> Some consumer P&S digital cameras focus slowly still, I'm sure, but > the serious ones are exactly as responsive as the film bodies -- David I'm too bone idle to google :o) Are they as responsive as my EOS 1n RS in Real Time mode? That little mother has almost no delay - apart from the link between my eye-brain and finger :o) > However, for macro work, you'll find they get > noticeably more depth of field (for the 1.5x crop-factor family), and > you'll find you can run ISO 400 with better results than ISO 400 film > produces, so you can use a smaller aperture or higher shutter speed > than with film. The "greater depth of field" thing is true - but worthy of a whole thread on its own. Depth of field does improve with reducing focal length - but so does the reduction of scale of the things in the background. It confuses me how digital processing has managed to do away with the diffraction problems associated with small apertures / high magnifications on film. I can't work out the physics myself. > And, because the shots cost nothing, and because you > can check in the field exactly what you got, you can also get > difficult shots that require "luck" *and know you got them*. We're into the fixed and variable costing stuff. True: apart from battery power and the aggro of carrying enough power around with you there's almost "no cost per shot" beyond the hardware/software upgrade costs. That's a good thing! At the end of the year though, for most of us if you divide the numbers of keepers by the cost (bearing in mind film users have to learn to take less shots) ratio is - possibly - quite different. I guess there is no-one forcing you to upgrade every 18 months (Canon's current release cycle) - but until the day we get a stable technology (just after hell freezes over) new will always be better. Bob
