I've been thinking about this lately and I'm in no rush. Todays technology ( even with 6Mp ) isnt as good as 35mm film capture. It's better to buy a good 35mm film scanner if you want digital processing as the resolution is way higher ( isnt 4000dpi roughly equal to 24 Mp?). You can buy a great 35mm film scanner for roughly $1500, way less than any digital SLR would cost.
I dont like the idea of having to deal with low capacity batteries, shutter lag, low resolution, limited dynamic range and overall complexity of the cameras. I could imagine keeping dust off the sensors when changing lenses will be a royal pain in the ass. Sure, instant results and very low operating costs are a plus, but I'm only marginally satisfied with the resolution of 35mm film, going downward in resolution now is not acceptable to me. I like the fact that I can grab a coupla spotmatics, a half-dozen rolls of film and shoot all day. No hassles with batteries running out and downloading flash cards, etc. Until they can design digital SLRs that MEET or EXCEED 35mm in terms of resolution and with high capacity on board memory, I'm gonna stick with film. Pentax and minolta are probably doing the right thing in terms of designing digital SLRs. They arent as good as 35mm film yet and cost way too much to produce compared to other digital technologies like film scanners. Sure for press photographers they fit the bill, but I'm not a press photographer. Patiently Waiting for now, JCO - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
