I actually look at my value from the *istD in another way: One of the first dozen shots I took with my *istD (all just test shots of my kids, then 3yrs and 1yr old) was worth the price of the camera alone - even if I had dropped it in the sea the next day and lost all of my money. I was trying out ISO 1600/3200 and the shot I got would not have happenned with film, not to mention that I wouldn't have been shooting the kids at that time had I not bought the D and wanted to test it out. Every day's use since then has been a bonus.
Like the £1000 camcorder I bought 4 yrs ago, and have only shot 10 hours of video with. I am currently editing these and putting them on DVD. I have just replaced the camcorder with a 3ccd version from Panasonic, so that works out £100 per hour of video over the last 4 years. Expensive, but when these are the best memories of your childrens early lives it is worth every penny. In 20 years time if I didn't have this video I would gladly pay 10 times that for the opportunity to go back and film it! Rob -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jens Bladt Sent: 21 January 2007 08:26 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: A little *ist D statistics 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
