As I wrote in P2139, my digital SLR (a Kodak DCS 520) was acting up. Today the digital camera part won't turn on at all - the analog part, which is an EOS 1N, works perfectly. Only the digital component supplied by Kodak refuses to respond. Shit. And I've only had the camera since January - but purchased it privately. Now I'm wondering whether I'd be satisfied with a 10D or possibly even a 300D - both are significantly slower than my DCS 520. Ok, the resolution is higher, the images larger, but I don't really need that necessarily. With the DCS 520 I was already able to print images at 20x30 cm even though it only delivered 2 megapixels. Has anyone else previously owned a fast digital SLR and switched to one of these slower Canons? Or does someone have a pro SLR for work and a consumer SLR for private use and can say something about how they subjectively compare? So it's not about the specs on paper, but about the subjective frustration that could arise from possibly slower response times. An EOS is important because only with those do I have the chance to continue using my Zeiss lenses with an adapter. Besides, I already have a quite nice lens for Canon - the 2.5/50 macro. Otherwise the Nikon D70 would be significantly more interesting from a specs standpoint, since it's considerably faster.
Somehow digital is annoying. Analog is much more reliable and the selection isn't fraught with nearly as many compromises. But unfortunately you don't get the image right away, which you sometimes would like to have...
Update: after some calculations and considerations I've added the D70 back to my selection. The speed and some missing features of the 300D make the D70 significantly more attractive - after all, you can get it together with the 60mm Micro Nikkor for the price of the 10D body, with sometimes significantly better performance. Which of course doesn't really make the choice any easier...