The hidden cost of taking digital pictures
When you buy a digital camera the only basis for your purchase is what it can do for you now. It is not an investment. It is an object to be used and its value to you is controlled by how much you use it.
Buy a digital camera for, say, $300 and take, say, 3,000 shots — which happens a lot — then your cost per picture from the camera is 10 cents while your cost per keep-able picture is probably nearer $1. In other words you take 10 shots for every shot you keep and print out.
With digital there are few other costs. OK, there are batteries and, if the pictures are good enough, there is the cost of toner. But there is no film to buy, no development to pay for.
On the other hand the worth of the camera reduces very rapidly.
The moment you open the box it is no longer brand new and the worth depreciates by an amount. Say a quarter of what you paid. After that it is all downhill.
What you need to look for, unless you are a professional, is a machine at a reasonable price that will give you consistent results and is not to difficult to use. Then your cost per shot can be very low. Keep in mind a target of 10 cents for every shot taken and $1 for every one you want to print and frame and you will be doing very well.
Sometimes enthusiasm can carry you away and the price soars from 10 cents a shot to well over $1. And that is for each and every shot. At which point you have to ask whether the game is worth the candle.
Consider with sadness the Epson Seiko digital camera. It was the second model of what I think was the first digital rangefinder and it looks like a Leica — it will use Leica lenses — and focus is pin sharp.
When the latest version was launched two years ago the press was relatively excited. It had adjustment controls for sharpness, color tones, contrast, noise reduction and chrome. This new camera was otherwise similar to the original digital rangefinder.
ISO settings from 200-1600 which is OK but has been massively surpassed elsewhere.
Shutter speeds from 1-1/2000 of a second and up.
Compatibility with Leica L and M lenses.
It was 6.1 megapixels — I now have more megapixels on my mobile phone — but it looked the business. It looked like a Leica.
Sadly it was $3,000 without a lens.
Am amazing machine. For which the enthusiast was asked to pay $3,000.
Now this was two years ago and, as far as is known, the camera is no longer manufactured.
An R-D1 recently came up for sale on eBay and probably went for $308. (This is known for the writer had in a miserly bid at $180.) Which means very expensive photography. Say over $1 for each shot taken and perhaps over $10 for each shot printed.
There is an absolute limit one should pay for a digital camera unless one is a professional.
If you are a collector you can buy a genuine Leica which can be a damned expensive hobby but the worth of the collection is probably bound to increase.
If you pay serious money for a machine that looks like a Leica, acts like a Leica but is another brand altogether you are going to lose serious money. Better to get a point-and-shoot digital. The results will not be that different.
Related Posts:
