Don't think of FM and FM2 as obsolete, they are nice bodies. I do most of shooting on film, and no, I'm not nor lomographer nor hipster :P
D5000 has same sensor as D90. But ergonomy on the other hand is much worse. IMHO lack of in-body AF motor and CLS are major points against it.
Also to be mentioned is that manual focus on those tiny viewfinders is PITA. Especially as D5000 has x0.78 magnification.

I agree but my interest was purely because it would take my old lenses and the price wasn't too bad. I downloaded the manual and found it to have many options, didn't like the bottom mounted screen but . . . I changed my mind and I'm back to looking at DSLR. Cambrey's D90 shots are great and I was leaning towards a D90 till the D7000 came out.

They did that on purpose and I respect them for that. It's the reason why you can plug any EF lens you like into a Canon body and know that it's going to work. If you're using something that takes EF-S lenses then you can plug any lens at all that you like in there and know that it's going to work.

Nikon opted to maintain compatibility and it means you have to do some more research with some of the lenses because they may or may not work the way that they should.

With Canon the biggest issue is that some of the lenses aren't fast enough to allow for AF to work. Especially when you're throwing in teleconverters and such.
Some day I really sure get myself a film body to go along with my dSLR, I've got some really good glass and I kind of miss working with slide film. Plus, with my light meter, I should have no trouble getting the exposure right.

That's probably the thing I like most about the P&S I'm using ATM, it has a live histogram and I can set it up to flash the blown highlights when I'm composing my shot.

Too much junk laying on the ground. That makes it hard to get a decent composition.

Kompactor.
Retired truck.

Edit : I still can't attach pictures to the post, so I'll put the links instead.

There seems to be a forum bug. Make your post and add the first image. Edit the post and add the second. Size must be under 500K as well. Images need to be added one edit at a time for some reason.

Nice truck, "Who you gonna call" . . =)

A '37 "three window" I believe, could be wrong on that . . . =)

I once had a '32 briefly, NEVER looked that good T_T

174 pictures taken yesterday, and only one decent image, in my opinion. I was in a museum and there were loads of rusty stuff and chains *drool*. I was like a kid in a candy shop.

Unfortunately, most of it was behind a little fence, forcing me to take pictures off balance. And even if I had my tripod with me, I would not have been able to capture my subject.

while I use a digital camera for goofing around taking random pictures of crap, I still prefer a 35mm film camera when I'm trying to take something good.

It would be nice to not have to shell out for the actual film rolls, taking physical shots will always have priority in my heart (and having to pay for your screw-ups adds to the reward of getting a good shot, not to mention puts that extra tension to make me work hard at getting good shots).

I think it's a matter of personal opinion. 35mm doesn't provide the same level of control that digital does, and few people have the means of printing their color shots themselves. I have that instant feed back about how the composition went and whether I need to adjust the exposure and by how much. Plus, I don't have to worry about somebody else making decisions about how it should look.

That being said, I do love slide film, there's just something about it that's fun, although it's been a real PITA to scan when I've wanted to.

I like it, refreshing to see someone working in B&W as color seems like the norm nowadays. =)

As a side note, have you tried any toning actions with your B&W work? The Lights Right Studio site has a very nice set of free toning actions that I use from time to time. They create an adjustment layer that can be modified for maximum or minimum affect without changing the image itself. Here is a link to the actions.

I can post some examples of the toning actions using your image if you want to see some examples. I usually back the tones off slightly for a more subtle appearance.

Edit: The link is at the very bottom of the page, second sentence up.

Thank you Stuff. I have just installed the B&W action (at first, I was wondering if I could use it with Photoshop Element 9, but it seems to work correctly). I'll check that later.

You can use my images as often as you want. :D

B&W when done for artistic reasons can be great. However, it tends to be rather pretentious and allow for people to avoid the problems of color unity, exposure and just generally using color in the exposure. And worrying about it.

But, it really depends, I just have an aversion to B&W from all the pretentious crap I've seen over the years. But somebody that really knows and really cares can produce sublime work.

You're welcome. I would never use your images for anything other than our discussions on the forum. I have the toning actions already installed and was only going to use your images to show what the toning actions could do without you having to dl and install them . . . =)

I embrace B&W and color photography with the same enthusiasm. The decision tree for taking photos has been reduced to picking up a camera thanks to inkjet/laser printers, digital imaging and Photoshop. Nowadays you can find awesome examples of both B&W and color images and pathetic examples of both just as easily.

Which you prefer can be a heated topic of debate but I chose to use both based on my intent . . =)

one of my latest shots