Message text written by "\"Let us not speak foul in folly!\" - ][<en
Phollit"
>The thing I love about the digital is the forgiveness of the low
light slow shudder speed.  Many of the shots that I once would not
attempt, as the wonderful ability of film to capture the contrast in
turn did not allow informal quick capture, I now take regularly.  But I
miss crisp full depth of field sharpness.  I also miss kodachrome 25,
the best film I think I ever used.  A film you could almost paint with
at low speeds.
Oh, I also like how my new digital camera has a default sound of an SLR
when you take the shot!

Best,
Leland<

Yes, Sony and some others have figured out that people like that loud sound
(actually the moving mirror and the motor drive makes the noise in an SLR,
the shutter is not very loud). It does take getting used to the
near-silence of a digital. But a good rangefinder is about as quiet.
Personally I would rather have a quiet camera. Mine flashes a couple of
LCDs when it takes a picture and I can see the frame count change. That's
enough to tell me it worked. 

I have always followed (and frquently advised) a rule of using the slowest
film that you can for the conditions. I always preferred slower films if
there were enough light to use them. Digital does not yet have the tonal
range of film, but I have not yet found that to be a difficulty. In low
light, the better sensitivity makes up for it. As for the sharpness, some
of that may be camera movement rather than depth of field. The same optical
rules apply to digicams as for any camera. If you want sharpness, use a
tripod and a low shutter speed to allow the lens to stop down and reduce
camera movement. A digicam can be hand held at lower speeds than an SLR
(because there are fewer moving parts to cause camera movement) but it
still moves. 
--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>