Digital cheaper than film?

This entry isn't another look at what's cheaper but more of a personal revelation. Say you were shooting with a 10MP Nikon D200. You can fit about 240 raw photos on a 2gigabyte compact flash card. A good middle-of-the-road 2gig card from Kingston (Dong may say otherwise after his recent experience with such a card and his D200) would run you about $70. A set of 4x6 prints from the 240 digital files would cost you about $50. $120 total assuming you don't reuse your card for whatever reason. At about $3.50 a roll for really cheap colour print film plus processing of ten rolls of 24exp film with a print of each shot at the same pro lab would cost you about $120 total. So in a way they are the same price on the "consumable" side. Suddenly, even if the memory card were disposable, save for the [slightly] higher cost of the camera, shooting film or digital would cost the same. Of course you'd need a computer to process the RAW files so say that you were happy shooting JPEGs and letting the lab correct the files for you. That same card would now fit about 500 photos. $70 card plus about $100 of processing for $170 with the dSLR vs. about $250 for film, again assuming that you throw away your memory card after using it only once instead of erasing the images/formating and reusing the card.