RE: A little *ist D statistics
Small error: Cost pr image done with *ist D is of course only 0.04 USD. Regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 21. januar 2007 09:26 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: 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 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 22:31 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 22:31 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 22:31 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A little *ist D statistics
Jens Bladt wrote: > 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%. Jens; I really don't understand your logic here... Obsolete: 1 a : no longer in use or no longer useful b : of a kind or style no longer current : OLD-FASHIONED The *ist D can still be in use for many years as long as it works properly (exposure, focusing, etc). The only real difference is the MP count (and 6MP WAS enough to sell images) and the AS (you ARE able to make good pictures without it as shown in your *ist D images). The same logic goes for the MZ-S, even more so: As long as it works and film is available it is useful and therefore NOT obsolete. Some of my film cameras were older than me and far from obsolete (they allowed me to produce exactly the same images as a brand new film camera). I guess my real issue is how do you measure a camera's life in months? Unless it just breaks down and the repair cost is too high, it still has useful life. 4 years for a film camera? 2 years for a DSLR? -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: A little *ist D statistics
52 shots avg. per DAY for 29 months? Thats a quite extreme a bit of shooting isnt it? Are you an everyday pro and what are you shooting that much OF? How do you even find time to shoot let alone post process that much photos for that long a time? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jens Bladt Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 7:55 AM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: RE: A little *ist D statistics Small error: Cost pr image done with *ist D is of course only 0.04 USD. Regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 21. januar 2007 09:26 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: 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 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 22:31 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 22:31 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 01/20/2007 22:31 -- 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
Re: A little *ist D statistics
I hear ya Jens! I have had my DL for about 13 months, and shot ~2400 frames (only 6 shots per day :(, but I guarantee that I could not have afforded to shoot that much film. I never got into photography because I could not afford it, then one day I called a shop that had some DL's on 30% off: DL and lens - $605 two cards - $100 (or $50 as one was a gift) rechargeable batteries - $25 (two sets) all USD total - $730 = .30/shot so my shots cost more than yours :) but I have only had mine for a year, and I only shot a measely 6/day. But the point still remains. And in addition to the cost, I have been able to learn much faster than if I had been using film (yay for instant gratification, and for not having to buy a scanner to post on the web). and even if you didn't have a point, just a bit of trivia, yay for digital! russ On 1/21/07, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
Re: A little *ist D statistics
I didn't do the math on my D. If I would I should also calculate the costs of my Lens Buying Addiction which exceeds the istD price. The D was the primary infection resulting in my LBA :) Toine On 1/21/07, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
Re: A little *ist D statistics
I have no idea how I can check the exact amount of shutter actuation which occured from my D. Is there an EXIF tag somewhere ? 2007/1/22, Toine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I didn't do the math on my D. If I would I should also calculate the > costs of my Lens Buying Addiction which exceeds the istD price. > The D was the primary infection resulting in my LBA :) > > Toine > > On 1/21/07, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A little *ist D statistics
> > From: Thibouille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2007/01/22 Mon AM 10:47:27 GMT > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > Subject: Re: A little *ist D statistics > > I have no idea how I can check the exact amount of shutter actuation > which occured from my D. Is there an EXIF tag somewhere ? Unlike everything else, the number you are looking for is 41. > > 2007/1/22, Toine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I didn't do the math on my D. If I would I should also calculate the > > costs of my Lens Buying Addiction which exceeds the istD price. > > The D was the primary infection resulting in my LBA :) > > > > Toine > > > > On 1/21/07, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > -- > > Thibault Massart aka Thibouille > -- > *ist-D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A little *ist D statistics
Jens Bladt wrote: > 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 suspect your math is pretty much on the mark. I just noticed that the counter on my *ist-D has turned over again, and I have to go back and check to see if if it's in the 60,000 or 70,000 range. But the bottom line is - I've shot a lot more with it than I would have with film. When I made a serious go at shooting full time I would often shoot 25-50 rolls of slide film a week during the 15-20 prime shooting weeks in the year. That was about all my budget could handle and it simply was not enough for serious stock shooting (back when there was a viable market for stock photos.) With the *ist-D I was freed of that constraint and my good pals at the local pro photo lab are now just old acquaintances. But - I was also free to shoot in adverse conditions - for example, I with film I would usually pack it up on a windy day when trying to shoot wildflowers. With the *ist-D I'd just plop the camera on a tripod and if took 200 exposure till I finally got when when the wind paused - well, it took 200 exposures. I got the shot. I could also get results at ISO 400 that rivaled what I could get with ISO 100 slide film - which also meant more keepers. And then there is that element of experimentation - where you shoot somehting jsut for the heck of it and after doing that 1,000 time an interesting shot emerges. Hard to justify (cost wise) with film. I plan to keep on using the *ist-D - for now at least for snow crystals and as a backup to the K10D. - MCC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, Michigan www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: A little *ist D statistics
Hi Mark and Jens Marks description of the wildflower taking on windy days is a good example of using the advantages of digital photography versus film use for me. But, to do the math, I would compare the cost of the keepers only and include the print cost as well, that would change quite a bit. I get 15x10 oe 13x9cm prints with each first film development to give away to "the subjects" without any computer work involved, thats a plus for film for me. But honestly I do not really look at the cost of my hobby, I want to enjoy it, and I see where my/the photo future is :-) greetings Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Cassino Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 12:46 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: A little *ist D statistics Jens Bladt wrote: > 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 suspect your math is pretty much on the mark. I just noticed that the counter on my *ist-D has turned over again, and I have to go back and check to see if if it's in the 60,000 or 70,000 range. But the bottom line is - I've shot a lot more with it than I would have with film. When I made a serious go at shooting full time I would often shoot 25-50 rolls of slide film a week during the 15-20 prime shooting weeks in the year. That was about all my budget could handle and it simply was not enough for serious stock shooting (back when there was a viable market for stock photos.) With the *ist-D I was freed of that constraint and my good pals at the local pro photo lab are now just old acquaintances. But - I was also free to shoot in adverse conditions - for example, I with film I would usually pack it up on a windy day when trying to shoot wildflowers. With the *ist-D I'd just plop the camera on a tripod and if took 200 exposure till I finally got when when the wind paused - well, it took 200 exposures. I got the shot. I could also get results at ISO 400 that rivaled what I could get with ISO 100 slide film - which also meant more keepers. And then there is that element of experimentation - where you shoot somehting jsut for the heck of it and after doing that 1,000 time an interesting shot emerges. Hard to justify (cost wise) with film. I plan to keep on using the *ist-D - for now at least for snow crystals and as a backup to the K10D. - MCC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, Michigan www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 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
Re: A little *ist D statistics
Gentlemen, there has to be a distinction made. It would be only logical that the whole way of thinking of a person sells their photographs and a person who is pure hobbyist are two totally different kettles of fish. I made similar calc with my *istD. I see very little value in making this kind of computation unless one is selling one's own work. It would seem that Jens makes a sell or two every now and then ;-). Thus for him it is very viable circumstance. OTOH, me like Markus, simply keeps shooting ;-). -- Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A little *ist D statistics
All I can tell you, Boris, is that when I was doing photography as a hobby through the 1990s and into 2001, I was spending as much as $2000 a year on film and processing. Moving to digital cameras in 2002 as my primary capture freed up a lot of my money (and time!) to do more photography. I've always had all my photographic endeavors detailed in my accounting records, just like I have my automobiles, motorcycles and travel expenses ... It's just way to look at it and say to myself at the end of the year, "What have I been doing with my money all year? and was it worth it?" The photography always has been ... ;-) G On Jan 23, 2007, at 4:42 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: > Gentlemen, there has to be a distinction made. It would be only > logical that the whole way of thinking of a person sells their > photographs and a person who is pure hobbyist are two totally > different kettles of fish. > > I made similar calc with my *istD. I see very little value in making > this kind of computation unless one is selling one's own work. It > would seem that Jens makes a sell or two every now and then ;-). Thus > for him it is very viable circumstance. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A little *ist D statistics
Yes, I can relate to that. When I owned my cars (I mean not work provided cars) I also recorded the expenses. I did not record my expenses when I was shooting film 3 years ago. I agree that going digital saves money spent on processing and film. But then again I had to buy some DVDs, and then external storage device, which thankfully to my family and friends was given to me as a gift. But indeed, digital is more economical on one's wallet. Cheers. On 1/23/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All I can tell you, Boris, is that when I was doing photography as a > hobby through the 1990s and into 2001, I was spending as much as > $2000 a year on film and processing. Moving to digital cameras in > 2002 as my primary capture freed up a lot of my money (and time!) to > do more photography. > > I've always had all my photographic endeavors detailed in my > accounting records, just like I have my automobiles, motorcycles and > travel expenses ... It's just way to look at it and say to myself at > the end of the year, "What have I been doing with my money all year? > and was it worth it?" The photography always has been ... ;-) > > G > > On Jan 23, 2007, at 4:42 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: > > > Gentlemen, there has to be a distinction made. It would be only > > logical that the whole way of thinking of a person sells their > > photographs and a person who is pure hobbyist are two totally > > different kettles of fish. > > > > I made similar calc with my *istD. I see very little value in making > > this kind of computation unless one is selling one's own work. It > > would seem that Jens makes a sell or two every now and then ;-). Thus > > for him it is very viable circumstance. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A little *ist D statistics
You make a good point there, Markus. The only way the cost of a hobby can be figured is "I can afford it", or "I can not afford it". Now a business is different as that is figured "Income - Expenses = Profits", so it is somewhat different. But does taking 10x the number of shots increase profits? Before you folks answer, remember that your time is an expense. -graywolf Markus Maurer wrote: > Hi Mark and Jens > Marks description of the wildflower taking on windy days is a good example > of using the advantages of digital photography versus film use for me. > But, to do the math, I would compare the cost of the keepers only and > include the print cost as well, that would change quite a bit. > I get 15x10 oe 13x9cm prints with each first film development to give away > to "the subjects" without any computer work involved, thats a plus for film > for me. > > But honestly I do not really look at the cost of my hobby, I want to enjoy > it, and I see where my/the photo future is :-) > greetings > Markus > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Mark Cassino > Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 12:46 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: A little *ist D statistics > > > Jens Bladt wrote: >> 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 suspect your math is pretty much on the mark. I just noticed that the > counter on my *ist-D has turned over again, and I have to go back and > check to see if if it's in the 60,000 or 70,000 range. But the bottom > line is - I've shot a lot more with it than I would have with film. > > When I made a serious go at shooting full time I would often shoot 25-50 > rolls of slide film a week during the 15-20 prime shooting weeks in the > year. That was about all my budget could handle and it simply was not > enough for serious stock shooting (back when there was a viable market > for stock photos.) > > With the *ist-D I was freed of that constraint and my good pals at the > local pro photo lab are now just old acquaintances. > > But - I was also free to shoot in adverse conditions - for example, I > with film I would usually pack it up on a windy day when trying to shoot > wildflowers. With the *ist-D I'd just plop the camera on a tripod and if > took 200 exposure till I finally got when when the wind paused - well, > it took 200 exposures. I got the shot. > > I could also get results at ISO 400 that rivaled what I could get with > ISO 100 slide film - which also meant more keepers. > > And then there is that element of experimentation - where you shoot > somehting jsut for the heck of it and after doing that 1,000 time an > interesting shot emerges. Hard to justify (cost wise) with film. > > I plan to keep on using the *ist-D - for now at least for snow crystals > and as a backup to the K10D. > > - MCC > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Mark Cassino Photography > Kalamazoo, Michigan > www.markcassino.com > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > -- > 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
Re: A little *ist D statistics
I would like to point out that you would have gotten a large discount on film and processing if you had prepaid a thousand bucks or so in advance, which is what you in effect did by buying a digital camera. -graywolf Boris Liberman wrote: > Yes, I can relate to that. When I owned my cars (I mean not work > provided cars) I also recorded the expenses. I did not record my > expenses when I was shooting film 3 years ago. > > I agree that going digital saves money spent on processing and film. > But then again I had to buy some DVDs, and then external storage > device, which thankfully to my family and friends was given to me as a > gift. > > But indeed, digital is more economical on one's wallet. > > Cheers. > > On 1/23/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> All I can tell you, Boris, is that when I was doing photography as a >> hobby through the 1990s and into 2001, I was spending as much as >> $2000 a year on film and processing. Moving to digital cameras in >> 2002 as my primary capture freed up a lot of my money (and time!) to >> do more photography. >> >> I've always had all my photographic endeavors detailed in my >> accounting records, just like I have my automobiles, motorcycles and >> travel expenses ... It's just way to look at it and say to myself at >> the end of the year, "What have I been doing with my money all year? >> and was it worth it?" The photography always has been ... ;-) >> >> G >> >> On Jan 23, 2007, at 4:42 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: >> >>> Gentlemen, there has to be a distinction made. It would be only >>> logical that the whole way of thinking of a person sells their >>> photographs and a person who is pure hobbyist are two totally >>> different kettles of fish. >>> >>> I made similar calc with my *istD. I see very little value in making >>> this kind of computation unless one is selling one's own work. It >>> would seem that Jens makes a sell or two every now and then ;-). Thus >>> for him it is very viable circumstance. >> >> -- >> 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
Re: A little *ist D statistics
BS. I bought both film and processing chemistry in bulk quantities to minimize cost per roll, did all the B&W traditional negative processing, and only had films processed through C41 to negatives at $2.50 per 36exp roll of 35mm, or about $4 per roll of 120 format. Printing is not included in the cost analysis... I find that for the volumes of color prints I had made vs the volumes of B&W prints I made at home, and then the transition to doing all of both myself at home through image processing and printing, the cost has been constant for prints. Moving to digital capture saves enough money every year to afford better equipment, or lots of printing ink and paper supplies AND some portion of travel expenses. G On Jan 23, 2007, at 8:51 AM, graywolf wrote: > I would like to point out that you would have gotten a large > discount on > film and processing if you had prepaid a thousand bucks or so in > advance, which is what you in effect did by buying a digital camera. > > -graywolf > > > > Boris Liberman wrote: >> Yes, I can relate to that. When I owned my cars (I mean not work >> provided cars) I also recorded the expenses. I did not record my >> expenses when I was shooting film 3 years ago. >> >> I agree that going digital saves money spent on processing and film. >> But then again I had to buy some DVDs, and then external storage >> device, which thankfully to my family and friends was given to me >> as a >> gift. >> >> But indeed, digital is more economical on one's wallet. >> >> Cheers. >> >> On 1/23/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> All I can tell you, Boris, is that when I was doing photography as a >>> hobby through the 1990s and into 2001, I was spending as much as >>> $2000 a year on film and processing. Moving to digital cameras in >>> 2002 as my primary capture freed up a lot of my money (and time!) to >>> do more photography. >>> >>> I've always had all my photographic endeavors detailed in my >>> accounting records, just like I have my automobiles, motorcycles and >>> travel expenses ... It's just way to look at it and say to myself at >>> the end of the year, "What have I been doing with my money all year? >>> and was it worth it?" The photography always has been ... ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A little *ist D statistics
Tom, it is probably correct for where you live, but not here. graywolf wrote: > I would like to point out that you would have gotten a large discount on > film and processing if you had prepaid a thousand bucks or so in > advance, which is what you in effect did by buying a digital camera. > > -graywolf It is totally different story, but Israel lives very much on the premise of here and now and very often this brings painful mistakes, but like I said - it is totally different story. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A little *ist D statistics
On 23/01/07, Mark Cassino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That was about all my budget could handle and it simply was not > enough for serious stock shooting (back when there was a viable market > for stock photos.) Hi Mark, I'd be interested if you could expand a bit further on your statement above, how has the stock photo market transformed since you've been involved? Cheers, -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A little *ist D statistics
Digital Image Studio wrote: >On 23/01/07, Mark Cassino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> That was about all my budget could handle and it simply was not >> enough for serious stock shooting (back when there was a viable market >> for stock photos.) > >I'd be interested if you could expand a bit further on your statement >above, how has the stock photo market transformed since you've been >involved? Here's a very interesting article on the state of the stock photo business: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/micro-payment.shtml I wouldn't even consider getting into the stock photo business (as a photographer, anyway - as an agency it might be profitable!) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A little *ist D statistics
I've done fairly well selling royalty free stock. At the very least I've paid for my last two digital SLRs and a few lenses to boot. But the micro stock agencies could change that. Paul -- Original message -- From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Digital Image Studio wrote: > > >On 23/01/07, Mark Cassino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> That was about all my budget could handle and it simply was not > >> enough for serious stock shooting (back when there was a viable market > >> for stock photos.) > > > >I'd be interested if you could expand a bit further on your statement > >above, how has the stock photo market transformed since you've been > >involved? > > Here's a very interesting article on the state of the stock photo > business: > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/micro-payment.shtml > > I wouldn't even consider getting into the stock photo business (as a > photographer, anyway - as an agency it might be profitable!) > > > -- > 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
Re: A little *ist D statistics
On 25/01/07, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's a very interesting article on the state of the stock photo > business: > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/micro-payment.shtml > > I wouldn't even consider getting into the stock photo business (as a > photographer, anyway - as an agency it might be profitable!) Hi Mark, Thanks for pointing out that link, not great news. I've long been of the opinion that photography is a pursuit best enjoyed as a hobby. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: A little *ist D statistics - regarding Value for money
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
