On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:08:58 -0400, P. J. Alling wrote: > Without taking into account computer upgrades and software > cost the you could shoot 250 rolls of Color film with processing, > (assuming a $12/roll for film and processing) for the cost of the > $3000.00 DSLR. Assume shooting 1 roll a week on average you're > talking about 5 years to make that money back. If you have to > change systems and get all new lenses you are looking at a break > even time that gets much longer. Economics isn't the reason to > buy the camera. Add in printing costs and it makes even less sense. > There are other reasons to change to a DSLR. But money isn't one of > them. Not for most people that is.
Well, for me the math is a little different. My computing needs for other purposes mean my systems are already more than capable of handling the load and will require no upgrading. I'm already partially digital, so you have to factor in the more than US$ 900 I spent on the film scanner. I already have Photoshop and a photo printer. So no computer-related costs come into the equation. When you factor in the time and hassle of doing the 4000 dpi scans of the decent-and-better film shots, the math works out in digital's favor very quickly. Add in the "instant turnaround" and digital wins, hands down, for me. It's simply been a matter of having the free capital on hand to make the investment. That time is almost here ... I should have an *istD and 16-45/4.0 and accessories (memory and "tank") within two months or so. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
