Hi Michael, > Now that the output from these cameras far exceed the quality that > I could produce (for my normal wedding/photojournalism work) with 35mm > film... Shooting both film and digital, for quite a few years, I still don't see higher digital quality from any sub $2k digital camera than 35mm film. But, that's using my criteria...some people think that sharpness somehow is higher image quality...but in reality, it is typically not. I think a lot of the digital "quality" people like, like sharpness, are a false metric with respect to actual image fidelity. Comics are very sharp, but have little detail. So, anyway, though I fully appreciate and agree that *some* people believe their digital output has higher "quality" than they got with film, I believe a lot of it is misperception of actual image fidelity. But, hey, since in today's society perception is everything (reality takes a back seat), then if they think an image with lower image fidelity is higher "quality", who am I to argue. The bottom line is, it really depends on what the criteria for "quality" is. That, for some reason, seems to almost never be stated. Regards, Austin --- Rollei List - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Online, searchable archives are available at //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list