Graywolf wrote: > Well, I guess I can post a copy of a comment I made to Annsan, > > ------quote----------- > Ah yes, digital saves money. Let's see, I bougtht the used > Olympus C-5050Z for $200. I imediately started making 8.5x11 > prints. The printer went belly up so I had to buy a new one > (Epson R200, all I could afford). Ink carts cost $85 per set, > paper about $50 per hundred sheets. > Of course since I have those big prints I needed some frames > $10 each. I have shot about 100 frames and am out several > hundred dollars. > > <sarcastic mode on>That is of course cheaper than paying > $5.24 a roll for processing at Wal-Mart (less than $30 total > for the same number of frames). But then I don't have to > wait an hour to see the images <sarcastic mode off> -----end > quote------- > > And, if there are very few people left on the list that have > not bought an *istD, it is because they have all been run off > by the digital Nazis. > > Digital Uber Al!
Well, that's all down to how you use digital isn't it? If you replace film with digital AND print loads - for me - there would have been no saving at all. Granted the saving in time and instant results are there. My ist D paid for itself by enabling me to sell off my vinyl record collection last year on eBay. It allows me to send pictures of school and family events to my friends and relations almost instantly by e-mail. My wife has certainly found the ist D a useful tool for work. I very rarely have any need to print anything taken by digital. But it would appear that I'm almost alone in my need to use slide and/or B&W film for things which I want to make a permanent record of, or simply go out and take pictures. I enjoy using my LX more. I like my slide projector and I don't regard it as a pain to set up occasionally. Certainly I find that my digital and film uses are very different, but the ability to share the lenses between the two (whatever restrictions there may be) is a joy. Malcolm - a satisfied Pentax user.
