Only Canon's full frame, 20 megapixel DSLR can beat a roll of Velvia slide film for quality, although I use it more because:

1) It's what I have. Photography is about taking pictures, which is done mostly in your mind, not by shopping for the latest equipment. I don't have anything against digital, (if someone wants to buy it for me!) but I want to master what I have before spending money on cameras that are more like consumer electronics that will be outdated in 2 years time, or less.

2) I like the learning process - take less pictures, not more, to get better results - think about every shot carefully and think why are you using the settings you are using? Film is expensive, so it makes you think. No tweaking settings in photoshop afterwards - learn to take better pictures instead.

3) I like the lack of extra controls - I am using a dial for shutter speed, the aparture ring and the focus ring, all manually and immediately hands-on, and intuitive. Nothing else. No need for a histogram or whatever to tell you if you got the right balance of RGB, or how much to under-expose off the meter 'cos the background is all black - use your brain!

I am not anti-digital, it is just different... but film is has it's vitues too.

dunno if I'm gonna get rid of the D70 yet AK.

Will the D300 really be that much better than the d200??

BP, get it and tell us.

I'm thinking about ditching my D200 when the D300 can be got hold of at list price. Not likely this year.

ha! Yeah right! At that price, I would take a lot of convincing!

Good answer. My redundant Pentax was the last fully mechanical manual SLR manufactured. I love it for its simplicity and ease of control. My Nikon is nice too, and I love being able to shoot and download.

yeah, but you only find that out 2 weeks later when you get the film back from the lab! You've got to make sure you write down your settings for every single shot so you can check how it turned out later. With digital you can dial in the perfect exposure by taking a couple of pics and checking the histogram. then when you're looking at your files later on, all the exif data is already embedded in the photo.

I'm still not using the histogram. Can't see the advantage.

how do you expose your shots then? do you just use 'p' mode?

No, I stict it on A and use matrix.

I look at the histograms but can't work out what they mean.

For those wondering about shooting raw, jpeg or both, see this comparison experiment

Raw v Jpeg

For me, the jpeg format suits my purposes.

Ken Rockwell's preview (he hasn't got his hands on it yet) of the d300 has convinced me that the d200 is more than enough. Seems like the changes are not enough to warrant buying a d300 especially if you already have a d200. Things might change after he actually gives it a going over. But for now I am not convinced that I need to fork out that extra money.

Like I said, I am not against digital - I am planning to get a digital SLR - and being able see your successes, or more importantly, your mistakes, straight away is a great tool for learning, especially for using flash(es) which increases the variable enough to give you a head ache and want to try trial and error instead of working it out properly.

But I do have to question, why do you need any kind of data read out to dial in your exposure? Surely you just need your light meter (let's assume in camera for now), obviously your Aparture and Shutter Speed controls, and your mental plan of how you want the picture to look? If it works you can see the results anyway on digital, is it because you can't see really until you get it full size on a computer screen?

ah, you're on about the histogram read out.

Most, like me don't know how to use that. We use the TTL metering and then set the aperture and/or shutter speed accordingly.

I'm lazy,I use A and set the aperture and let the camera give me the shutter speed.

yes, you can't really tell if you nailed the exposure on the backscreen without the histogram. the quality of the lcd isn't good enough. plenty of times i thought i'd nailed a shot only to find that it was slightly blurred (from the camera focusing elsewhere)when i checked it on my monitor.

to answer your question on needing data to dial in your exposure...
you have incident light and reflected light hitting your subject. The spot meter on your camera can only measure reflected light and can be fooled. read:
http://www.sekonic.co.jp/English/product/meter/tips.shtml

you can have a user error where you aim the camera at the wrong thing to expose. ie a sunset if you just shoot your composition you get the foreground a bit too dark and the sky blown out. if you expose off the foreground then recompose then the foreground is in focus but the sky is blown out. if you expose off the sky then recompose the sky is properly exposed and you get the sick colours..but your foreground is black

so, you set the exposure and do a trial shot, look at the histogram. check if anything is blown out or it's underexposed. adjust if necessary. shoot again. check. and so on. with digital you want to expose as much to the right as you can without blowing anything out. then in the computer use levels to even it out.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

I'm so long-sighted I can't see a damn in the viewfinder, let alone the screen. The camera has to do the work for me. No problemo with the old Pentax though.

and fill flash for the foreground in the sunset shot.

Here's your average Canon user:

that had better be a snow monkey soub, or it shouldn't be on here!

way to kill the thread BP

me? That was tongue in cheek!