Why a digicam is for free...

Heinz · Jul 30, 2003

Hello,

I just wonder, why folks still complain, that digicams are expensive. I would say, they are in fact much cheaper than film cameras. Seems, some forget, that there are no additional costs for film. An easy calculation. A normal film camera costs let's say 100$. A comparable digital let's say 300- 400$. So the difference is 300$. Let's say a roll film incl. developing is 3$.

So after 100 rolls of film, the difference is already payed, 80 rolls later, the digicam has payed itself completely. With slrs it's similiar. So what??

cheers
Heinz

alexandru · Jul 30, 2003

Good point!

Heinz said:
Hello,

I just wonder, why folks still complain, that digicams are
expensive. I would say, they are in fact much cheaper than film
cameras. Seems, some forget, that there are no additional costs for
film. An easy calculation. A normal film camera costs let's say
100$. A comparable digital let's say 300- 400$. So the difference
is 300$. Let's say a roll film incl. developing is 3$.
So after 100 rolls of film, the difference is already payed, 80
rolls later, the digicam has payed itself completely. With slrs
it's similiar. So what??

cheers
Heinz

--
'1+1=2...but you and me I have no idea what it is' N. Stanescu

BobTrips · Jul 30, 2003

dolphin said:
Heinz said:

Hello,

I just wonder, why folks still complain, that digicams are
expensive. I would say, they are in fact much cheaper than film
cameras. Seems, some forget, that there are no additional costs for
film. An easy calculation. A normal film camera costs let's say
100$. A comparable digital let's say 300- 400$. So the difference
is 300$. Let's say a roll film incl. developing is 3$.
So after 100 rolls of film, the difference is already payed, 80
rolls later, the digicam has payed itself completely. With slrs
it's similiar. So what??

cheers
Heinz

Click to expand...

--
'1+1=2...but you and me I have no idea what it is' N. Stanescu

My present digital and portable hard drive paid for themselves during my first two long trips based on my previous film/dev costs.

I've now had a 'free' trip, am not finding it difficult to rationalize an upgrade prior to the next.
--
bob
Latest offering - 'Two Hours in Delhi'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.

brn · Jul 30, 2003

Some people would rather pay a high price up front to avoid reoccurring costs. I'm one of them. Interestingly, most people would rather pay a small up front cost and put up with 'reasonable' reoccurring costs. To the later, digicams are expensive.

Don't forget that there are reoccurring costs with digicams. Most people like to have photographs that they can hold in their hand. The typical cost of having a lab produce a quality 4x6 is 30 cents (US). On my last vacation I took hundreds of pictures. I wanted to share 120 of them. That cost me $36 (US). There are reoccurring costs with a digicam.

Now let's take a look at a DSLR. I can pick up a new, name brand, SLR for $150. The least expensive DSLR is $1500. That's TEN TIMES the price!!! Quite a hurdle.

Heinz said:
Hello,

I just wonder, why folks still complain, that digicams are
expensive. I would say, they are in fact much cheaper than film
cameras. Seems, some forget, that there are no additional costs for
film. An easy calculation. A normal film camera costs let's say
100$. A comparable digital let's say 300- 400$. So the difference
is 300$. Let's say a roll film incl. developing is 3$.
So after 100 rolls of film, the difference is already payed, 80
rolls later, the digicam has payed itself completely. With slrs
it's similiar. So what??

cheers
Heinz

T D118497 · Jul 30, 2003

You didn't factor the cost of prints.

Here at the cheapest place, Walmart, it's 3 x as costly to get prints from digital files.

.10 verses .29. (Yes, you can beat that on line but the wait and hassle offsets some of the advantage of digital) Printing them your self is even more. My 2200 makes 4 x 6 prints including ink and paper about .45.
That bieng said, Digital wins in two major areas.
1) You only print the "good" shots, and

2) Enlargements are actually cheaper printed yourself. I get 2 8x10s on a 13 x 19 for about 5 bucks.

Soooo...If you print 1/3 or less of your shots digital wins, Oh but wait, I now shoot 20 times as much as I did on film...

Whew! Now My head hurts. I have a Cannon AE-1 SLR and a couple good lens that hasen't been out of the closet in months, so I guess digital wins here after all

TD...Just another dumb a** green newbie!
FCAS charter member & Pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/td2/root

Sean Sha · Jul 30, 2003

well, a point about printing that nobody else brought up is that printing done at a store is much better quality. the prints will stand the test of time, and sunlight, mostly. ones done at home, even on expensive paper with expensive ink still don't match up.

Qwerty13 · Jul 31, 2003

Heinz said:
Hello,

I just wonder, why folks still complain, that digicams are
expensive. I would say, they are in fact much cheaper than film
cameras. Seems, some forget, that there are no additional costs for
film. An easy calculation. A normal film camera costs let's say
100$. A comparable digital let's say 300- 400$. So the difference
is 300$. Let's say a roll film incl. developing is 3$.
So after 100 rolls of film, the difference is already payed, 80
rolls later, the digicam has payed itself completely. With slrs
it's similiar. So what??

cheers

HeinzWell for starters it is often easier to put out a smal ammount of money first even if the total ammount is more over the long haul. For example, you can buy 4 rolls of toilet paper at the grocery store for about $1.But you can buy a 24 pack at Cosco for a lot less than 25 cents per roll. So why doesn't everybody buy the 24 pack? Storage (where can I fit 24 rolls in my NYC apartment?) cost (I have a dollar now and a NEED to wipe! I don't have $2.50 at this moment), and you might look ridiculous carrying a 24 pack of butt wiping supplies.

You could also save a lot of money if you pay for your house without getting a loan. A 30 year mortgage can almost triple the cost of your house.

Now back to cameras.

Someone can afford $100 now and bleed out 7-10 bucks in film and processing every month. That's about 2 years worth of shooting. That 7-10 dollars is also covering the print costs and someone else doing the printing as opposed to buying ink jet supllies and spending your time printing.

And then, 2 years later, your film p-n-s still works with the lastest Windows and doesn't need upgrading.

Heinz · Jul 31, 2003

brn said:
Some people would rather pay a high price up front to avoid
reoccurring costs. I'm one of them. Interestingly, most people
would rather pay a small up front cost and put up with 'reasonable'
reoccurring costs. To the later, digicams are expensive.

Yes, indeed, this is the same with inkjet printers, for example.

brn said:
Don't forget that there are reoccurring costs with digicams. Most
people like to have photographs that they can hold in their hand.
The typical cost of having a lab produce a quality 4x6 is 30 cents
(US). On my last vacation I took hundreds of pictures. I wanted
to share 120 of them. That cost me $36 (US). There are
reoccurring costs with a digicam.

For your prints you have to pay anyway. But here i also see a plus with digicams. I mostly tend to print only my best pics, this brings costs down.

brn said:
Now let's take a look at a DSLR. I can pick up a new, name brand,
SLR for $150. The least expensive DSLR is $1500. That's TEN TIMES
the price!!! Quite a hurdle.

O.K., but this is only true, since film slrs came down in price due to the digicams i guess. I just wanted to point out to not forget the film costs.
Heinz

brn said:
Heinz said:

Hello,

I just wonder, why folks still complain, that digicams are
expensive. I would say, they are in fact much cheaper than film
cameras. Seems, some forget, that there are no additional costs for
film. An easy calculation. A normal film camera costs let's say
100$. A comparable digital let's say 300- 400$. So the difference
is 300$. Let's say a roll film incl. developing is 3$.
So after 100 rolls of film, the difference is already payed, 80
rolls later, the digicam has payed itself completely. With slrs
it's similiar. So what??

cheers
Heinz

Click to expand...

Heinz · Jul 31, 2003

T D said:
You didn't factor the cost of prints.
Here at the cheapest place, Walmart, it's 3 x as costly to get
prints from digital files.

You're right here. Digital prints are still more expensive.

T D118497 said:
.10 verses .29. (Yes, you can beat that on line but the wait and
hassle offsets some of the advantage of digital) Printing them your
self is even more. My 2200 makes 4 x 6 prints including ink and
paper about .45.
That bieng said, Digital wins in two major areas.
1) You only print the "good" shots, and
2) Enlargements are actually cheaper printed yourself. I get 2
8x10s on a 13 x 19 for about 5 bucks.
Soooo...If you print 1/3 or less of your shots digital wins, Oh but
wait, I now shoot 20 times as much as I did on film...

Agree

)

T D118497 said:
Whew! Now My head hurts. I have a Cannon AE-1 SLR and a couple good
lens that hasen't been out of the closet in months, so I guess
digital wins here after all

That's the point, digital brings bach the fun to take pictures!

T D118497 said:
TD...Just another dumb a** green newbie!
FCAS charter member & Pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/td2/root

Heinz

BobTrips · Jul 31, 2003

Qwerty13 said:
Someone can afford $100 now and bleed out 7-10 bucks in film and
processing every month. That's about 2 years worth of shooting.
That 7-10 dollars is also covering the print costs and someone else
doing the printing as opposed to buying ink jet supllies and
spending your time printing.

Absolutely. If you are a low volume shooter it's hard to beat the cost of a 35mm film camera. If you're the type person who shoots a few pictures at Christmas and the occasional birthday, a digital is not going to pay for itself.

It's easy to make the argument for purchasing a 35mm SLR if your goal is to produce just a few large prints.

One has to look at their personal camera use and crank through the numbers.

For example, using your numbers $100 for a camera, 24 months of spending $8.50 for film/developing/printing has you spending $304 over two years.

If you purchased a Canon A70 you would have about $25 left from your $304, could have about 130 4"x6" prints made. If you had gone the film route you could have printed about 850 4"x6"s.

Of course most people may not get 5-6 'keepers' from each roll. If you are so good with your p-n-s that your hit rate is at least 6 shots per roll you can do better (financially) with film.

Of course the numbers take a different track if you assume that you are going to throw away both cameras at the end of two years. (My four year old digiital is still going strong.)

Qwerty13 said:
And then, 2 years later, your film p-n-s still works with the
latest Windows and doesn't need upgrading.

You'll have to explain this one. Makes no sense to me.

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Two Hours in Delhi'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.

Masgrada · Jul 31, 2003

wow! that is a low volume.. considering myself and others like me take thousands per month.

BobTrips said:
Qwerty13 said:

Someone can afford $100 now and bleed out 7-10 bucks in film and
processing every month. That's about 2 years worth of shooting.
That 7-10 dollars is also covering the print costs and someone else
doing the printing as opposed to buying ink jet supllies and
spending your time printing.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. If you are a low volume shooter it's hard to beat the
cost of a 35mm film camera. If you're the type person who shoots a
few pictures at Christmas and the occasional birthday, a digital is
not going to pay for itself.

It's easy to make the argument for purchasing a 35mm SLR if your
goal is to produce just a few large prints.

One has to look at their personal camera use and crank through the
numbers.

For example, using your numbers $100 for a camera, 24 months of
spending $8.50 for film/developing/printing has you spending $304
over two years.

If you purchased a Canon A70 you would have about $25 left from
your $304, could have about 130 4"x6" prints made. If you had gone
the film route you could have printed about 850 4"x6"s.

Of course most people may not get 5-6 'keepers' from each roll. If
you are so good with your p-n-s that your hit rate is at least 6
shots per roll you can do better (financially) with film.

Of course the numbers take a different track if you assume that you
are going to throw away both cameras at the end of two years. (My
four year old digiital is still going strong.)

Member said:

And then, 2 years later, your film p-n-s still works with the
latest Windows and doesn't need upgrading.

Click to expand...

You'll have to explain this one. Makes no sense to me.

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Two Hours in Delhi'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.

--
-Nicholas
http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4292037929

voices in afka_bob's head · Jul 31, 2003

Digital is cheaper, not free. It's hard to measure how much of my house current goes to charging batteries. And how much did I spend on multiple rechargeables and chargers?

Like I said, cheaper, but not free.

Bomber · Jul 31, 2003

voices in afka_bob's head said:
Digital is cheaper, not free. It's hard to measure how much of my
house current goes to charging batteries. And how much did I spend
on multiple rechargeables and chargers?

Like I said, cheaper, but not free.

Don't forget modern camera's also eat batteries especially if you are taking more than one roll per month.. the autowinder on my old pentax MX uses 4x AA for approx 30 films(36 exp), about 25 films(36 exp) for NiCads,which are notoriously unreliable in this camera!

Of course if I don't use the autowinder and no flash I need 1 x silver oxide cell every 6-24 months depending on use! But then I have no autofocus, no autoexposure, no post-shutter image review (do a have a pre-shutter view: a decent optical viewfinder and depth of field preview). All I need is a strong hands and fingers!!

Hey maybe I am a luddite?

By the way the MX hardly sees light of day...my eyes aren't as sharp as they were 20 years ago when I bought the camera, but it and I still work...will we be able to say that of the modern generation of SLR's, DSLR's and compacts digital or otherwise??

By the way my digital IXUS goes virtually everywhere with me (looking to upgrade now!!)

Cheers,

Bomber

voices in afka_bob's head · Jul 31, 2003

Bomber said:
Don't forget modern camera's also eat batteries especially if you
are taking more than one roll per month.. the autowinder on my old
pentax MX uses 4x AA for approx 30 films(36 exp), about 25 films(36
exp) for NiCads,which are notoriously unreliable in this camera!...

The MX is a gem -- my 35mm standby is an olympus OM-1n. Sometimes I just like to carry it around. The new digitals just don't feel as "real" somehow.

__dg · Jul 31, 2003

No, No, No.

Buy a digicam at your peril. You will be on the way to upgrade hell, when your 5mb latest camera is superceeded by a better model with double the mp and better colour capture every 18 months (Is there a Moores law for digicams?)

You will have to budget for a new $400 camera every 2-3 years when your current camera produces unacceptable quality pictures compared to "todays" model.

I tend to say "digicam" and "Windows" in the same breath.

)

dg

Heinz said:
Hello,

I just wonder, why folks still complain, that digicams are
expensive. I would say, they are in fact much cheaper than film
cameras. Seems, some forget, that there are no additional costs for
film. An easy calculation. A normal film camera costs let's say
100$. A comparable digital let's say 300- 400$. So the difference
is 300$. Let's say a roll film incl. developing is 3$.
So after 100 rolls of film, the difference is already payed, 80
rolls later, the digicam has payed itself completely. With slrs
it's similiar. So what??

cheers
Heinz

Heinz · Jul 31, 2003

just had a look at your galleries. Wow, impressive shots you have there. Asia is such an interesting place to go.
Heinz

BobTrips said:
dolphin said:

Heinz said:

Hello,

I just wonder, why folks still complain, that digicams are
expensive. I would say, they are in fact much cheaper than film
cameras. Seems, some forget, that there are no additional costs for
film. An easy calculation. A normal film camera costs let's say
100$. A comparable digital let's say 300- 400$. So the difference
is 300$. Let's say a roll film incl. developing is 3$.
So after 100 rolls of film, the difference is already payed, 80
rolls later, the digicam has payed itself completely. With slrs
it's similiar. So what??

cheers
Heinz

Click to expand...

--
'1+1=2...but you and me I have no idea what it is' N. Stanescu

Click to expand...

My present digital and portable hard drive paid for themselves
during my first two long trips based on my previous film/dev costs.

I've now had a 'free' trip, am not finding it difficult to
rationalize an upgrade prior to the next.
--
bob
Latest offering - 'Two Hours in Delhi'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.

Heinz · Jul 31, 2003

Thanks

dolphin said:
Heinz said:

Hello,

I just wonder, why folks still complain, that digicams are
expensive. I would say, they are in fact much cheaper than film
cameras. Seems, some forget, that there are no additional costs for
film. An easy calculation. A normal film camera costs let's say
100$. A comparable digital let's say 300- 400$. So the difference
is 300$. Let's say a roll film incl. developing is 3$.
So after 100 rolls of film, the difference is already payed, 80
rolls later, the digicam has payed itself completely. With slrs
it's similiar. So what??

cheers
Heinz

Click to expand...

--
'1+1=2...but you and me I have no idea what it is' N. Stanescu

Heinz · Jul 31, 2003

Honestly, what i get from my i850 is very comparable to a lab print or even better, because i've full controll of colors etc. A 8x10 costs me around 60 cent. No canon paper of course. For pictures i want to give away i go for lab prinzs of course, they re more resistant against fingerprints and light.
Heinz

Sean Sha said:
well, a point about printing that nobody else brought up is that
printing done at a store is much better quality. the prints will
stand the test of time, and sunlight, mostly. ones done at home,
even on expensive paper with expensive ink still don't match up.

Matt105483 · Jul 31, 2003

where i go prints from digital are twice as much as film ... of course you wont peint evrery shot with digital....

I feel digital is more expensive ... also take in mind that a SLR lasts 20+ years ... I wouldnt be surprised if digitals last from 1 to 5 years only

Heinz said:
Hello,

I just wonder, why folks still complain, that digicams are
expensive. I would say, they are in fact much cheaper than film
cameras. Seems, some forget, that there are no additional costs for
film. An easy calculation. A normal film camera costs let's say
100$. A comparable digital let's say 300- 400$. So the difference
is 300$. Let's say a roll film incl. developing is 3$.
So after 100 rolls of film, the difference is already payed, 80
rolls later, the digicam has payed itself completely. With slrs
it's similiar. So what??

cheers
Heinz

Heinz · Jul 31, 2003

Thats correct. A digicam is expensive to buy and not everybody can or want to pay 500 bucks or so.
Heinz

Qwerty13 said:
Heinz said:

Hello,

I just wonder, why folks still complain, that digicams are
expensive. I would say, they are in fact much cheaper than film
cameras. Seems, some forget, that there are no additional costs for
film. An easy calculation. A normal film camera costs let's say
100$. A comparable digital let's say 300- 400$. So the difference
is 300$. Let's say a roll film incl. developing is 3$.
So after 100 rolls of film, the difference is already payed, 80
rolls later, the digicam has payed itself completely. With slrs
it's similiar. So what??

cheers

HeinzWell for starters it is often easier to put out a smal ammount of money first even if the total ammount is more over the long haul. For example, you can buy 4 rolls of toilet paper at the grocery store for about $1.But you can buy a 24 pack at Cosco for a lot less than 25 cents per roll. So why doesn't everybody buy the 24 pack? Storage (where can I fit 24 rolls in my NYC apartment?) cost (I have a dollar now and a NEED to wipe! I don't have $2.50 at this moment), and you might look ridiculous carrying a 24 pack of butt wiping supplies.

Click to expand...

You could also save a lot of money if you pay for your house
without getting a loan. A 30 year mortgage can almost triple the
cost of your house.

Now back to cameras.

Someone can afford $100 now and bleed out 7-10 bucks in film and
processing every month. That's about 2 years worth of shooting.
That 7-10 dollars is also covering the print costs and someone else
doing the printing as opposed to buying ink jet supllies and
spending your time printing.

And then, 2 years later, your film p-n-s still works with the
lastest Windows and doesn't need upgrading.

Why a digicam is for free...

Heinz

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

BobTrips

Guest

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Heinz

Guest

Heinz

Guest

BobTrips

Guest

Leading Member

Leading Member

Active member

Leading Member

Active member

Heinz

Guest

Heinz

Guest

Heinz

Guest

Veteran Member

Heinz

Guest

Keyboard shortcuts