Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/02

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] A new definition of inexpensive camera
From: Kyle Cassidy <KCassidy@asc.upenn.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 11:08:11 -0500

David Rogers took Richard to task over the price of the new Digital canon
rebel:

>$999 is cheap? Or were you referring to how it feels? 
>
>> I had the opportunity to try out and view some 8 1/2 X 11 color prints
>> from the Canon Rebel with the $100 18-55mm lens.  The whole deal 
>> costs $999.  I was blown away with the quality and depth of the photos 
>> from such a cheap outfit. 

It's only expensive if you don't take any photos. I don't know what it costs
you all to develop film, but for me it was about $20 for a roll of slide
film and processing. And let's say $10 for a roll of B&W and processing (if
I do it myself and consider my time to be free). So if I shoot:

2 rolls of B&W a week: $1040
1 roll of Chrome a week: $1040

You've made back the price of your camera in six months.

But I know that there are probably people on this list who shoot a lot less
than three rolls a week. So if you only shoot one roll of b&w a month ... It
will take you two years before your digital canon is free.

I think that's a pretty cheap camera.

Kyle GIVE THEM THE RAZOR FOR FREE AND CHARGE FOR THE BLADES cassidy

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from Karen Nakamura <mail@gpsy.com> (Re: [Leica] A new definition of inexpensive camera)
Reply from robertmeier@usjet.net (Re: [Leica] A new definition of inexpensive camera)