Re: Kodak to enter the DSLR gutter


"Doug Jewell" <ask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:47d34511$0$19221$5a62ac22@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Doug Jewell <ask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

You also failed to even discuss the economics. Instead
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
economic windfall!

Nope, 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.

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.

Frankly, I don't think you can demonstrate any of that
to be true.
Pretty easy. The biggest education photographic supplier in Australia is a
company called Vanbar. Their education pricelist happens to be on the web.
www.vanbar.com.au/bts. I would assume that this is where this school would
be buying. If not, I would assume they would be buying at similar prices.

From the prices on their website - If you buy B&W film and chemistry in
bulk, as a school would, the cost per frame comes down to a fraction over
6c for the film, and a fraction under 1c for the chemistry, so 7c per
frame.
Compared to a D80 body at $1272, and the digital has to take about 18,000
valid frames (ie excluding the ones where the kids are playing, deleting
etc, because they wouldn't do that with film) to pay for itself.


If the cameras are actually being used, the cost savings
with digital would pay for *new* cameras every year.


When my wife did a similar course in highschool, they used the cameras for
1 lesson per week (although not every week). The other lessons they did
theory, developing, analysis, etc. My wife's school (which was fairly
large) had 1 photography class. The school in question is a bit bigger so
lets assume they have 3 classes. 3 classes x 1 hour x 30 weeks = 90 hours
per year that the cameras get used, so the camera would have to take 200
frames in that hour to be cheaper than film. Not going to happen.

If it's useful life is 3 years, it still has to take 66 frames in the
hour, to be cheaper than film. This doesn't include paying for any repairs
(which will be more expensive than a similar repair to a film camera) that
it may need. Again, not likely that they would take 66 valid frames in an
hour. A smaller school with fewer classes using the same camera would need
to take even more frames per camera for the costs to even out.

The only way to get it's cost viable, would be to restructure the
timetable to give more, but smaller, classes. This would increase the
utilisation of each camera, but doing so would also mean more teachers,
running the costs up again.


Well, of course film is going to be cheaper if you don't include the cost of
the film camera in your calculations, nor the cost of paper and chemicals
for paper, but you do include the cost of a more advanced camera than is
necessary for digital.

Why not go with a digital camera that costs about a tenth of the D80. That
would lower the required shots per camera per class down to about 6 or
twenty, depending on how you calculate things. I think that's achievable.

Also, you need to include the cost of all the darkroom equipment into your
equation as well, which is going to be quite a bit higher than an inkjet
printer. If we really want to get a cost per picture comparison, why not
include all the costs?

My son just took a photography course. The cameras being used were
inexpensive point-and-shoots. Some were older some were fairly new. But
none compared with the D80, but the basics were covered anyway.

His particular instructor didn't care if the students were deleting the bad
shots. It simply demonstrated that the students had learned what
constituted a bad picture, and the pictures presented at the end of the
class were of a higher calibre, meaning that the students had a better
chance to play around and learn than they would have had they been limited
to one roll of film. Also, while we're talking about cost per camera, it
should be noted that the type of additional experience gained by digital
cameras would raise the cost of the film based system if the same level of
experience is to be obtained.

While one or two schools may be converting back to film because digital
wasn't quite as cheap as administrators had anticipated, I think that the
vast majority of institutions use digital, and that says quite a bit.

I know from my own point of view, the point of view of a fellow who loves
film and who has a complete colour darkroom (complete with automated
processors, etc) sitting in his basement, but who has opted for digital
because the cost per picture is way cheaper can't be easily discounted --
especially when it jives nicely with the economic experiences of the
majority of educational institutions.

Take Care,
Dudley


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: digital controls similar to 35mm?
    ... I'm fairly decided on getting a 35mm camera and traditional ... before I spend $8 on film and another $10 on developing to ... In my limited experience though, most digitals tend to over-expose, especially when shooting a contrasty scene. ... I've found that to get an image with sunlit areas and shade areas, that most digitals require a 2-3 stop underexposure to keep highlights in control, whereas film keeps them under control at normal exposure. ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)
  • Re: Any retirees out there that like photography as a hobby?
    ... But I'm an old stick in the mud, die hard black and white film ... Lens quality was a selling point in the camera shop. ... out with a full frame sensor as opposed to the DX sensor. ... an action filled environment is a thing of the past with these digitals. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Nikon D50 & Canon EOS Rebel XT Digital SLRs??
    ... film cameras especially at close range. ... have a very hard time spending $1000 on a digital camera to take photos ... as well as digitals. ... model photography I load in fine-grained ISO 100 or 200 in my film camera. ...
    (rec.models.scale)
  • Re: Any retirees out there that like photography as a hobby?
    ... But I'm an old stick in the mud, die hard black and white film kind of guy. ... Lens quality was a selling point in the camera shop. ... Nikon has recently come out with a full frame sensor as opposed to the DX sensor. ... True candids in an action filled environment is a thing of the past with these digitals. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Leicas digital back
    ... Later digitals are all "all ... Kodak added a digital back and sub-base to the camera ... were that the camera felt that it had to advance the "film" with ... past the earlier exposures. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
Loading