On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 01:14:48 -0600, Mike Johnston wrote: >One more thing I've forgotten to mention. If you shoot slides, you'll pay >approximately 40¢ per frame. Call it $14.00 a roll. (Is that about right, >Isaac and Aaron?) > >So if you shoot a measly 100 rolls a year (that's only 2 rolls a week), you >spend about $1,400. > >Which means, in turn, that if you buy a $2,000 digital camera, a flash media >card, a card reader, and a copy of Photoshop Elements, the camera will >completely pay for itself in approximately two years. If you shoot more, it >pays for itself even more quickly.* Better, from then on you start SAVING >money you otherwise would have spent. At the rate of $1,400 per year, if you >keep the camera for four years, you got the camera for free and will have >saved $2,800.
This doesn't work for me. If I shoot 100 rolls of film I end up with a drawer of slideboxes that I can pull out at any time and view with a slide viewer or projector. I can lend them to people, scan them, show them at meetings and so on. If I shoot 3600 digital pictures at 4 meg per picture (that's what I get from my primefilm scanner) and I wouldn't take a digital camera that did less, then I have 14 gig worth of hard drive space tied up. I can only show them to people with computers unless I print them out on the printer at a cost of about a dollar for a quarter A4 sheet. I can't easily show them at meetings because we still use slides. If my computer crashes I loose all of them, unless I back them up onto CD rom, which if it's scratched can cause a whole image to be corrupted whereas a scratch on a slide can be touched up. Sorry, I still like film. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
