Digital will pay for itself depending on the initial price of the hardware, the individual's film usage, the amount of prints made, and the longevity of the digital hardware. And maybe other factors such as picture-to-publication time and reduction in processing staff.
Mike made a good comparison showing a return on investment of two years; Tom responded with an equally valid lack of return on investment comparison. It's really up to the individual to make a comparison based on their own usage and needs. For me, a digital SLR does not give the desired return on investment at this time. First, I'd have to switch to Nikon or Canon to even get a digital SLR. That's not in itself a bad thing. However, I am very fond of Pentax glass in general. I like the unusual old K-mount lenses. I like to carry a PZ1p and an LX, and enjoy the differences between the two cameras while sharing lenses. And, very important to me, I have some favorite Pentax lenses which have no direct Nikon or Canon equivalent. Second, I don't shoot enough film. Maybe a hundred rolls per year, maybe a little less. And I shoot pretty cheap film, with cheap processing. Enlargements come from an inkjet, so film and digital enlargements even out. So my film/processing savings are potentially too low to justify a digicam that cost much over $1500. But owning some sort of digicam is a very good thing. My work 3.3 mp digicam P&S with a fine, fast zoom lens is a fun thing to have, and very useful. It won't pay for itself through film/processing savings anytime soon, but it has nevertheless earned a place in my photo toolkit. Of course, if I ran a bureau with six photogs slogging around taking ten rolls each per day just to get a handful of shots for the daily paper, we wouldn't have a scrap of film in sight. BTW, Kodak just bought Encad, who makes large-format inkjets. Kodak is trying to transition to the real world of production imaging. And Kodak's latest TV commercial shows a motion-blurred photo taken with a P&S using ISO 200 film compared to a sharp photo taken with Kodak Versatility film (ISO 400 Kodak Gold, I think). Kodak hints that their Versatility film is better because pictures taken with it don't come out blurry. No mention that ISO 400 film from any other manufacturer would have allowed a faster shutter speed, resulting in the same reduced motion blur compared to the longer shutter speed required by ISO 200 film. -- John Mustarde - 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 .
