On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Brad Dobo wrote: > Why? The cheapest CF cards I could find cost $75 for 64mb.
We've been selling SanDisk ones for $68 CAN for months now and I'm sure we're not the cheapest place around. But even so, it's cheap compared to the camera. If you're already spending hundreds of dollars for a digital camera, an extra $70 for film for life is a steal. > I'm not made of money, and for certain neither are most P&Sers who may > switch to digital (forget DSLR). Film cassettes get tossed, as do the > negs with many P&Sers but *most* (not really anyone here) people won't > pay more than $2-3 for a another roll of film to pop in. I'm sorta > playing Devil's Advocate here. Yes, sure in the long run it works out, > but with so many other things, most don't want the more expensive long > run savings option. Those type of people don't tend to buy digital cameras in the first place. Anyone who is willing to spend $700 for a good digital p&s when they could spend under $200 for its film-based equivalent is obviously willing to pay a greater initial cost and reap the benefits later. Sure, film may only cost $2 or $3, but once you add processing into it you're looking at a fair bit more money. Run 6 or 7 rolls of film through your camera and there's the price of the card already. People who don't see the logic of that don't usually decide to shell out the big bucks for digital, in my experience. Not touching the rest of your points, as I've already beat them to death in the past. :) chris
