Please explain the high cost of digital backs

<p>I am aware it is not merely a chip that like in a DSLR. I dont however understand why a 20 megapixel digital back is 3 times the cost of a 5D Mark II. What components are there that make it this expensive? </p>

<p>When it comes to sensors, even a modest increase in the size of the surface greatly increases the number of manufactured sensors that won't pass QA (bad pixels, etc). When a sensor gets twice the size, only a fraction of them are usable at the factory. Combine that with the fact that only a very, very small number of people will be buying and using such sensors, and you lose almost all of the economy of scale that the normal DSLR makers enjoy.<br /><br /></p>

<p>Pretty much the same reason why a Hummer H1 costs about 2-3x as much as a Hummer H2 and a Hummer H3. :-)</p>

<p>Design and tooling costs that can't be spread over a million or more units.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>And two sensor suppliers (Kodak and DALSA) who are used to supplying parts to people with aerospace budgets. They actually believe that the stuff they're making is "low cost".</p>

<p>In addition to answers above, according to the Hasselblad salesperson, he stated to me that it also has to do with the economy of scale. There is not much demand for the medium format digital back. Therefore the cost is a lot higher--as the sensor gets larger.</p>

<p>Several people described exactly what I was going to add. The companies that made the digital backs had to spend a couple million dollars designing and developing the product. They knew in advance that only about two dozen people would buy them, so they priced them at $2M divided by 24 to break even! LOL</p>

<p>The following in combination</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Low volume , which keeps component and manufacturing prices high and high development costs per unit</li>

<li>A pricing model that tends to work in % uplift terms rather than adding on a reasonably calculated cash margin. Who said that you don't bank percentages?</li>

<li>A realisation , probably essentially correct, that reducing the prices by a lot wouldn't increase the volume that much, so there's no incentive to take risks. </li>

</ul>

<p>Because people will pay it. The buyer behavior always sets the price.</p>

<p>Bob,<br>

<br />Except...people aren't paying it, which is why the market is more or less collapsing.<br>

<br />Your premise works with oil, which has production costs with very little direct correlation to the price we pay. On the contrary, for MFDB gear, production cost DIRECTLY and SIGNIFICANTLY drives the sales price up. <br>

<br />I'm sure they'd love to lower prices to increase volume. Except, as noted above, by the time they lowered the price enough to make a noticeable increase in demand, they'd be losing money. You can't lose money on every unit you sell, but make up for it in volume....except in the joke. ;)</p>

<p>As in my engimatic Hummer analogy...you can use advanced technology, equipment, and manufacturing techniques to make something with the best possible performance. But you'll be paying for it, as they did for the military HMMMV.<br>

Even if you try to recoup your non-recurring cost by reducing production cost as much as possible and selling it to the masses, your design limits your ability to reduce costs, which in turn reduces demand. And so forth.</p>

<p>By going to a mass-produced chassis, they were able to get something similar, at least superficially, at a much lower cost. Analogously, this is what you get with a FF DSLR</p>

 

<p>The correct answer is low volume.</p>

<p>Not that many folks buy LF or MF backs.<br /> **They are 16 to 17 years old already; a known tiny market.</p>

<p>Since the volume is low all those tooling costs are spread across 1/1000 t0 1/10,000 the units as a dRebel. Thus the tooling costs and support cost per unit is 1000 to 10,000 time higher.</p>

<p>Go buy 100 cans of soup at the local grocery store. Then go out an buy 1 can of soup from 100 differnet stores.</p>

<p>Does a bee 10,000 years ago vist 12 flowers on one bush or 1 flower on 12 bushes?</p>

<p>With the drop in manufacturing base and increased amount of government workers these questions are tougher than in past eras.</p>

<p>Most folks who buy MF or LF digital backs are pros. Amateurs have whined now for 17 years why they are so expensive. They want 100 buck MF backs; 50 buck metal lathes; 5 buck real Rolexes.</p>

<p>The folks who make MF and LF backs are private companies; they have to set the sales price to pay off the development costs</p>

<p>Questions of this nature arise all the time on Photo.net and go back to the beginning.</p>

<p>Folks want to know why a digital rangefinder like a Epson RD-1 costs more than a dRebel.</p>

<p>Folks on the wedding board ask even if they should charge for shooting a wedding.<br /> Talking about why stuff costs X and why one should charge Y are somewhat a taboo subject on Photo.net; since most all photos are shot for fun; most all cameras are bought for non pro usage.<br /> <br /> Folks that have a trust fund or are government workers tend to get confused about why stuff costs more than folks who run an actual business.<br /> <br /> If you are a secure college prof with tenure; the subject is confusing.<br /> <br /> If you are a NYC hot dog vendor; there is a better connection to considering costs and ones income.<br /> <br /> ****Ask yourself is it easier to shoot portraits of 1 senior at 1000 different schools versus 1000 seniors at 1 school.<br /> <br /> If you get paid by the photo/hotdog; the answer is easier than if you get paid by the hour/mile or if your job is to create bloat and waste and there are no concerns with costs.</p>

<p>Dropping a MF back that sells for 6k down to 5K does NOT increase the sales enough to make more profit; it drops it. If the sales price is set to 4k that might be their cost and then there is no profit.<br /> <br /> What folks want is welfare; a handout; ie slacker. Makers cannot sell stuff below cost for too long; they go out of business. There is no umbilical cord like a tenured college prof has. In private jobs screwups cause folks to be fired.</p>

<p> this question is asked all the time</p>

<p>An example ...Ubiquitous supplier Digikey -<br>

Pick a typical part, let's say it costs $1.21 each (min buy 10 pieces).<br>

The price becomes $ 0.198 each (when buying min of 4,000 pieces).<br />It may vary based on the part, but it's fairly close to 6 : 1 . And this is for parts made in the millions.<br>

That's what's mostly been said so far above.<br>

Deep Geek : <a href="http://www.micromagazine.com/archive/03/06/maynard.html">http://www.micromagazine.com/archive/03/06/maynard.html</a></p>

<p>I fail to understand how the reference (which is a gross generalisation, assumption and probably incorrect ), that people who have trust accounts or are government workers, etc....,addresses the original poster's question regarding the high cost of Digital Backs.<br>

Please explain</p>

<p>For starters, the sensors are bigger. Bigger chips are exponentially more difficult to manufacture. The silicon chips come in big wafers. From these wafers they cut out the sensors (to put it simplisticly). So, if you as a manufacturer buy a wafer and out of this wafer can cut 10 APS-C sensors for your Nikon D90, then from a same size wafer you can cut 5 "full frame" sesnors for a D3X or just 1 645-sized sensor for a 645 back. Just do the math, APS-C is 17x25mm, 35mm/full frame is 24x36mm and 645 is 60x45mm. You also have rejects. If the wafer is imperfect or damaged then you might still be able to salvage a few APS-C sensors out of the 10 you could have had. On the other hand, it's a complete waste for your MF back as you could only get 1 sensor out of it anyway.</p>

<p>Finally, as already said, it is low volumes. Canon and Hasselblad have similar design, research and manufacturing costs (this is a generalisation but bear with me) yet Canon can split these costs over the millions of products sold, while Hasselblad only sells a few thousand. So that greatly impacts the retail price. Think of it like this: if you want to sell hot dogs you need to buy the sausage and bun. If these cost 50c then you need to sell hot dogs for at least 50c to cover the ingredients. You then need to buy or rent the trolley to sell these out of and rent the curb space from the city hall. If the rent for the trolley and curbside space is $50/day and you want to earn $50/day to live, then your daily cost of business is $100. Plus the ingredients for each unit sold. So you can:</p>

<p>- EITHER sell just one hot dog per day at the price of $100.50 ($50 for the rent + $50 for you + 50c for the ingredients)</p>

<p>- OR sell 100 hotdogs for the price of $1.50 each. Because 50c from the $1.50 goes for the ingredients of that particular hot dog and the remaining $1 goes towards the rent and living (100 hotdogs x $1 = $100 for that day).</p>

<p>And not just that, but if you buy 100 hot dogs/day from the supplier you can probably knock down the ingredients price to 25c due to volume discounts, hence you can sell 100 hot dogs for $1.25. And if you go for the first option, it is debateable whether anyone will find the one person a day willing to buy your $100.50 hot dog. Which then means that if you can only sell 1 expensive hot dog every other day, to sustain the same living wage you need to be selling a $200.50 hot dog every two days to survive. And this way you can see how you can quickly price yourself completely out of the market, because if you can only find one person every other day to buy a $100.50 hot dog, how many are there to pay twice as much?</p>

<p>Colin;<br /> <br /> RE "I fail to understand how the reference (which is a gross generalisation, assumption and probably incorrect ), that people who have trust accounts or are government workers, etc....,addresses the original poster's question regarding the high cost of Digital Backs.<br /> Please explain"</p>

<p>It is becausee if one runs an actual private business; ones livelyhood *depends* on having common street sense; ie understanding costs. The hot dog vendor with no education can grasp this. The more buns he buys; the less they cost per bun. If He buys too many; they go bad; thus scrap rises. If he only buys 1/2 days worth; his costs are a lot more; plus he looses sales when he has to close to go buy more.</p>

<p>If somebody has a giant trust fund; or on welfare; they might have money flowing in automatically; even if they do not work. There is a lesser connection to costs sometimes; one has daddy or the government as the big nipple for cash flow.</p>

<p>As far as government; lets take an example. They pave a road; then several months later close it and dig it all up and add new water lines. They they repave it. Then then decide to resurvey it. They then pay to design new sewers; then they tear up the road again and close it and add sewer lines; then repave it. They government does this type of super wastefull crap because of a few dumb clucks doing the planning. They have buddies in the paving business; ie kickbacks to do for getting them elected.</p>

<p>The govenment often does things is a super wastefull way; they often do not have the business savy of a NYC hotdog vendor. Thus millions are pissed away in wastefull things; pet porkbarrel crap. The folks I deal with in government are often the cogs in the mechanism and seem many times just drones. Folks in purchasing often there often are harder to deal with as far as understanding basic stuff.</p>

<p>If some customer item the government wants has price breaks at 1 unit, 4 units, 20 units, 80 units and 160 units because of packaging; the dumb government often wants 21 units; or 81 units when it is just stuff they use over the year. Thus I have to buy 81 and they pay more per unit than 80; since they are mentally not as wise as a NYC hotdog vendor. This happens all the time; thus your tax dollar are pissed away with this jackassery.</p>

<p>The NYC hot dog vendor would not buy a 80 bun package and a single 1 bun package; he would buy 80, or 160 ie what ever saves money. People end to piss away money that is not theirs. In one 24x36" vellum custom form the government has me print; it is all settup cost for the first 100 sheets; 200 sheets does not double the price; nor does 3 triple it. About every 2 to 5 years I print these. I quote on 100, 200 and 300 etc sheets with a sliding scale.</p>

<p>In *every* case for the last 20 years after 100 sheets they want the extra 100 sheets a week later; after the job is done and it is off the press; thus they pay me to reset it up. It is like going to the grocery store to buy 1 quarts of milk with 3 trips.</p>

<p>They are not capable of figuring what they need; thus it is all settup costs. If I think they might need 200 sheets; it might in the old days print some extra; they sell it the next week; or 3 years later. If they change the form; I am screwed.</p>

<p>Thus today I often run 3 of the same 100 sheet jobs in on month; and the 300 total sheets costs the government about twice to 2.5 times waht it would be with one 300 sheet order.</p>

<p>The the quoted price is 200 for 100 units; and 250 for 200 units; and 300 for 300 units with ONE press run; they will always want top get an 100 sheets a week later for 50 dollars. But then I have to reset the press and run another 100 for 200 bucks. I have probably spent 1/2 man week on explaining y=mx+b to the purchasing agents over the last 20 years. Their brains cannot handle this; what a NYC hotdog vendor could grasp in seconds. If the hotdog vendoer delivers; it is probbaly cheaper to deliver 10 hotdogs to one place then 1 to 10 different buildings.</p>

<p>A core tenet with the government is waste; or a government worker said to me "tear it up it is paid for; we will just buy another". Thus folks in the government cocoon often if just a drone are not impacted by waste; their livelyhoods are not impacted as much as a private business; ie no mass layoffs due to this jackassery of waste. The NYC hot dog vendor cannot be this wastefull; he will starve.</p>

<p>When one sees and deals with the government and how they buy stuff' this comment comes off as comical:<br>

<br /> "I fail to understand how the reference (which is a gross generalisation, assumption and probably incorrect ),"</p>

<p>since there is so much waste one deals with in the Goverments ways.It really is sad that more folks are not upset about tax dollars wasted; or how baffoons in goverment are defended. If ones life has one buying stuff with no concerns about prices; there is no way a government worker will understand why digtial backs cost more; if they cannot understand settup costs. ie y=mx+ b.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Gregory - you are right, I was talking about price, not cost. Most of us who have run our own business learned early on that price and cost are only marginally related. Value pricing has been used successfully for years and years, and the buyer determines the value based on what he or she is willing to pay for the product or service. Cost is another matter entirely, and the cost-based discussions above were well stated.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you are a secure college prof with tenure; the subject is confusing.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well I am one; and I don't find it remotely confusing. I think that picking on that particular profession is really adopting a particulary bad example to support your argument. Because in my business, I have to work my butt off to win paltry research budgets; and if I'm lucky enough to secure one, the funding agency will first lop off an arbitary 15% [even though my costings could not have been leaner and there was zero fat in my proposal]; and then I have to make it stretch a very long way, over typically 3 years. Out of this, I have to recruit a postgrad student; make sure the budget stretches to pay them for 3 years; make sure that I can pay for their travel to observatories, their IT gear, right down to their basic stationery. Do I know how to secure the best value for money on all these things? Hell yes! I have to be an advertising agent; a HR manager; an accountant; a travel agent; an IT purchaser; and oh yeah, a scientist.</p>

<p>Furthermore, the waste I've seen in the public sector is NOTHING compared to the waste and excess I've seen in the private sector. I'm the guy taking buses, trains and multiple cheapo flights on point to point budget airlines, spending 28 hours in airports and airborne, to get to my conference; while the private business "suits" are flying 1 leg, business class, taking the premier service airline to get there in 5 hours. These guys know nothing about cost efficiencies.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If somebody has a giant trust fund; or on welfare; they might have money flowing in automatically; even if they do not work. There is a lesser connection to costs sometimes; one has daddy or the government as the big nipple for cash flow.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Do you really think that life for someone on welfare is remotely like life for someone on daddy's trust fund? Who do you think buys those 20 cent loaves of plastic bread? Does the elderly widow in the freezing old house really regard the small government pension that keeps her alive as "the big nipple for cash flow"? C'mon, Kelly. Take the neo-con ideology blinkers off. I love your posts on photography but this stuff...I can't agree with at all.</p>

<p>Another point not mentioned, is the demand curve. How do people's willingness to buy change with price?</p>

<p>If 10,000 people are willing to pay $20,000 and 9,000 people are willing to pay $30,000, then they will likely charge $30,000.</p>

<p>This is very evident in other new gadgets such as the iPhone. When it was released, it was $600. They get all the Apple drones to pay $600. Then it got lowered to $400 and the people only willing to pay $400 bought one. Now it's $97 at Walmart. If they immediately priced it at $97, Apple would loose all the profits from those willing to pay $400 and $600. Another consideration is production capability. It would be best for Apple to have a moderate steady production.</p>

<p>If Apple set the price at $97 immediately, there would a huge demand, which would result in shortages or a huge production capability (with lots of workers), which then runs empty before you have a new product to launch.</p>

<p>Digital backs may come down in price eventually as manufacturing processes get improved, better efficiency in quality silicone, and everyone willing to pay the big bucks already has one.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Digital backs may come down in price eventually as manufacturing processes get<br /> improved, better efficiency in quality silicone, and everyone willing to pay<br /> the big bucks already has one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This may apply in Econ 101, but completely discounts the realities of the MFDB market.<br>

1. Manufacturing processes are designed for smaller chips for computers. APS chips are built on the same equipment. FF and MF chips are not, and require special handling. There's almost no chance there will be any significant improvements in making these chips because there's no reason to invest in it. It's a Catch-22.</p>

<p>2. The silicon isn't the problem.</p>

<p>3. There is no waiting pool of buyers for MFDB like there is for an I-phone. These backs can ONLY be used by people who already have a MF camera, or are willing to pony up hundreds (if not thousands) of $$$ to buy in. I guesstimate for every 10,000 I-phone users, you may find ONE person looking for a MFDB, at any price. And that's being generous.</p>

<p>An apropos analogy may be a thing called a Digisette. It was an MP3 player embedded in a cassette tape shell. You could play MP3's in your cassette player. Except, by the time the technology made it possible and cost-effective, the market was already gone. The chronology didn't line up. Anyone who wanted to play MP3's already had a compatible player.</p>

<p>Similarly, many in the MFDB market have already bailed for FF, and by the time any of your proposed technological advances could make cheap MFDB possible, the FF market will be that much more advanced as well.</p>

 

<p>RE</p>

<p>"Digital backs may come down in price eventually as manufacturing processes get<br>

improved, better efficiency in quality silicone, and everyone willing to pay<br /><br>

the big bucks already has one."</p>

<p> ****The said thing is this dogma has been mentioned every year for the last 16 to 17 years.****</p>

<p>Folks whined about MF backs prices for the Blad when they were 32mm square and 4 megapixels and cost as much small pickup and the Dow Jones was 3800.</p>

<p> RE: (3). There is no waiting pool of buyers for MFDB like there is for an I-phone.<br>

There are a *mess of folks* on Photo.net who would buy a 100 to 400 buck MD digital back; or 100 dollar metal lathes; or folks who want 100 dollar weddings shot; or 5 dollar telephone bills; or 100 buck Noctiluxes; or 50 dollar Leica M3's; or 200 dollar riding mowers<br>

There *IS* a waitng pool for theses thing at these absurd low prices. </p>

<p>It is you basic human quality wanting a quality item at below the cost to make them.</p>

<p>The cave man probably wanted a good spear for a lump of dirt too.</p>

<p> <br>

" XYZ may come down in price eventually as manufacturing processes get<br>

improved, better efficiency in quality ABC, and everyone willing to pay<br /><br>

the big bucks already has one."</p>

<p>XYZ can be new cars; health care; college textbooks; Noctiluxes; digital MF/LF backs too!</p>

<p><br /></p>

<p>The hot dog vendor knows why steak costs more than hotdogs.</p>

<p>one has 17 years of folks "wanting" MF and LF backs to drop in price via magic.</p>

<p>For those who like to ignore costs; you are still are going to be confused 17 years from now.</p>

<p>Just because here is a demand for 200 buck MF backs or 200 buck riding mowers does not mean a fool will sell them to you at a loss. </p>

<p>The constant whine on photo.net is why I cannot buy low cost MF/LF digital backs; why doesnt Kodak still make Kodachrome; why is verichrome gone. Why are there no low cost digital rangefinders. Most folks who learn street business sense learn it on the street and not in school. </p>

<p>A private business has to risk money to make that 200 buck MF back or 200 buck riding mower that you want. Unless there is a kickback to al elected doofus; there is no bailout to support jackass poor projects. If the investment looks poor the private business is not going to make a 200 buck MF back or 200 riding mower.</p>

<p>Ray It has been my experience the government workers are less concerned about costs and are often a wastefull lot; or their bosses are and they are just a cog. Ie a private business owner making a payroll; paying taxes; buying inventory has a greater feel for prices than a liberal college prof who thinks profits are evil. One person is supported by his own actions; the other through taxes. </p>

<p>Kelly, I have worked in government and for "big business." As a consultant I've bid on projects for both. My experience is not at all consistent with your claims. Government has always been much more frugal. </p>

<p>Dan; I think it depends on who one deals with in the government. Some of the ones I have had to deal with or known about have wasted some money and were not that frugal; or even had any cares if the product works<br>

Example: (1)</p>

<p>(a)One product I once sold was sold by a Great brand and poor brand. A local school orders 34 of the poorer brand; I installed 34 of them and it was a rats nest of issues. The poorer brand was a clone of the great brand; and they screwed up the copy. I had to remove the lessor brand an eat all profit and install the great brand to fix the issue. This involved 2.5 days for the first sale and 2 days to swap out the bad stuff. About 1 man week of lost labor. Lesson learned is this slightly lower cost brand was a PITA for this one item; because it was a poor clone. Looking back I would have been better off sell the brand at cost or below cost and been ahead; WAY ahead. Stuff like this happens; the copy can be not really a value.</p>

<p>(b) Another school and even a military base wants be to quote them on the ill/known/poor brand of the *same exact item* that has a design flaw that was a loss and embarrassment. I mention the known issue and quote the the radically better item at the poorer items price. *BOTH* government purchasing folks want the bad item. I asked the military guy what if it was can of oil for a military jet; and it had known issues like it ruined engines since the batch was full of acid. His reply; he has a part to buy; he doesnt give a &$#* damn; he just needs the stuff.</p>

<p>Thus the mindless government worker really doesnt not care if the quart or gallon of oil is pure acid; he just has a item to buy. The idiot cannot connect me to the end user. Thus *BOTH* school and miltary places bought the poor items elsewhere and came screaming to me ( the closest dealer) to fix it. The fix was buying the better part and throwing other stuff in the trash; thus the school and base both pissed away money . Both got billed for labor to swap out the old and the new item. In a real business there is a more of a concern for pissing away hard earned cash. In a business a purchasing agent often is less of a mindless cog buying item #27.</p>

<p>Example: (2)<br>

A while back a school has me Quote on an enlarger/lens/negative carriers that the three items will not work together. Lens wrong ; carriers do not fit this enlarger, You fire back a quick polite detailed fact filled letter to confirm the item numbers; mention too that theses three item do not go together. The government purchasing agent says just quote on all three; it is not my issue or his. So you did your Boy Scouts duty all you can and still you cannot get ahold of the end user; there is a drone purchasing agent in the loop crushing the attempts. Thus you quote on 2,5, 10 combos of the 3 items and they order 5 sets. When delivered you get a mad end user; whom was never contacted by the government purchasing agent. Thus you lend them a couple of old enlarging lens and used holders until another school year can pass for more money. Thus they scrap out 5 new lenses to the state school auctions and buy only 2 new lenses and 2 holders a year later. </p>

<p>Example (3) Optical Unit come in from Spain; you check it out and cannot find anything wrong. Even after 6 years you have the unit from the miltary; with no contact still from the end user or way to get ahold of them.</p>

<p>Example (4) You quote a job to shoot a mess of frail plats at a court house with 4x5 film; it is right after 9/11. All the prep work goes south after the government guards ruined all the sheet films. This happens on several shoots. The entire job costs 3 to 5 times more than a normal shoot due to the governments instance of checking the unexposed and exposed sheets for security. Thus all the meetings and warning get ignored. </p>

<p>Example (5) Local government fire dept maps laminated; none of the maps are to scale. You spend give them the max size for each size of laminator. They give you several out of scale hundred maps all slightly larger than each roll size. Thus they pay for the next tier of prices; for no reason. The cost to laminate only is more that us printing and laminating since their prints are a mess of wrinkled and curled stuff on thin poor paper. </p>

<p>Example (6) Local government brings in gear that is suppose to not work or is not calibrated but works just fine. They bring it in a week before major holidays'. Purchase agent wants it fixed; but it works fine. You ask him to have end user contact us; it never happens. They pick the unit up a month later; it was done in 2 days. </p>

<p>Next time it comes in one week before a major holiday; the same unit doesnt not even turn on. You open it up and there is 1 wire cut (de milled). It is done 3 days later; they pick it up 1 month later.<br>

Next time it comes in one week before a major holiday; the same unit doesnt not even turn on. You open it up and there is several wires cut (de milled) and chips smashed; caps removed it is a mess. It looks like this time battery acid was used. Since the heart was ruined; it gets scrapped out and sent to the state auctions.<br>

Once it is now fall and cooler you get their new unit to align; a 7000 buck rig and they pick it up in a few days. By destroying the working 6000 buck older unit; they get the newer unit, It is not their money; it is the tax payers so who cares.<br>

They want be to install option #12 to recharge the internal battery with a cord; instead of removing it each time. This option was 55 bucks extra when bought new; but since a retrofit one tear the unit apart to install a board and a connector; this costs me 240 just for the PCB; it takes me 1.5 hours; you charge them 360 bucks. We had this option our quote; they bought it elsewhere; got it cheaper; but it had no option #12. Thus they end up paying more for the unit than my original quote; and got less accessories. Again; more common cases of government waste.</p>

<p>Example (7) Local sherifs office is burning many cars each year. A local shop I know is always fixing them. The cops add gobs of extra lights and sirens; with no relays no fuses no fusable links. When a car burns up they get another. Another friend quits the government repair pool over seeing too much stuff purposely ruined to get new toys.</p>

<p>Example (8) Local LEO get a program were a portion of drug grabbed goes toward their own retirement fund. A bad area of town has folks call in tips; where stuff is happening and there is no police. They will not show up; they want their pot to be giant. Totally pissed off mothers get tired of the LEO not responding. The mothers make 8.5x11 signs saying who is involved with the drugs; ALL names and print many reams worth of copies; several thousands of flyers. They cluster bomb the area with flyers one night; and the next day all the scum is long gone. The news calls it interferring; yea interferring with that big reward. </p>

<p>Example (9) Local government oursources a huge scan job with any bids or prices; it is to government guys buddy; his brother in another state. Each scan they did was charged 10 times what I charge; but theirs today are mostly unreadable. They even used oddball formats; no tiff; no pcx; their own proprietry crap, Their viewer was a POS and they leased it. Several folks go to jail; but the chaps house are protected; in a state shields houses. They paid themselves as mostly retirement; it is shielded. The mess of missing plats and lost money still lingers; all due to a less frugal government purchasing agent that used his relatives; had no bidding; royal mess.</p>

<p>...plus Canon has to have money from all sales to promote the football game images seen on the TV advertisements! Those Rebel snaps convince all the Moms and Dads that anything is possible from the stands (sitting up 15 rows) and they continue to try to get action shots of Junior at the local high school night game.</p>

<p>Marketing is not cheap....</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Furthermore, the waste I've seen in the public sector is NOTHING compared to the waste and excess I've seen in the private sector. I'm the guy taking buses, trains and multiple cheapo flights on point to point budget airlines, spending 28 hours in airports and airborne, to get to my conference; while the private business "suits" are flying 1 leg, business class, taking the premier service airline to get there in 5 hours. These guys know nothing about cost efficiencies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As you should, since your salary is funded by taxes, no? 28 hours vs 5, to me that seems wasteful, or your time isnt worth much. </p>

<p> </p>