Something I figured out over the course of an email to myself:
I paid $1000 for my camera* in February 2000. It’s now almost 4 1/2 years old, and shows no sign of breaking down. I’ve taken over 10,000 pictures on it. If the average cost of developing a 24-exposure roll of film is $6, and the average roll of film is, oh, $4, then I would have spent over $4,000 to buy film and develop my photos since then. Instead, I’ve spent less than $250 on printing, paper, and software.
Gee. It adds up, doesn’t it? I rest my case that digital cameras are the best things you can buy if you're intending to take lots and lots of pictures because they pay for themselves very quickly. :)
*Sony Mavica FD-88 or 89, I think. Something like that. Uses floppies. Only 1.3 megapixels, but hey... it was good enough for AntiqueWeek with a bit of help from Photoshop.
I paid $1000 for my camera* in February 2000. It’s now almost 4 1/2 years old, and shows no sign of breaking down. I’ve taken over 10,000 pictures on it. If the average cost of developing a 24-exposure roll of film is $6, and the average roll of film is, oh, $4, then I would have spent over $4,000 to buy film and develop my photos since then. Instead, I’ve spent less than $250 on printing, paper, and software.
Gee. It adds up, doesn’t it? I rest my case that digital cameras are the best things you can buy if you're intending to take lots and lots of pictures because they pay for themselves very quickly. :)
*Sony Mavica FD-88 or 89, I think. Something like that. Uses floppies. Only 1.3 megapixels, but hey... it was good enough for AntiqueWeek with a bit of help from Photoshop.
Comments