Lots of debate re the old 'Is Digital better then 35mm' Well from what I have seen the answer is that one day it might be but it's a long way off. On one hand we have claims that 20"X32" prints can be produced digitally that are the equal if not better then 35mm film. Recently Calumet held a seminar re professional equipment and the general opinion that up to 12"X16" digital could hold its own. This was using large format digital gear that cost more then most peoples houses. Today I see that Damien Demolder is testing the new £7000 Kodak, 6M pixels and a 3032x2008 CCD size. I find his conclusion interesting, I quote." So the question is will 6million pixels be enough to replace 35mm? And the answer is no. If you only print at 5"x3" and use the image at 600PPI, then you have film quality...." He continues," Film quality to me means printing at 600PPI and getting a 10"x 8" print-for the moment. And from looking at this camera I want at least 12 million pixels". So I think that anybody holding back should make the choice, otherwise the wait might prove very long. Or am I missing something, apart from grey cells? Slimey.