I dont agree with your last sentence. If you are going to "shoot for web" like you suggest then using film and scanning is an incredible waste of time and money. Even a cheap 2Mpixel digicam is more than needed for web and they only cost about $150.00 new now.
Where can I get a $150.00 2MP digital camera with interchangable lenses, manual focussing, external flash automation and a TTL viewfinder? Seriously, I'd love to know. :-) I think that your idea of "shooting for web" is very different from mine.
I still do nearly all my "web" photography (mostly ebay ads) with a 4 yr old 1.3 Mpixel panasonic digicam and even then I have to reduce the files for web. That camera has more than paid for itself many times over in film and time savings, but then again its only web quality. I never do any serious "real" photography with it. It is no good for prints at all.
I think you're being *very* conservative regarding the things you can do with photos on the web. What if the recipient of my photos wants to print them out? What if they want to zoom in on details? What happens in 20 years' time when everyone has 300dpi monitors? If I junk my Pentax gear and buy a $150 digicam, I'm shooting myself in the foot. If I take photos on film, I can put them on the web at 2MP resolution today, and I still have the negatives ready for if I ever need better than that.
I will admit to occasionally producing A4 prints for peoples' walls etc. :-)
S
