Maybe someone is still reading, maybe not. Who cares. For honesty's sake, and for those still there, I reply.
Adesso: I do agree with you, I know that pros are usually very proficient at their job. Their requirements are simply different from those of an advanced amateur concerned with quality, or at least from mine. And it has been proven (though I am not going to do the effort of writing the web address again) that a lens used in AF (and I am not saying "an AF lens") can not be as sharp as the same lens focused manually with an appropriate screen. If you think that your images are O.K., well, I believe you, but someone dared to take measurements and comparisons and talks in a different way. I am not going, of course, to teach anything to anybody; I just say that do exist opinions different from "if AF is O.K. for me, it must be O.K. for everybody else". And are very credible opinions.
Al: maybe I am one that changes topic willing to have the last word, but at least I am not one that stops a topic when it's not yet over. As for bashing Nikon, what I am saying, again, is that the number one camera maker in the world just does not care any more of a, maybe tiny, market share to which I belong: that of people wanting no-nonsense cameras. I shoot landscapes with a tripod and prime lenses: I do not need AF (I can not be in a hurry if I use a tripod), nor autoexposure, nor MD. They mean useless weight and cost to me, so I do not want them. If you are happy shooting landscapes with a camera built for speed, with superfast auto everything, as I told you already once, good for you. And I am happy too.
Again, just to be sure: I am not bashing Nikon; I am saying that AF can not be as precise as MF, that I do not need it, that the F100's body is made in polycarb, that plastic bodies is a change that people don't seem to like even thogh you don't see the plastic from outside and plastic may even be better than metal.
As for liking changes or not, well, I would like to see same change interesting to me, for a change; I am sure I will like it.
Frankie: of course, who needs AF buys AF. I just do not, this is all. As for medium or large format, I usually go around with a Photo Trekker filled to the top with two bodies and seven primes ranging from 20 to 500 mm.; and I use and need THEM ALL. If I had to replicate the same array of field angles with medium or large format, then I would be going around with a small truck, so I compromise (after all I prefer to have a lens adequate for the right composition rather than miss it in favour of better sharpness) and go on with 35 mm.. But then I need to squeeze the most in terms of quality out of that small film. So it's PKR (sorry, I do also have this problem, don't like AF and don't like Velvia too), fixed focal lenghts, well chosen lens models used at their best apertures, and MF.
And, just to stop it: I waste time writing, you waste time reading too. I do my shooting while I am in Maremma, and my writing while I am in Rome (I don't shoot here because I don't like cities), so I am not loosing any picture, don't worry.
BJNicholls: same as above.