[at-l] Cost Comparison - Digital VS Slides

[bullard@northnet.org (Jim Bullard)]

At 01:45 AM 11/11/2002 +0000, Jim and/or Ginny Owen wrote:
>Jim Bullard wrote:
>>The discussion re: film vs digital has revolved around image quality which
>>is probably not a big consideration for the average  thru-hiker who only
>>wants web site illustration, slides for doing presentations to groups
>>post-hike and the odd print no larger than 8=D710.  I decided to check out
>>the actual numbers in a comparison between slide film and digital for such
>>a hiker. My calculation assumes that the hypothetical hiker is starting
>>from scratch and assume $350 for the camera in either case.  That amount is
>>enough to get reasonably good quality in a 35mm P&S/SLR or digital P&S
>>camera.  I have also assumed 2400 photos (Weary said he took 3000).  All
>>Prices (except flat bed scanner and laptop) are from B&H Photo in NYC.
>
>Jim -
>A couple weeks ago the Washington Post ran a column on just this subject -
>and the results were considerably different.
>
>For example - while you may be right about the price for a Carousel
>projector, I haven't found anything comparable in the DC area (except maybe
>"used").

Believe it or not, that was a 'new' unit price from B&H Photo in NYC.  I
was surprised too, but in keeping with pricing everything from the same
source to consistency I looked up new ones there.  I would (and do)
actually recommend buying a better one used on Ebay.

>I do know that you can get 128Meg memory cards cheaper than that.

So can I.  Again I was pricing everything I could from the same source.

>...snip..
>As for the projector, there are places that now sell them "used". Haven't
>checked the prices lately, but I did before the Gathering cause we need a
>couple of them there.  As I recall, the prices were in the $1000 and up
>range. But, as someone pointed out, those prices are coming down rapidly - a
>year ago the cheapest of those projectors was in the $3000 and up range -
>and there were no "used" units.  Same thing for cameras - they're following
>the usual "technology depreciation" curve with regard to price.  If I were
>going on the trail next year, I just might go digital - but not buy the
>camera until after the first of the year - and then wait until I got back to
>buy the projector.

I agree that prices are coming down.  Again I would recommend Ebay as a source.

>I think you're right about the rechargable batteries for a thruhike - that
>sounds like a lot of hassle to me - but then I've never tried it either so
>this isn't the voice of experience on that subject.  At $192 for batteries,
>though, I'd sure be tempted to try it.

In practice I would (if I used a digital camera on thru) take rechargables
and an extra set of regular batteries as emergency backup which I would
promptly replace if I used them.

>One thing you didn't include was the time involved in transferring the
>photos to digital format - my time doesn't come cheap - and I don't have a
>lot to spare.  Even straight off the trail, I've never been so "un-busy"
>that I've had that much time to play with.

My favorite quote "...after all, time is not money, it is an opportunity to
live before you die".  I too have lots of things to keep me busy.  I never
relate use of my free time to my wage when I'm working.  How I use my free
time is a matter of personal priorities pure and simple.  How much money I
could be earning if I were working during my free time is irrelevant
because I'm not working and do not choose to. YMMV

>One thing is universally true though - as you sorta pointed out, for those
>who don't plan ahead and shop for the best price, either option could be far
>more expensive than the other.

My price comparison was a single scenario based on a once-in-a-lifetime
thru-hiker who planned to put up a website, do a few presentations to local
groups post-hike and had to buy from scratch.  In practice each person has
to decide how they plan to use their photos after the hike, what is
required and then run the same kind of comparison I did.  Their budget will
enter the equation as well as what they already have, are comfortable with,
etc.  I wouldn't recommend digital to a person who was a computer
illiterate. For techie who never did photography before it would probably
be easier than film.  There is no one size fits all answer to the digital
vs film question including the contention of some that digital is always
cheaper.  My answer is, "maybe, maybe not".

sAunTerer