Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Girth, Jan 15, 2009.
[fuck you Ken Rockwell]
That's a fairly good comparison, however you have to factor in a printer + ink + paper etc. If you add in all of that stuff then compare, then I'm sure digital would be more than film.
when is the D703XmkII coming out
No way.... only printing your best shots vs printing every shot..... I've got over 8,000 pictures in my "my pictures" folder and since I got into photography a year ago Ive taken a total of about 18,000 pictures. No way in hell I could afford that if I was shooting film.
150,000 prints x $.09 (Wal*Mart processing) = $13,500 +10,998.00 =$24,498
I'll take two 1DIII's, work for a magazine, and not give a fuck about printing.
because you HAVE to buy a macbook pro
And your statement is pure speculation. Printing for film is still gonna cost you as well.
really? digital is cheaper than film? AMAZING!!!
Now compare the cost to a 5D2 setup. 5D2 comes out way ahead!
Ken Rockwell will be sending him a nasty letter very soon.
I'll never understand why the people who don't need a specific tool are the ones who bitch most about it's cost.
You'll never hear the people who actually understand and need something like the d3x crying about it's price tag.
that's the dumbest rationalization i've ever heard
his disclaimer makes your statement null and void.
"different perspective" should have read "moronic perspective
I stopped reading when it mentioned film....
Actually it's rated at 300,000...
The d300 is rated at 150,000