To be honest, I have not found digital much cheaper than 35mm if you intend to print.
For what a D60 would cost me (say �2000) I could shoot and develop/mount 400 rolls of slides which is comparable to digital images as no printing is involved. If I shot one roll a week, every week, it would take me 8 years to spend as much as the D60 would have cost me, and by then the D60 would either be worthless or worm food. I would expect to replace it in 2-4 years either because I want and can get much better quality, or because it broke. Now if you look at printing, for �2K, I could buy/dev/print 200 rolls of film (say 4 years). This would be 7200 prints which from a DSLR would cost an additional 25p*7200 to print = another �1800!! If you are printing then YOU WILL NEVER RECOUP THE COST OF THE DSLR BY SAVINGS ON D&P!!! > -----Original Message----- > From: Malcolm Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 20 August 2002 20:45 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: DSLR Pricing (was: RE: Today's rant: Alright, already > > > For the amateur, it weighs in at how much film you would have > bought and paid processing for over 5 years, as the camera > becomes worthless. > > Depending on how much you shoot, it may be a better deal. But > if you take resale of a film camera into the equation after 5 > years...hmm! > > A choice. > > Malcolm > - > 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 . - 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 .
