Many thanks for all of these fascinating replies.
One thing that jumps out at me is:
For RAW processing, it appears very important to have a good piece of RAW editing software.
I have Photoshop 5.5 which I enjoy using, but it is limited (e.g. no rule of 1/3s in the crop net).
I would love to get Lightroom, but I own my house, I don't rent it, so I'm not sure how to address this.
I used to have a B&W darkroom set up in my band's rehearsal room, and really enjoyed developing and printing my own films & prints.
When I look back, the reason I got pulled into photography was the fascination of the alchemy of darkroom printing:
Seeing an image appear from nowhere, as the paper floated in the tray of developer fluid, whilst working underneath the red light was to me akin to imagery magic!
I was gearing up to convert my darkroom to colour processing when digital photography became affordable, so it never happened.
Regarding why I use a DSLR, and why a Pentax:
For many years, my film SLR was the Russian tank of photography, the Zenith!
It worked, but was heavy, clunky, only went up to 1/500 sec and ALWAYS underexposed the images!
In later life, as a mature student, I returned to college / University to study Film Production.
I was interested in operating the video / film camera, but so was everyone else!
As I didn't like the idea of fighting to get to the camera, as I felt I didn't have anything particularly insightful to offer other than curiosity, and as the Sound Recording equipment laid untouched in the corner, I inevitably was drawn back to my original profession of being the Sound Engineer (here, the Sound Recordist).
The film equipment stock room maintenance guy used to be a camera operator, and I got to chatting to him.
I vented my frustration at my Zenith to him and asked his advice.
"Get a Pentax K-1000!
They're the Kalashnikov of the camera world!".
I heeded his advice and bought a K-M, along with Sigma 28mm and Tokina 90mm prime lenses.
Hence, my path along the Pentax Way was assured.
Many years later, after having worked successfully as a Sound Recordist, Sound Assistant and Boom Operator on many professional productions (many of which ending up on UK television), I took the plunge and emigrated to Canada, via my other original profession of Heavy Goods Vehicle driver (Long-Haul Trucker to North American folks).
All the time, taking photographs of life around me.
Over in North America, Pentax is virtually unknown, it would appear.
This fact has only reinforced my respect and desire to stay with "The Kalashnikov of Cameras".
I use a semi-professional DSLR instead of a 'Happy-Snaps Point & Forget' fixed focus piece of plastic garbage because:
I enjoy operating machines, be it a 44-tonne semi-truck, 40-channel mixing desk or a manual DSLR.
I intend to get good photographs, capturing magical moods, and I believe having a manual camera with a big lens with wide iris allows me to get such shots in available (often low) light.
A physically large DSLR has far better ergonomics, reducing operator fatigue during long shoots and assisting steady holding, compared to a (clears throat and tries not to vomit) 'cell phone camera'.
A semi-professional camera will last a lifetime, giving great photos for many years to come, and will be something I can learn to get better and better with over the years.
A 'point & regret' Zappy-Snacks plastic hamburger won't facilitate any further photographic development, as it only has 1 button.
As for the MP3 vs WAV / AIFF / Vinyl argument:
As far as I'm concerned, MP3 is the modern version of cassette tape: portable and convenient, but ultimately low quality.
Full bandwidth WAV / AIFF provides a significantly better listening experience, as one poster said, presents far less audience fatigue.
Vinyl is a beautiful anomaly.
When brand new, it can easily exceed the upper frequency range of CD (which is brick-wall limited to 20kHz), but after many plays, it physically wears away, leaving it far less able than its digital counterpart.
Mike Oldfield attempted to release Tubular Bells in quadrophonic in the early '70's, having the rear speaker channels encoded at ultra-high frequencies into the stereo mix.
But these channels were lost very quickly, due to the physical wearing of the medium, so he had to drop the idea.
Until SACD allowed him to reissue the quadrophonic mix decades later...
I used to be a vinyl disciple, until I heard the precise sub sonic capabilities of my CD deck.
Then, for me, the War was over.
CD had won!
But I still have my boxes of vinyl, record deck and Pentax 35mm film camera in the crawlspace...
---------- Post added 4th May 2022 at 05:49 PM ----------
Another quick point:
It appears that RAW can bring detail from underexposed shots.
But if a shot is overexposed, can it equally bring detail back from that other brink..?
Due to my Zenith days, I always slightly overcook my exposures these days, as looking a little burnt out is more akin to fading memories than a dark murky blur.
And it looks like I need a decent RAW editor system.
One I can buy, not rent.
I've got a couple of free ones to try now (RawTherapee / Fast Stone Picture Viewer / GIMP) but none of them seem to have the slick power of, say, Photoshop.
