Very true David. Of course, I don't have $2000, so presuming I save my film money towards it how many pictures do I miss while saving up for the digital? Now-a-days I am only shooting about 25 rolls a year, thus I am only going to have to miss 14 years of shooting. If $2000 is pocket change, like it is to Mike, then the only question he needs to consider is, does he want it.
Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:34 PM Subject: RE: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE > The concept of "saving" money by having to outlay more money always > perplexed me. I'm as guilty of thinking about things this way as anyone > else. > > The problem is, Tom has to fork out $2000 USD to get the Nikon in order to, > potentially, (assuming he continues to shoot at the rate he does) not have > to buy film further down the road. > > Where is he "saving"? (i.e. how much moolah has he been able to stock away > by having to outlay $2000) > > I'm so confused... > > Smirkingly, > Dave > > Original Message: > ----------------- > From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:12:31 -0600 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE > > <snip> > Which means that with 20 months use at a rate of 120 rolls per year, the > DSLR is free. Beyond that, you're in the black--SAVING money over the cost > of running a film camera. > </snip> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > http://mail2web.com/ . > >
