Jonathan makes a good point when he refers to a drum scan. A normal scanner does not get all of the detail from a slow film, especially if it is not a dedicated slide scanner, but a mid range flatbed. I am told that drum scans are expensive which kind of negates the cost savings of using MF gear.
But, I think we have a number of issues here. Some people maintain that a ~10 MP sensor does not even match a slow 35mm film as far as detail is concerned. I can't say that I have performed rigorous tests, but my own feeling from experience is that 10MP (a Nikon D200) roughly matches Kodachrome 64 in terms of resolving detail. Where the D200 wins is the smoothness of tones, and the dynamic range. The KR64 slide has a lot of 'noise' in the form of grain, or grain clumps if you want to be pedantic. So an A4 enlargement from a KR64 slide will show noticeable graininess whereas the digital image will not, and to my eyes the digital image is much better. As for Fuji Velvia at ISO 50, well I will have to leave that one to others to decide as I hate it and only used it once. My feeling is that the subjective quality is not better than a D200. I am curious what other peoples subjective impressions are on this matter.
Psst Don, I hear that your D2x can do 3 foot by 2 foot prints with ease!
|