Digital BW, The Print

> Although costs are high, as I've described, there may still be some gouging,
> as many photographers at this point in time may be sufficiently hypnotized
> and sufficiently naïve about digital to pay anything for a digital camera or
> back.
> 
>> I can't even imagine what they'll attempt
>> to charge for this new back. This back should
>> sell for around $5000, we'll see what
>> they charge.
> 
> Except in cases where time is the overriding concern, I don't understand
> what the attraction of digital backs is in the first place.

Time is a very important concern for me. Digital imaging cuts down on film
processing and scanning time - for me that really adds up. Whether you
shoot a lot of film or not, the more digital frames exposed the lower the
overall costs. Over time its possible to reduce the cost of ownership on a
digital camera or back to a level below film cameras (considering film,
processing and scanning costs.)  Considering the lower cost of ownership,
faster turn around, and tax depreciation (at least in the US for
professionals and I assume the market is professional) -- there is
relatively little pressure on the companies to lower the price. At that
level a lower price may not translate into significantly increased sales.

Wendel