And don't forget, you probably will continue shooting at a higher rate for the life of the camera, so a net profit/smaller loss will eventually be realized. Also, you are probably shooting a lot more experimental shots that you would not dream of doing if you had to pay for the film. And there is the qualitative factor, at least on the net and at small to medium print sizes. Wouldn't you say you have learned a lot from this camera, not to mention the hours saved from the tyranny of scanning and fixing busted pixels. And the effects of less chemicals floating around in the environment.

Cameron


On Saturday, August 9, 2003, at 08:27 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 14:05:26 +0100
From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: *ist D is bloody small!
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

OK, Cotty, I will bite. How much money have you actually lost on the D60?
None what-so-ever, I'll bet.

I'll bet he profited based solely on savings of film purchase/processing
costs?

I've shot roughly 5000 frames in nearly a year (actually 5500 but say
5000 to allow for wasteage/testing/mistakes), so lesse, 5000 divided by
36 is say 138 rolls at �2 per roll (Fuji Superia 200 neg) plus �2.50 dev
only, that's �4.50 per roll, so 138 X �4.50 is �621 saved on film
otherwise bought, so not quite a profit.


OTOH I would not have spent so much on film in the same time frame, maybe
about half. So you could say that I've doubled my picture-taking with
digital, at no extra cost?


Then there is the cost of printer inks (except that with film I was
scanning and printing as well), which for a full set of Canon S9000 inks
is about �40, and paper etc. Obviously I don't print everything (!), in
fact only a fraction, about 20 or 30 A4s and A3s a month, some get
framed, some are presents, some just for the hell of it. Most stuff goes
on the web site.


HTH


Cheers, Cotty




Reply via email to