Re: Digital

d c wrote:
> 
> I invested in a Sony (uses floppies) a few years ago and later got a Fuji
> (uses memory chip) for non-professional photos.  Have been eyeing the more
> professional models to replace my SLR... and noticed that there is a digital
> Hasselblad.
> 
> Besides the immediacy of digital media and savings in film stock and
> developing, 

You may "save" on having to buy film but you "lose" by not having a
permanant, bonafide image that can be stored literally ever (i.e., is
free from data corruption and media obsolescence.) Nothing is more
permanant than putting and storing your images on film. 1's and 0's are
just data. Professional photographers who care about the longevity and
future of their images put them on film. Sure, with digital you don't
have to buy film, but that doesn't mean it's cheaper by a long shot;
there's a lot of expense and peripheral costs. Also, digital storage is
much higher maintainance overall, requiring constant back up (data and
media corruption) and updating (storage medium obsolescence.) Film is
it's own permanant storage medium.

>is the price of the digital a worthy investment, particularly
> for a wide range of photograph from portrait to outdoors/action?

If hasselblad my understanding is it's an interchangable digital back,
so if the need arises you can shoot either film or digital or both
easily. Whether professional high end digital it's worth the cost to you
is a business call. If all you shoot are catalog images, digital today
is probably more cost effective in long term application.

If you can afford it, Hasselblad is a good bet.

> I've spoken with professional photographers who eschew anything other than
> traditional 35mm and medium format film.

Like I say, digitsal has a place. But I wouldn't trust my important
images to 1's and 0's.