One factor that is not figured into this is the slow rise in cost of film/development due to the slow demise of 1 hour labs. Remember on the list we have heard of some recent shutdowns. I will not be surprised to see the price of film go up and the price of develop/print go up with it.
I think for many people that will be what drives them to digital. On a side note - my wife is a classic person capturing memories only. With her ZX-10 she know just how much it costs per frame to get her print. Everytime she presses the shutter, she mentally drops a coin in the register. She much prefers shooting the Coolpix because she is free from that feeling. One night she shot 90 pictures and we printed 10. She enjoyed herself and we got more keepers because she didn't feel like she had to "save" her shots. We also got to see them that night. This is a common occurrence for many non-photographers I talk to. Bruce Thursday, January 16, 2003, 10:03:36 AM, you wrote: RB> My processing cost for prints (which all my family stuff is done on) is RB> about £2 for the film and $6 for d&p with 7*5 prints. That's £8 per RB> film including prints. RB> I don't want enlargements of many of these, the 7*5s are fine to stick RB> in an album and even these have filled a couple of shelves(back to your RB> earlier post...) in the couple of years since the kids were born (approx RB> 3000 pics). RB> OK maybe after 250 rolls I have spent what the DSLR would have cost me, RB> but I have my albums full of photos. I find the cost of printing RB> inkjets to be about 25p for a 7*5 so to print these 9000 pics (250*36) RB> would cost another £2250 in prints which is more than the film would RB> cost me for the year. I want to print EVERY frame as they are memories RB> rather than works of art. RB> DIGITAL ONLY PAYS FOR ITESELF IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PRINT A HIGH RB> PERCENTAGE OF YOUR SHOTS. RB> Now this is cetrtainly the case for my 'serious' photography where I RB> tend to get maybe 1/3rd of the shots are keepers. I use slide film for RB> these anyway so the inkjet cost for prints would be incurred anyway, and RB> this is a fairer comparison. I shoot maybe 50 rolls a year like this, RB> so maybe after 5 years the camera would be paid for (250 rolls RB> remember), but by then the depreciation would have rendered it worthless RB> anyway. RB> I think the argument for DSLRs paying for themselves only works for high RB> volume use where you want limited numbers of prints. Ie for RB> professional slide users. RB> That's not to say I am anti digital - I will be first in line if the RB> Pentax DSLR is halfway worth having. But I suspect that I will be less RB> likely to make an active choice to print or keep an out of focus family RB> shot which means some memories (however poorly captured) may be lost. RB> In years to come this could be something which you lament, maybe not... >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: 16 January 2003 17:13 >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE >> >> >> > My calculation: 350 rolls of film a year make a 6mp SLR >> cost the same >> > as an equivalent 35mm SLR. There was a time I shot 350+ >> rolls a year, >> > but I have not done that in a long time. However that >> differential is >> > getting lower all the time. >> >> >> Tom, >> How do you figure? >> >> Even if you figure $5 for a roll of film and $5 for >> processing, which is on the low side for color, $10 per roll >> x 350 rolls per year = $3500 per year. >> >> Nikon D100 = $2,000 body only (using B&H prices for comparison) >> >> minus >> >> Pentax MZ-S = $800 body only >> >> equals >> >> $1,200 difference. >> >> Seems to me that by this calculation, 120 rolls of film a >> year gets the price of the DSLR down to the price of the film >> camera in one year. >> >> Then, in another eight months, you've made up the price of >> the film camera and saved the whole cost of the DSLR. >> >> Which means that with 20 months use at a rate of 120 rolls >> per year, the DSLR is free. Beyond that, you're in the >> black--SAVING money over the cost of running a film camera. >> >> If you only shoot 60 rolls of film a year (a little more than >> a roll a week), then it takes two years to get the prices to >> equalize, and 3 years, 4 months to get the DSLR to pay for >> itself entirely. >> >> I know that some people will say that I have not calculated >> the cost of making inkjet prints from the digital files, but >> I don't buy that argument, because if you get your color film >> processed and have slides made or machine prints made from >> your negative film, you haven't got enlarged prints from your >> film, either. So either way, i.e. with either film or >> digital, you're going to have to pay for enlargements. >> >> And actually, $10 per roll is probably underestimating film >> and processing costs unless you process your own. I don't >> know--how much does everybody really pay for film and >> processing, typically? >> >> * * * * * * * * * * >> >> I personally think that if everybody will run these numbers >> with his or her own ACTUAL COSTS and ACTUAL CURRENT FILM >> USAGE and actual number of years they would expect to keep a >> DSLR, they will come up with a number (I mean, a >> price) that means they can actually afford a Pentax DSLR when >> it comes out. >> >> (Then consider that, as a bonus, you will not be limited to >> shooting only your current film usage total. That is, if you >> currently shoot 60 rolls of film a year (36x60 = 2160 >> frames), if you buy a Pentax DSLR you can shoot 4,000 frames >> a year with no cost penalty. Of course it's not really fair >> to factor that into the calculations.) >> >> Can any of you math whizzes reduce this to a formula that >> would allow us to plug in the number of years we would expect >> to keep a Pentax DSLR, and then come up with a magic number >> of what it needs to cost to be cost-efficient for each of us? >> (I got D's in high-school algebra.) >> >> For example, I would be willing to say I'd keep a DSLR for >> three years. My current film and processing costs are $7 per >> roll (I do my own). I shoot about 100 rolls of film a year. >> How much does a Pentax DSLR have to cost to make it as cheap >> for me as running a film camera? To me it seems like I could >> pay up to $2100 for the Pentax DSLR and still end up having >> the camera pay for itself. Is my math correct? >> >> --Mike >> >>
