>>3390653> so I'm not sure why you're including it in the price per photo calculationJust because I thought it was neat how the numbers you gave worked out to exactly $96 for exactly 96 photos. Sorry, that wasn't me being sarcastic with that line--I genuinely found that coincidence oddly satisfying.
In any case, let's go with your $.39/photo estimate and ignore the fact that (a) most ISOs of Superia have been discontinued and (b) developing is more expensive than that in a lot of areas, if it's available at all anymore and (c) I think you're overestimating the prevalence of public libraries with free scanners with transparency support and film holders.
The digital solution is $170, the film is $30. So the delta is $140. To get to the point where start breaking even on digital, that means you have to take $140/$.39 or 359 photos, which is about 15 rolls of film (assuming the cheap 24-frame rolls).
So, one roll of film per week for about four months.
> Also, that bargain 40D may have a 100k shutter countThat bargain film camera might have a sticky shutter that burns the first four shots of every roll. The bargain 40D might have a 100K shutter count but still work perfectly for years and years. And again, that hypothetical 100K 40D only has to get to 100,360 for the 40D to still be saving you money versus the film camera. Then you can just spend another $89 on another 40D, keep your lens and CF card, and you're still saving money if the new one lasts any more than 229 photos.
> Not to mention that the pictures won't look half as good as the ones you'd get on film.I'm glad you didn't mention that, since it's subjective. Personally, I always preferred the photos I got on my old 40D to the photos I took on film. Everyone's different, though, so you may certainly prefer the film look and that's totally valid. But in any case, yeah, being a totally subjective difference, that's not to be mentioned.
