"In the current issue, Popular Photography say that digital will equal the quality of conventional 35mm film cameras when they are capable of storing 6 million pixels. That is way, way more than is captured by the current crop of digital cameras priced at about $800 (USD). (At that price range, they capture about 3.3 million pixels.)" Comparing digital and film cameras is a bit like comparing apples to oranges, imho, because generally they represent totally different markets. I would never use anything but a digital camera, for the following reasons: 1. I don't need 6 megapixels, or even 3.3 megapixels. I rarely need a "hard copy" of my photos, and I never publish them. Mostly I post them on the web or email them to friends, and my very cheap (now less than $250) digital camera, with only 1.3 megapixels, is more than up to the task. 2. I've saved lots of money with my digicam, because I never have to buy film. I use rechargable batteries, and if I do run out of space on my flash memory card, I plug in a spare or download my photos to my laptop. Even without my laptop, I can take a hundred high quality shots before I'm out of space (and battery life.) Also, I can preview an image with my camera's built-it display, and if I don't like it, I can delete it and have room for more photos. 3. Since I do a lot of digital touch-up work to my photos with Photoshop, it makes sense to start with a digital image rather than having to scan it. And there's no waiting to have photos processed by Wal-Mart with a digital camera. And again, no cost involved... I think the vast majority of people are better served by digital, and that's only going to become more true as the technology gets cheaper and better. -John in NC
