Re: Kodak to enter the DSLR gutter
- From: Doug Jewell <ask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 22:26:31 +1000
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
You also failed to even discuss the economics. InsteadNope, as I said in my first post, the economics are a major reason why they are changing back to film. In the approx 3 years since they changed to digital, their expenditure has been far higher than it ever was when they were film based. The cost of repairing/replacing damaged cameras, plus the cost of the camera spread over it's short life, far exceeded the cost of film, chemicals, and maintaining their film cameras.
you've talked about the cost of only the cameras, but
the total operating cost is where the bottom line is
at. In one year a digital camera will save more than its
price by eliminating the cost of film and processing.
Those DSLR's that are lasting 2-3+ years they are an
They initially changed to digital partly because of the lure of lower running costs - no more film and processing. But they found that in the classroom environment, where mistreatment was commonplace, the digitals didn't stand up to it as well as the film cameras. One drop and it would be curtains for the camera, time to shell out for a repair/replace. And now that their cameras are about 3 years old they are starting to die with a sickening regularity.
- Prev by Date: Re: D200, Day One
- Next by Date: Re: D200, Day One
- Previous by thread: Re: Kodak to enter the DSLR gutter
- Next by thread: Re: Kodak to enter the DSLR gutter