D800: Get thee behind me, Satan

 I watched some of this video about the D800. Not that long ago, it was £2000+. Now, you can get one on eBay for less than £300. Tempting. Very. Flogging the F4 and some other bits and pieces would cover the cost. And think what I'd save on the cost of film; and the time I'd save on scanning... But as I watched the video, the guy got onto the topic of menus, and my blood ran cold. This reminded me of work, which is precisely what my photography isn't. 

Then I thought: it doesn't matter what gear one uses: the important thing is that wee negative or digital image. Once it's printed and framed and on the wall, the route it took to get there doesn't matter. What does matter is how many people look at it and think (or even say out loud) "Wow!" 

Obviously, both film and digital photos are capable of producing that response. So what does it matter which medium the photographer employed. One reason that matters is, most good photographers (maybe everyone ) can tell from most prints if it's digital or film; especially if it's black and white. And all of the things you can do in post-processing, some of them are jaw dropping; but the overall effect, especially on architectural and landscape photography, is dentist's waiting room, even if the print is well composed. It's difficult to say why, but the emotional response is more likely to be "hmm" rather than "wow!". 

I could write a lot more: the delayed gratification and sense of composing before clicking the shutter; that wonderful feeling as you take the roll from the tank at the end of the processing; the moment you invert the scanned negative. You can't get that with digital. So that's me, content with the F4.