"William Graham" <weg9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>"Matt Clara" <mattclara@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:bfd6ea1e-09b7-493d-8b05-dab630487434@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>They're all overpriced these days. Time was (7 years ago or less)
>>$1700 would have bought you arguably the best 35mm camera in the
>>world, and those of us here were paying $500 or less for most of
>>ours. Now the top camera costs $8000+
The Nikon D3 doesn't cost $8000.
>>Hey, you think the cost of gas has gone up??? This **** is unreal.
>
>Yup.....One of the reasons why I'm still a film shooter......I've still
got
>my $1700 F5........
Let's see, take a rough figure... 10,000 shots per year,
20,000 shots per year? Even at only 5,000, a film
camera costs a *fortune* to use. If you only spent 50
cents per exposure with film, the top digital camera
will pay for itself in 2 years if you hardly use it.
Of course if you shoot 20k or more images per year, the
break even point is measured in months or even weeks.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
