Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]One thingI have done to decrease my cost is to use bulk rolled film. For example when I bulk roll RSX II 100 it costs about $2.25 per roll. The Kodak films and Fuji are not as cheap in bulk but still work out to about $4.50 per roll. I also develop my own ans not counting the cost of the aparatus, it costs less than two dollars a roll. So if I shoot RSX, I have a cost of just over $4.25 per roll developed and mounting of the good slides. The rejects don't get mounted, but trashed. This all adds up as Puls suggested, but much slower than using prepackaged film and having a lab process it. It means I do not have to feel guilty about shooting film. For example, yesterday I was at a motor Cross race and shot five rolls of film. The day before I was at a college football game and shot three. Regards, Robert At 12:11 PM 9/27/99 -0700, Paul Chefurka wrote: >> From: Anthony Atkielski > >[snip] >> remember that the camera purchase is a one-time >> expense, whereas development costs money for every shot. > >This comment prompted me to do the math. I shoot colour neg, it's always >processed and proofed by a pro lab. I figure it costs me $25 CDN per roll >for film and processing. I shoot on average two rolls a week. That's $2500 >per year, and I spend about that again on enlargements, for a total cost of >$5000 CDN per year. The price of a new M6 is about $3500 CDN So Anthony's >point is a good one - in three years of being a not-terribly-prolific >amateur I will have easily outspent my entire investment in Leicas, Nikons >and P&S's. > >Now in my case, this just makes it easier to justify the purchase of the new >90 APO... > >Paul Chefurka > >