Re: picture quality?

With due respect to everyones experience and taste in camera equipment I would like to make a couple of comments. First off, I have made my total income for the past 52 years as a profesional photographer and have done much work in all formats including digital. I do not in any way preternd to be an expert or authority however:
My feelings are that for each photographic challenge we are faced with, we must choose the format that best fits the results we are trying to achieve. You must know in advance what type of image you are trying to capture. I have photographed train related subjects with 8x10, 4x5, 21/4 x 21/4, 21/4 x 33/4 and most major brands of 35mm. My personel experience is not confined to Nikons top of the line digital boxes though I find they are my choice for professional work. I find that all brands seem to work well, (I find Olympus color to be very good) however some brands are more easily set up and used than others. 35mm. is great for getting in getting the shot and getting out. The images are usually not the best quality but acceptable by todays standards, the same image would have been totally be rejected by a publisher, director of 30 years ago. Limited depth of field, fuzzy, grain and camera movement resulting from selecting lower shutter speeds is apparent in many of todays images.
I maintain that the largest negative/positive size image a person can make will result in the better finished products. For myself I can eaisly set up an 8x10 view camera in a fraction of the time it takes to set up a digital unit. The manufacturers have allowed their cameras to be designed by engineers, not by working photographers. They have tried to incorporate too much, which results in confusion for their users.
Attempting to photograph a locomotive coming directly towards you with an auto focus lens can be extremely frustrating, you might even miss the opportunity by locking up the confused focusing mechanism.
I enjoy playing with digitals but I am limited to what I can do with the final image. If I should wish to make 16x20 or larger salon prints I am in deep trouble. It can be done, but is much more of a hassel. If your photographs are to be used by or exchanged with friends, digital is slow to my taste but is great for such work.
Many news photographers have switched to digital because it allows them to stretch their deadlines to the limit. However for quality work most professionals still choose a good box and a selection of lenses along with their favorite films.
Whats the best film? Again the film must be suited to the subject you are going to be shooting. They are all good, but I always avoid the high speed emulsions, they simply do not give the best results for all subjects. Film selection like camera selection are important items assuming you have good light in making a quality image of anything.
I don't believe that the camera/film combination is as responsible for good quality as is the picture maker himself. Regardless of subject matter the camera persons chances of getting the "prize winner" is directly related to how much planning he/she has done before releasing the shutter. Quality images don't just happen, they are most often made.
Respectfully,
C Webb