought I might mention this, too (uahh. I wasn't going to sit in > front of the computer writing e-mail all evening today, but...), with > reference to the recent film-vs-digital debate (or rather, the recent > incarnation of that now so familiar discussion): > > One of the most important reasons why I'm somewhat sceptical to digital > cameras right now, is of course the cost issue. I mean, I'm no longer > sure which is better of film and digital, but I'm convinced that digital > isn't 4 times a good as film - so why should I pay 4 times more? (4 is > the approximate ratio between the list price of the *istD and the *ist, > which I presume are quite similar with respect to functionality not > directly related to the medium. I think it's roughly the same between > other digital cameras (even P&S ones) and equivalent film bodies.) > Actually, I guess you often expect the price ratio to be higher than the > quality ratio, but still... > > And that's 4 times more for equipment that faster becomes obsolete, too. > Of course, the camera won't be less usable just because something better > has been released, but I don't like the idea of spending that much money > on something that's worth nothing in a year or two. Actually, I've done > exactly that e.g. with my PC, but there at least I have an opportunity > to keep up with some of the technology without replacing the entire > unit. With a digital camera, on the other hand, you're pretty much stuck > with what you've got. You can't start using a better film, or add more > RAM or insert a faster CPU or... Oh well, You can get better lenses for > a DSLR, of course, but wouldn't some kind of upgradability in the sensor > department be nice? > > And before anyone mentions it: Since I want to keep all my images, and > would like to have them as securely stored as possible, I don't think > I'd be able to make much money back by saving on film costs (I'd have to > spend most of that money on backups.) > > - Toralf > >
