> Austin
Actually, you and I agree on this, I think.
I am willing to concede apparent sharpness, color intensity, and lack of grain as digital attributes. I understand what you are saying about a two pixel image, but from what I have seen, a six megapixel digital camera is not quite as sharp as a good 35mm film image, but the difference, which almost makes up for it, is the lack of grain, or what amounts to noise.
But digital seems to lack something, or perhaps they have something in the result I don't like, because the images from digital do not seem as interesting, or perhaps it is that they appear unnatural. Cartoons may be too strong, but it has an element of truth to it. The images are heavily processed.
In any event, my other point is that using criteria such as consumer convenience, professional utility, and profit or savings from digital, and hence sales, to evaluate the benefits of digital imaging takes the discussion of quality in entirely the wrong direction. Just because a process works for a "pro" (a wedding photographer, for ex&le) does not mean that it is good for the making the most beautiful photographs.
Quality and aesthetics are related, but unfortunately, even with the best equipment, I know my pictures are not as good, from an aesthetic point of view, as a truly talented person can do with a Holga. Oh well. I continue to try.
I'm off to Hong Kong and Thailand for few days, with wife and two year old twin girls. And the G2.
>
}