Speaking as someone who has not been forced to go digital (yet) > The digital camera I have my > eyes on is the Canon 20D, an 8.3 Mpx camera which is quite new on the > market. If you are doing this stuff professionally you can't afford NOT to have a digital dody in your repertoire. The D20 is a really good choice. > 1. is there a narrower tonal range possible with digital than with film, as FACT: yes Is it material? Mmmm ...probably not. Answer I guess is "it depends" on your workflow and what you read into that word "possible" > 2. is there poorer tonal gradation with digital than w/ film? again this is > something I've heard but haven't yet experienced Again: "it depends" 1) how much work you put into your current developing and printing vs 2) the exact digital workflow. If you are doing weddings in bright sunlight with the full range of tones from "WHITE" to the groom's dark green (off-black) velvet jacket a D20 saving files as jpegs CANNOT match the ultimate potential of appropriately-exposed negative file. 8-bits per channel per pixel with 2.2 gamma via simple maths CANNOT hold detail in all the regions OTOH if you get your current prints done by the local Mall, chance are you are getting nothing like what is "possible" off the film either. > 3. is there less exposure lattitude? YES >I would loveto hear your opinions on these issues. Well, I have not used them extensively but still think you should get your first digital body. Initially, keep using what you know for the standard "staged" shots but start using the digi for the more casual stuff. You need experience with the medium before switching anyway. If you find your customers are happy with the speed of the results and yourself with the quality you can soon buy a second D20 (as you will need 2 bodies if you are really a pro ... Bob
