Let's try this
 

I saw them for a bit . . . maybe there's some caching issue, so the link dies after a bit. Dunno.

I figured they were their real names . . . but one never knows on the internets.

Let's try this
 

Film can have a deeper "richness" of color. Sometimes, it's more saturation, sometimes, it's greater range of tonality.

You can do almost as much with depth of field and light levels with a digital SLR these days as you can with film at a reasonable price point. As an example, the Nikon D50 or D70s, or the Canon Rebel digital SLRs are both excellent amateur cameras with many of the same capabilities that professional cameras have.

But for color, you need far more pixellation, memory, and more scanning than most people can afford or want to afford. To really imitate or better film, you need a minimum of 10 megapixels, full frame scanning, and anywhere from $5-10,000 for just the camera body.

I still use a film camera for my art shots, but I'm thinking of changing over to the Nikon D50 one of these days.

Let's try this
 

I'm looking at the d50 as well, but the 6.1 mp CCD is cause for hesitation. the recently-released d80 has 10 mp, though at a stiffer price point.

Let's try this
 

My neighbor has the D50 and it produces amazingly sharp prints with very good coloar saturation, even on a very cheap color inkjet printer. The 6.1 is really enough for all but a pro or the most hardcore amateur, at least until the 10 mp cameras come way down in price.

But this comment is based on my budget, not yours. Bottom line, if I could afford it, I'd lay down the $12,000 for a D1 and a much faster lens or two. But that's cause I'm an idiot when it comes to toys.

ETA I just looked at prices and saw the D2X has come down significantly in price. It's only about $4,000-5,000 now.

Let's try this
 

The d80 is not a whole lot more than a d50 ($800 for the body, I think), though you can get a good body/lens set for the d50 for $600 or so.

Let's try this
 

Hmmm. I may have to rethink my purchase. One nice thing about Nikon is that their full range of lenses will work with the digital body, so the lenses I have now won't be obsolete.

Let's try this
 

Sony Alpha? The Minolta Maxxum D5 replacement for $900.

And, Wonk, I'll save you a post: No, it's not Nikon or Canon, so serious photographers won't take you seriously.

eta: oops. I was looking at the kit version of the d80. The prices are a lot closer (900 vs. 1000) than I thought.

Let's try this
 

The Nikon has the Sony CCD in it, which is part of what makes it a great camera. I think Nikon has superior optics, but really the main reason I am firmly committed to Nikon is that I already have a decent investment in their lenses.

The Minolta is a good camera. I doubt that most people would be able to tell the difference between a good shot with the Minolta and one taken with the Nikon. The big difference other than optics is that the Nikon has better auto and special program modes, so it's more forgiving of amateurs like me.

Let's try this
 

We have a bunch of NIKKOR lenses and accessories, so leaving the Nikon fold isn't really an option.

Let's try this
 

Well, there you go. I have a set of Minolta lenses . . .

I'll bet you ditched a lot of windows software when you went Mac, though . . . :D

Let's try this
 

Speaking of Macs, my daughter's just died on her for the seventh time in three years. I'm beginning to think of Macs as the Italian sportscars of the computer world.

Let's try this
 

I'm beginning to think of your daughter as a mac wrecker.

I have had four in 17 years. All became obsolete before they failed.

Let's try this
 

I've been on the Mac since 1984, with the 128k Mac, so I've been here all along...

Child bracelet
 

My 2-year-old just ripped apart my 5-year-old's gold bracelet that was a present from the grandparents on her first birthday. Doesn't appear to be fixable. Any ideas where to look for a replacement (I checked Fina)?

Dammit
 

That was supposed to have been a reply not a new thread. Apologies.