Digital BW, The Print

>IMO conversion to digital is simply a possibility, like B&W Vs color...
>
>Unfortunately, digital camerawork does seem to incline photographers
>to repetitive macrophotography (bugs, flowers) and mundane scenics.
>However, it seems the "only way" professionally...I'm confronting that
>at the moment, which is a problem because I believe the new/current
>digital Nikons/Canons will be undesirable in a year.

Photojournalists, fashion photographers, wedding photographers and many other pros having been shooting digital for years.

>
>The severe shortcomings of digital (eg involving exposure index, wide
>lenses, physical bulk of higher level digital cameras) make it less
>suitable for many situations than film. I'm sure this will change
>dramatically when current Nikons/Canons are retired.

The exposure index on most pro cameras ranges from ISO 100-1600. Canon has a full frame sensor so there is no wide angle problem and their bulk is about the same as their pro film cameras.


>Many of us are thrilled with the incredibly fine films that have been
>introduced only recently, easily enabling beautiful color and B&W
>rated at 1600 and 3200.

Really?
 
>
>As obviously, many of us need physically small cameras with
>24mm-and-wider lenses, many of us want our standard lenses to be
>rectilinear, and many of us don't find the inferior viewfinders of
>most digital cameras acceptable.

Physically smaller cameras are generally the rage of amatuers. Take a look at the Canon 5D. Same size as the 20D with full frame sensor. If you want retilinear lenses they are the same for film as digital and are found in mostly 14-16 mm and expensive.


>Unfortunately the only digital camera that approaches certain specific
>professional/amateur requirements, long met by film, seems the Epson,

You can't possibly be serious!


>which is a bit junky and of course doesn't have enough resolution to
>properly serve the lenses.



Regards, Walt