Passing the 1,000 shots mark

Left to right: Sammy, Gracie, and Tika. They were feigning lassitude, but were ready to leap up at a moments notice if I made any move that might indicate the chance of treats, pettings, or amusing diversions. It is unusual to find all three of them doing this at the same time: I have long suspected that they have agreed on some form of rota to keep tabs on me.

That last shot was my 1,000th with this camera, taken between 04 Jan. and 06 Mar. this year. I remember about 25 years ago that I calculated my absolute minimum cost for taking color film transparencies was 10p (about 17 cents US at today's exchange rate) now two to three times that translated into today's prices. So, my previously owned $200 digital camera has taken the equivalent of at least $340 worth of color pictures in two months. As of today I have taken 1,258 shots, which translates to around $428 at least, so I hereby declare that the camera has 'paid for itself' handsomely. Way back when, because of the variable that was film cost, only the wealthy blazed away with their cameras like they were firing machine guns, so that is a factor that is inconsistent with digital shooting, where almost all the cost is the fixed capital cost of the equipment.

Statisticians of every stripe may be horrified by my calculations, although Enrico Fermi might have approved of my spherical cows and  my guess measurements might even be 'close enough for all practical purposes' to find favor with engineers. Checking online, it seems that $0.56 per frame may be a better approximation, so even my top rate of a three fold increase in cost is on the low side, although it is no longer possible to make an exact like-for-like comparison after 25 years.

I wonder what the statistics are for digital cameras—how many shots per user per year; total number of shots per camera in its lifetime? I once rode in a Scammel tractor unit hauling a milk tanker from the Southwest of England up to London. The truck did two trips every day, except for maintenance downtime, and had covered over a million miles. That seemed preposterous back when a family car engine was 'close enough for all practical purposes' EOL (end of life) at 80,000 miles. Checking the Internet, I found clubs for people with million miles plus vehicles, so it is now much more common. My guess would be that today's average digital camera takes far more pictures than its film equivalent ever did. More on this will be forthcoming if I can dig up some data.