Rob Studdert wrote: > It's about film, not bells and whistles. I want a DSLR that > I'm confident will provide me with the equivalent if not > better than the quality that I was used to using top end 35mm > film bodies and expensive film. The *ist D isn't there yet > though I assume that you know that as you appear to still be > shooting film. > > I have MF gear and fridge full of film but boy I'd love to be > able to dump it and rely solely upon my digicam, the extra > load and managing two image formats and very different > capture media is a PITA.
I do indeed still use film and thus I have a choice. You have MF for a high quality image capture. What it really comes down to is wanting it all in one package, inconvenient as it is, you already have it, albeit in two different forms of equipment. I expect users of plate cameras longed for what became 35mm and then forever found fault with it. How many posts have there been over the years about Pentax not ever launching a digital camera, then when they do - even with so many backward compatibility features - it's still not enough. Where do you jump in? You have to feel some sympathy to Pentax, as they have taken so much stick from actually producing a DSLR at all, to the length of time behind the others on launching it - even ensuring previous lens models could be used with some limitations. Should they have waited for film quality sensors? Perhaps they should have jumped from cameras altogether. I'm glad they didn't though. If you know before hand what you will be likely to shoot, you can choose what to take (if it's a professional shoot you will already know what they want in the way of negative or digital image); if it's a newsworthy picture which all the tabloids want, they won't give a toss if it's from a 'phone camera or the latest expensive digital if it has the image they can use. It's a pain Rob, but like most things in life it's a compromise. You have a vast amount of talent to make the very best of what you use and that you can't buy. Malcolm
