"L Schultz" writes:
But seriously, one of the most balanced essays on digital vs. film (with
links, etc) is this one, by Ken Rockwell:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

I'm sorry, but that article is a ridiculous rant. He compares a shot
from a nameless digicam to one from a 4x5 view camera that can only be
used on a tripod. He says the best way to get digital images is from
scanned film, but not with a cheap consumer scanner like a $10,000
Imacon. To get a really fair comparison between film and digital,
according to him, you're supposed to use a $50,000 Heidelberg scanner
operated by someone with years of training. Sheesh.

Until they make decent digital cameras so that they are upgradeable, I will
maintain that all digital cameras are disposable.

True, but to many professionals, all cameras are disposable.

I use digital gear, but it isn't an either/or situation. Currently
digital is very transient/temporary, while I use Rolleiflex TLRs
that are older than I am. Magazines still want 35mm and MF
trannies, but only newspapers will touch my digital images. And
daily work is a place where digital excels. So it appears still to
be apples and oranges in comparison.

Nah, magazines are printing lots of digital images too.

It's obvious to me that film will always be with us, but will become
more and more of a specialty medium.