David, To some degree you are right. I think that we are in the infancy of this change. As such, the prices are a bit screwed up.
The best thing we can do is to view what happened with video/camcorders and old film cameras. In the early going, film movie cameras were less expensive, but you had to keep buying film and processing. Eventually, camcorder prices reached a reasonable level and then the cost of cheap tapes vs. film/developing really turned the tables. It even changed how people use them. On the film version, you never shot very much because of cost. You would never dream of shooting an entire event - cost prohibitive. But with tape/camcorders it isn't a big deal. People routinely tape performances and events their kids participate in. Our little Coolpix P&S gets used in a similar manner. It has over 4000 shots logged on it so far. No - we don't have 4000 matching prints. In fact, we don't have that many printed at all. It is very common to just view them on screen, mail them, etc. Was it worth the 3 times cost over a film P&S? You bet. Film & developing prices are going to go up as demand goes down. Also governmental regulations concerning waste from the labs will get more restrictive (costly) that will add fuel to the fire. Digital frames are already coming on the scene and will proliferate. One of the most basic problems is that most of the population doesn't care one whit how their image was captured. In fact, most of them buy film based on either price alone or name brand and cutesy pictures on the box. Do you think they are going to try to make a comparison? With the digitals, they can see their mistakes and correct them or at least know that they didn't waste any extra money developing and printing the bad ones. In fact, when I compare all the prints we have from our old P&S's (Pentax and Canon) to the ones from the 3.3MP Coolpix, on the whole the digital ones look much better. That is what the buying public is going to see. As for the pros and hobbyists - Pros will do what sells and is cost effective, hobbyists will do what they enjoy. For many that will be film (we still have a boatload of happy Spotty owners) and for others it will be digital. I personally feel very torn because I truly love using films with different characteristics and I absolutely love using my 67II and seeing the results. But I also have found great utility in that silly little Coolpix 990. A DSLR that would overcome the general weaknesses of the Coolpix would bode very well for me. My the times are changing! Bruce Thursday, January 16, 2003, 5:23:56 PM, you wrote: DCS> Mike, DCS> It still doesn't account for the fact that he's had to shell out the $2000 DCS> USD plus storage etc. to get 16 shots (and then more) instead of paying $20 DCS> for 16 shots each time. You can't say someone is "saving" when they in fact DCS> have to shell out cash to buy something - that's part of the problem with DCS> our consumer based society - we've been duped into believing we're actually DCS> "saving" money by purchasing something we don't necessarily need. We may DCS> want it but we don't _need_ it. DCS> All I'm pointing out here is that for some people, maybe professionals and DCS> those who review digital cameras for a living (Michael Reichmann, Phil DCS> Askey, Dave Etchels et al) it may make "sense" for them to cough up the DCS> dough-ray-me but for the large bulk of us on this list (at least) who DCS> consider themselves, hobbyists, rank amateurs etc. we can only aspire to DCS> maybe justifying one day the ownership of such equipment. DCS> Would you ever own a Lamborghini if you never were allowed to drive over DCS> 55mph? Probably not. Why? Because it just doesn't make sense to do so when DCS> you could spend the same amount of money on a Ford Focus and a whack of fuel DCS> for said automobile. DCS> At some point in time digital SLR's will come down enough in price so that DCS> everyone who can afford one and who wants one will purchase one, but at this DCS> point in time, I can only see myself pondering the following dilemma: DCS> "Hmm.... do I spend the extra $13,000 CDN I have laying around on a used DCS> automobile or do I buy that EOS 1Ds SLR body?" DCS> As a friend of mine says, "it's nice to have the EOS 1Ds but you can't DCS> exactly hop into it and head north to the cottage now can you?" It's a DCS> matter of practicality in my eyes, and seeing as how it's my $$$, my eyes DCS> are the only ones that matter. :-) DCS> Pondering my dinero, DCS> Dave DCS> -----Original Message----- DCS> From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] DCS> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 6:58 PM DCS> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DCS> Subject: Re: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE DCS> tv wrote: >>35mm - $20 >>120 - $20 >>220 - $30 >>Roughly. DCS> Dave wrote (smirkingly): >> The problem is, Tom has to fork out $2000 USD to get the Nikon in order DCS> 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"? DCS> Smirking Dave, DCS> In this case he literally *IS* saving, because every time he takes 36 DCS> digital pictures he's paying nothing instead of paying $20. DCS> --Mike
