In a message dated 11/21/01 4:29:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Now tell me I'm not running cheaper than you are. I think everything > considered it's a _lot_ cheaper. > > --Mike > > P.S. To Mafud's earlier comment that I'm running through AA alkalines at a > steady clip, no way. I have two sets of 1800mAh rechargeable AAs. The two > sets with the charger cost about 50 bucks in initial investment. No more > battery costs after that. I keep one set of Lithium replacement batteries in > the camera bag for emergencies, but they came with the camera and I've never > used them. > ______________________________________________ Mike, as long as you have to replace supplies and depreciate equipment, it is costing you any way you say it. Every time you use the item it loses value or usefulness. I have no idea of what rechargeable batteries you use, but ~any~ rechargeable battery has a buy-in price equal to at least 12x the cost of regular batteries. And with use, your rechargeable batteries must be replaced. Aha, another "free" item which costs to buy and replace. As for production: to depreciate a $49.99 P&S 35mm camera, one only has to walk out the door and it loses 100% of its value, (unless you leave it in the box and never use it. In 50 years, the collectible value of the camera might reach $50). But that's all the depreciation involved in that device. Moreover, with care, and assuming film and batteries are available for it 20 years from now, it will still be useable. Thus, the by now worthless camera is not only useable, but still producing photographs as it did 20 years ago. You dare not try to say the same for any part of your digi-taking-printing-storing setup. As to long lived production: can we say "Brownie"? Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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 .
