> Trust me, there is no difference in the viewfinder and when pressing > the button with a digital camera. Jim You don't have to defend digital at every opportunity: it's not evangelism ;o0 The fact is, of course you are right. You really *could* use digital as film and pretend to yourself that the resource (film) was limited. In fact, you may well do so having learned your art in the pre digital days. But the fact (from pure personal observation) is that for those new to photography, or old timers as the old ways fade *unlike silver prints ;o)* the lazy factor takes over. It's hard work to concentrate: get a microdrive, a 20A-h battery and just keep the shutter button down ... 10000 low res. images - surely some gems amongst them??? A similar but less extreme comparison could be made between large format and 35mm. Heck, fire off 36 frames and get the prints for less than the cost of 1? Sure, I've bracketed frequently on macro - having spent an hour getting a shot an extra couple of frames "just in case" hold a trivial cost. Creativity? The old ways - criticised for being counter-creative because of the discipline needed to execute a good shot: the new ways bring in wholesale genocide!!!!!. ;o) Seriously, creativity is in the mind/eye not in the review screen. SO yes: keep using you old fashioned SLR-lookalike in the old ways ... but you are not typical of the thousands of neo-technophiles snapping everything and anything at arms length on auto .... Best Bob
