My Disclaimer – I know I’m probably going to take a hit for this and I am not looking to start some firestorm. I am simply bringing this up as a different perspective on the cost analysis of high-end digital cameras such as the D3X for the professional photographer.
Now that that’s out of the way, the thought occurred to me the other day that, even though the price of the D3X seems to be extremely high, the sticker-shock can be toned down if you compare the cost of the camera to what a professional shooting film would have to pay. So see if this makes sense.
The D3X camera body sells for $7999 US. Keeping in mind that this is the top of the line model for Nikon, we can then compare this to the Nikon F6 which sells for $1999 US. (I picked the F6 because it is the top of the line, professional film body still being manufactured by Nikon).
The D3X has a shutter life of approximately 150,000 shutter actuations (pictures). I didn’t find out how many actuations the F6 is good for but let’s assume that it is about the same. Now, let’s put film in that camera and start taking 150,000 pictures. A roll of Kodak Gold Max 400 print film will run you around $3.00 for a roll of 36 exposures. Divide 150,000 by 36 and you get about 4,166 rolls of film. Multiply that by the $3.00 price tag and you get $12,498.00. Now add in the cost of the camera and your grand total adds up to $14,497.00.
Now let’s look at the D3X. We already mentioned the hefty price tag. Now let’s add about $500 for compact flash cards and how about $2499 for a new MacBook Pro to process your images. Add it all up and you are looking at a price tag of $10,998.00 for the whole shabang!
The difference in price to make 150,000 images is $3,499 in favor of the D3X!
Yes, I know that there are a ton of variables that I didn’t factor in, and that there are way too many arguments that could be made for less expensive cameras, and on and on. The point I am bringing up is that working professionals don’t often look at the price of a camera the same way everyone else does. Compared to the old way of doing business, they can buy the $8000 camera and still be way ahead of the game with respect to the old cost of doing business in a film-based world. By the way, I didn’t even add in the cost of processing those 4,166 roles of film, ouch!
As always, your comments are welcome.
By the way, check out the first impressions on the D3X from my buddy Vincent Versace (here and here) as well as from Moose Peterson (here).
Related posts:
Roger Dallman 
mike meyer 
James Walker 
David 
Peter Schnell 
Entries (RSS)
I agree completely Jeff. And having seen some of the images I think this camera is up with the medium format film quality. I would love to have one. I might settle for the Canon 5D MkII though.
The price is out of the league of many of us but economic law says that if Nikon have set the initial price too high then they will suffer with poor sales. If the sales are good enough then the price cannot be too high. This may rile some of us who can’t afford it but it isn’t Nikon who makes economic law. They just want to make as much as they can. But they can only make what we are willing to pay. In the end prices are always dictated by consumers. If that was not the case then why would they stop at $8000? And why wouldn’t a D40 cost a million?