William Robb mused: > > Digital can look very good indeed, but a well printed negative (my > opinion only) still has an edge.
I doubt if anyone would disagree with that statement (albeit possibly with reservations about visible grain). But that's a long way from the insulting and dismissive put-down of the *ist-D as a cheap little plastic toy. Let's face it - the same could be said of any 35mm system, with about as much justification - when compared to what can be achieved from a large-format negative, 35mm doesn't look too good, either.
