[nathanm]

Convenience of digital photography was through the roof no doubt, but the quality ratios between music and photography are vastly different.  An 8x10 glass plate negative vs. an early digital camera shot is night and day, whereas there is far less difference between analog tape or Redbook CD vs. 128K MP3.  Also, it's not entirely fair of me to compare last century LF with digicams in a practical sense because the average user never made that particular transition.  Instead it would more likely be the difference between 35mm print film vs. digicams.  But historically speaking the photographic difference is quite huge IMO. 

Now if you compare the AUDIO tech of the 1900s vs. today and the tables are turned!  So in theory you could take a superior landscape shot in 1900 vs. 2000, but that wax cylinder recording of you singing into a horn won't exactly cut the mustard.

[jqp]

  Also, it's not entirely fair of me to compare last century LF with digicams in a practical sense because the average user never made that particular transition.  Instead it would more likely be the difference between 35mm print film vs. digicams. 

Actually the difference is more like Instamatic vs. Digicam. The percentage of photographs taken with 35mm was probably pretty low.

[raymeedc]

Besides all of my vintage film cameras, regularly in use, my digital setup is a Pentax *ist DS body used in the stopped down mode with an array of screwmount Pentax Takumar SMC lenses, metered with a Gossen Luna-Pro. It's like shooting with one of my Pentax Spotmatics, but with the convenience of a digital back. I have no desire to use any of the camera's automatic features..... guess I'm just an old fogey. I just hope Pentax comes out with a full frame camera sometime in the near future.
P.S. - None of my film cameras have any automatic features either. In fact, most don't even have meters.