Quote Originally Posted by blockend View Post
As a late adopter of digital technology two things struck me. One was how convenient digital is in a screen sharing environment, the other was how mediocre DSLR images are compared to medium and large film formats. Even 35mm that has to be scanned on a sub-optimum interface comes close to digital quality. DSLR fans rave about lenses costing thousands of pounds that are barely superior to equivalents that can be picked up for less than a hundred, in spite of another thirty or forty years technological development. Except for specific applications, it's easier to use film through the medium it was designed for.
I agree.

I looked in to what it would cost to replace my 35mm gear ( Nikon ca. 1970, two bodies, six lenses + acc) with digital gear of comparable quality; cameras, prime lenses, computer and software plus a high quality printer.
I have about $500 tied up in the Nikon stuff, I could buy a new small car with what it would cost to buy digital gear - which would never last as long as the Nikons, either.
Except as a pocketable P&S to use at social occasions and generally keep handy as a documenting / recording tool, digital holds absolutely no allure for me.