I hear ya Jens! I have had my DL for about 13 months, and shot ~2400 frames (only 6 shots per day :(, but I guarantee that I could not have afforded to shoot that much film. I never got into photography because I could not afford it, then one day I called a shop that had some DL's on 30% off:
DL and lens - $605 two cards - $100 (or $50 as one was a gift) rechargeable batteries - $25 (two sets) all USD total - $730 = .30/shot so my shots cost more than yours :) but I have only had mine for a year, and I only shot a measely 6/day. But the point still remains. And in addition to the cost, I have been able to learn much faster than if I had been using film (yay for instant gratification, and for not having to buy a scanner to post on the web). and even if you didn't have a point, just a bit of trivia, yay for digital! russ On 1/21/07, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello All > Since I am soon to receive my K10D, which will partly replace my *ist D, I > guess a little statistics is in it's place. > > I had it for 29 months. > I did 45000 shots > I paid app.. 1180 USD incl. CF-cards, for it. > That's the total cost - just about. > > That's in average 52 shots every day. > Each shot cost me 0,4 USD or 4.4 cents > That's 2.3 USD every day. Something like 5 cigarettes every day (Danish > price level). > I don't smoke BTW. > > If I had used film and my MZ-S this figuring would have been very different: > > I would have taken only 33 % of the number of shots = 15.000 shots > I would have been able to use the camera for 29 more months before it got > obsolete, reducing the cost of the camera to 50%. > I would have used 417 films at a total cost of app. 6000 USD > Each shot would have cost me app. 0.5 USD, which is about 10 times the cost > of a digital shot !!!!! > In total I would have spent app. 7000 USD. > > About selling photographs: > I believe the *ist D did pay for itself - a couple of times actually, > during it's 29 months of hard labour. > If I had used film I would have lost money - I guess I would have spent > perhaps 3000-4000 USD, that no one but me, would have had to pay. > No wonder digtal cameras are so popular. > > Soon I will (almost) retire the *ist D. > It will serve as a back-up body - or my wide angle body, when ever I use two > bodies simultaneously - one wide angle lens and one tele lens. > > The final economics of the K10D will no doubt be even better than described > above, since the camera is less expensive and more ressourcefull > (67% more pixels in each shot and Shake Reduction will probably mean, that I > will sell more photographs). > The only REAL BIG DOWNSIDE: I will certainly miss TTL-flash!!! > > Regards > Jens > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.1/640 - Release Date: 01/19/2007 > 16:46 > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
