On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:22:43 -0800 (PST), Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For me it would be very simple. I have not used a film camera in > over two years and I see little reason to for the foreseeable > future. As nice as the MZ-S is, and it does seem to be a very > nice camera by the specs although I've not handled one, it would > be the one to go.
Hmmm. I see your point. I, of course, am in the opposite position. I have no digital cameras, and only shoot film. I'm just wondering if it's not a good idea to keep one film body around. Some day, shooting some film might be useful. Maybe a client (or Wendy herself) may want slides or something. Maybe she'll see the light, and realize that real photographers shoot Tri-X, and that digital will never replicate the "real Tri-X" look <only joking, don't everyone start yelling at me>. Seriously, she'll have the 20D for digital. She can't can't use the *istD as a backup for that, due to lens incompatibility. I say keep one film body, "just in case". But that's just me. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
