There are actually two questions here, not necessary related. Firstly "why do people collect... " [insert item here]. The psychology of collecting is an interesting one. Almost anything and everything has someone who collects it: coins, stamps and china come to mind. Collecting is also something much more common amongst men than women, I don't know why. The urge to collect has a long history. Coin collecting goes back many centuries. As an archaeologist who studies coin data, I am in frequent company with coin collectors, but for myself I have never had the urge to collect ancient coins. As to Pentax stuff, I slowly fell into it. I had a modest ME Super and three lenses for many years. When the Super died I got an MX. It wasn't until about 2005 that I got an LX, and started buying other things. To start with, I was interested in the M series cameras and the differences, so I bought one of each type... I also became addicted to K series primes, and now have about 20 of those. Partly, the endless "Canon this" and "Canon that" led me to buy silly things like a Pentax hipflask and a Zoom 70R pin badge. I've expanded out of Pentax to shoot some Soviet rangefinders, a few old folders, and a couple of TLRs. I know that collecting these things is a bit silly, really. I have a pristine MV in its box with original packaging, receipt and paperwork. I've never shot with it (I prefer cameras with some sort of manual over-ride), but I like having it. Not logical, but at least it didn't cost anywhere as near as much as a denarius of Julius Caesar, and I could shoot with it if I wanted! (Try buying a beer with a Roman denarius...)
The other part of that question is why shoot film. That varies from photographer to photographer and is very personal. This year's winner of the Taylor-Wessing Portrait Prize uses a Pentax 67. She does so because she finds that her subjects (young South African "drummies") are fascinated by the huge camera and she gets better photos as a result. Other reasons have been given above. Personally, I shoot both. For work things, almost 100% digital. I need images for lectures, websites and publications. All those things are easier done digitally. Finds of small artefacts: much easier digitally. For fun, however, I shoot both. I know I am never going to be the next Ansel Adams. I occasionally have a picture I'm proud of, and I've had some published in magazines and won the odd prize or two. More important to me, personally, is to enjoy the process. When I was in New York a month ago I decided to shoot 100% film. I took two ME Supers (one black, one chrome) and a selection of K series primes (15, 17, 24, 28 shift, 30, 50/1.2, 135/2.5). I ordered film from B&H in advance. I spent my birthday wandering around lower Manhattan and had a lovely time. I enjoyed myself. I got some pictures I liked, and have proved popular with people I have shown them to. Am I going to win a prize with them? Nah... Do I care? No, not really. I really like using my 5x4 view camera but that doesn't used quite so much as it isn't easy to transport on a motorcycle. I've had some great images with my old folders. No light meter. No rangefinder. One of them takes coloured filters (whooo hooo!).
As to sharpness and resolution, the largest image I have ever had printed was taken with my K20D (at 21" x 14"). To be frank, even the K-3 creates files bigger than I need. I hate to think what the the file size of a pixel-shifted image from the K-1 is. I like to use raw files for the flexibility in editing, so I cannot simply select a lower resolution file. I ended-up buying a 3.57TB raid array for image files, and already I only have 1.7 left! I appreciate that some people may have need for enormous file sizes, but personally I would find a lower resolution full-frame digital an attractive proposition!
Luckily, we have a variety of options and we can choose what suits us. I appreciate that for many people film is not for them, but for some of us film is a viable and attractive alternative.
Kris.
