Well, I have been very cheap the last few years, out of necessity. Using Fuji Super Delux 100 and having it processed at Wal-Mart (send out) costs me about $4.50 a roll. The D100 cost $2000 the Nikon N80 the D100 is based on costs $400 so the difference is $1600. $1600/$4.50=355 . I kind of rounded to 350. Of course that is 24x rolls.
Which of course proves you can prove almost anything if you pick how you will calculate it. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:12 PM 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 >
