After manymany years of using film cameras I decided to get my feet wet with digital. I have mixed feelings, especially with respect to rail photography. I have used good equipment, currently I use Nikon N 90s and Canon Eos 5 with Nikkor or EF lenses. Both of these cameras are reliable and fast and with the proper ISO give me excellent results. I have been following the digital market for some time and recently purchased an Olympus 3.2 megapixel point and shoot. I performeed some experiments by taking pix at the same time and place and distance with my film cameras and the digital. On 4x6 pictures you cannot tell the difference with the naked eye, however under a 4x loop the film prints are more detailed. I suspect that if I did this with 8x10's the difference would be apparent. What drives me to distraction is the performance of the camera. It takes too long to power up and the lag time has already cost me some good shots of moving equipment. It eats batteries like Godzilla. I understand the commercial applications pf digital. Certainly if you need to send photos quickly digital makes sense but if I want to get a camera the equivalent of my SLR's I have to pay quite a bit. I have looked at the Canon Rebel and Nikon D 70 and D 50 and they are good, though not quite as fast as the Eos 5, but the cost is high and the printing of quality photos on archival paper from digital is not cheap and the battery replacement is constantly annoying. Perhaps in a few years the performance and costs be better. For now I take the digital and film cameras together when I rail fan. If it's a static shot, or moving very slowly I use the digital otherwise the film. Any thoughts out there on your film-digital debate ?