Aren't we all being a little too sensitive about this? Not you, Scott,
but in general it seems that a lot of people suspect that Shel had some
devious motive in asking this question. You would think he asked how
many need drugs to cope with erectile dysfunction problems. It's just
an interesting topic (film vs. digital, not erectile dysfunction drugs
vs. unaided). In any case, I would hope that no one takes offense.
Paul
On Dec 11, 2005, at 6:47 PM, keith_w wrote:
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Not at all ... I was just curious, trying to get a sense of how many
have/have not converted. And, FYI, I've sold my DSLR
Ummmm, I seem to have missed something...
I thought you had just got _into_ digital! I mean, within the last
year?
And now you're leaving it?
I don't know why...
Perhaps you said, but I didn't read that/those posts! Sorry!
I have and use digital, altho' I don't yet use a DSLR.
That said, I DO use a great digital that uses a very capable
electronic viewfinder, which is the same thing, in principal...
I not only have no plan to lose those digital cameras, but in fact
have enforced my dedication to film use by just recently buying a
couple more MF cameras!
I believe film will continue to be used, especially among the old
timers who grew up with it. And so long as someone continues to make
film!
I thought you were one of those diehards, Shel! No disrespect meant ~
either way!
And since when does asking a question equate to "proselytizing?"
Doesn't. Never did...
Shel
keith
