It struck me the other day while reading a thread on the seemingly never ending debate about digi versus film: why do none of the film companies or film camera makers "fight back". Now, I'm not suggesting that they try swimming up stream, but it seems that they have just rolled over without any attempt to position the sensible and indisputable differences / advantages of film photography. The most sensible debate concludes "different horses for different courses". Certain types of shooting; types of post process use etc arguably get superior results from film than most digital imaging available today. Both consumer shooters and professional users can achieve superior results with film. So, why is it that dual media (digi and film) equipment and media makers don't seem to use that in their marketing and positioning. Why just roll over? Why not show an image made with Velvia and the same image made with an 8mp sensor providing a clear argument? Of course there is and has been an massive appetite for digi cameras of all types and users get great benefits in many uses - but not all uses benefit from digital imaging. Yet there is no evidence of fight back such as "when digital imaging becomes a blur and the finest natural details are best produced on film - our film delivers....."! These fora are littered with such commentary and the obvious conclusion is that each media has its strengths. So why not sell film's strengths? Hasselblad seems to have at least adopted the positioning statement that it is a dual media company. But Leica just tries to defend the M cameras in statements about its own quality or that there will be a digi M soon or that it now has the DMR. It never seems to make well thought out positioning/marketing statements in its promotional material so always seems to be in technology catch up mode. I just wondered if others think the same?