ebiggs1 wrote:
"I am not going to own the label silly, ..."
Sometimes 'silly' becomes reality! We'll see. Time will tell.
Frankly, I'm not sure what pont you are trying to make, but at this stage further discussion is pontless 
@Mr_Fusion wrote:
When a cell phone can shoot with a predetemrined DOF or a fast enough shutter to catch a hummingbird midstroke, then DSLRs will be done for.
Frankly I disagree. I shoot birds and animals, some of them predatory to humans at up to 300m away and that is not uncommon.. I use a professional-level DSLR with a long lens and extender to get the shot large enough for a decent image. I fail to see how one can do that with a cell phone - perhaps you have a solution for that. Maybe in some future time we will have lenses that that small, but in my life time...?
As our esteemed colleague is fond of saying "We shall see..." 
@Mr_Fusion wrote:“Sales of professional photographic films have been steadily rising over the last few years, with professionals and enthusiasts rediscovering the artistic control offered by manual processes and the creative satisfaction of a physical end product. ...
That sounds like another version of "vinyl vs digital" music. In my opinion, if an artist wanted scratching noises in their music, they would have a band member scratching something.
What artistic control I have no idea. In my mind, film limits the artistic control while digital has greatly expanded it.
Personally I am not inclined to return to film, but if there is a constituency out there that wants to use film I don't feel threatend by it and welcome them to enjoy their experiences and the technology. The apparent reversal in the decline in that niche market is what it is and frankly I wish them every good luck - it's one of those things about freedom of choice. It's the same logic that makes people drive vintage cars, ride horses or any other non-mainstream activity. As long as it does no one any harm, why should they not, and who are we to judge them?
