Yeah, this has been gnawing at me for a while. Digital was great for motorsports photography and shooting music festivals, but the fine detail just isn't there for landscape photography, at least not with anything I can afford. The idea behind being a pro photography is making money at this craft, and digging myself into a $30,000 hole to sell landscape photos makes no sense. I always missed my Hasselblad*. I love the simplicity of using it, and how it makes me slow down and think about composition and light. I also like having a high-quality lightweight system that does not need batteries.
I'm taking a course this semester taught at Wild Basin Wilderness Preserve in Austin. We'll be in the field researching how deer are impacting the preserve, so I'll have a lot of time to take photos while I'm working on the class. We have to make a poster at the end of the semester, and I want to have two or three killer photos for that. Might even pop for drum scans to get the best quality.
Film is not as convenient as digital, but when I got a 16x20 print made from a slide I shot of my father fishing behind his cabin in Montana in 1999 I knew I made the right choice selling the EOS gear and going back to film. I have a Sony RX-100 that is plenty good for my other needs. I shot a press conference for Environment Texas today, and even at ISO 1600 that little Sony did an excellent job: better than my old Canon 40D at that ISO. It's an impressive pocket camera.
*My wife is happy that I am no longer whining about missing the Hasselblad.