Based on my experience, you quite correct. Three sets of rechargeables and lots of
extras put together a system that will do about 80 to 90 percent of what I can get
out of my screw mount equipment. When I travel, film is still a real handy way of
avoiding storage limits and downloading requirements. Of course, the new scanners
at the airports may reduce this somewhat.
Starting out with a digital camera (3 MP) costing on the order of us$1,000, I had
to invest that much and a little more to get the system up to where I can do what
I want/need to do. (And had been doing with my Spotmatic F and ESII............)
However, for me , the digital system has a real cost payback in the form of
processing and reproduction costs. I expect to recover all my costs in a couple of
years --- with a lot of added benefits on the archiving side --- just as the
camera becomes obsolete and I have to buy a new one.
I expect to be using film for a long time --- just a lot less than in the past.
Otis Wright
Jon Hope wrote:
> At 01:23 24/06/01, Isaac wrote:
>
> >To be fair, you weren't using it with ideal accessories. Nobody doing
> >real shooting uses an 8 meg card. I know you weren't going to shell out
> >the bucks for a high capacity card just to test, but they do pay for
> >themselves quickly... The use of good rechargeable batteries is also
> >mandatory as you've found out!:-) With those two requirements out of the
> >way, you'll find yourself snapping pictures like mad, and they won't
> >cost you any more to shoot! It really can be cheap to shoot with
> >digital...
>
> Ok, I'll be fair. I live in Australia, so I'll use Australian prices. One
> set of rechargeable AA batteries is $30.00. As they usually last less than
> a set of Alkalines I'd probably need three sets, if the rate of use of
> alkalines is any indication. If I want a bigger flash memory card, a 64MB
> version is $160.00, or 128MB is $340.00. I'd probably want the 128MB card
> (112 JPEGs or 16 TIFFs). Add that to my initial $1200 outlay on the camera
> and I'm up for $1650 (ish). That would give me a 2.1MP camera and
> associated stuff. If I wanted a 3.34MP camera, I'd be up for the best part
> of $2,400.
>
> It is hard to decide whether the EI-200 is any better than, say, an MJU2,
> which costs about $250. The extra $1400 (ish) would pay for an awful lot of
> film and developing.
>
> One thing I didn't mention was that I didn't take my Z-1p with me yesterday
> to shoot alongside the digital. Every time I tried to get the shot I wanted
> with the digital I found myself thinking that I could just switch the lens
> to a [insert focal length here] on my Z-1p. I understand that the EI-200 is
> really just a point and shoot, and should be compared with other point and
> shoot cameras, however, I don't think I could go back to using a P&S as my
> standard camera.
>
> If Pentax really want to scoop the pool, all they need to do is bring out a
> digital MZ-50 for the same price as the MZ-S. They wouldn't get them out
> the door quick enough.
>
> Cheers
>
> Jon
>
> Relax! Take life as it comes, you can't chase the sun, you can't race the wind
>
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
