[at-l] Digital Camera Thread Revisited

[saunterer@jimbullard.org (saunterer@jimbullard.org)]

A friend just sent me the following link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/11/technology/11FOVE.html?ex=1015008246&ei=1&en=82fa0e503dba1db2
It appears that digital is on the threshold of actually equaling the 
quality of 35mm film but at $3K it's a bit dear, certainly beyond my 
budget.   $3K will buy a lot of film.  It doesn't mention whether that 
includes a lens or just the camera body.  Maybe when it comes down a bunch 
(lower than the $1000 figure mentioned in the article) I'll agree there's 
no reason to use film.  Maybe.

sAunTerer