Hi,

Recently, Lassi Hippeläinen posted:

In terms of total cost of ownership, MF is still hard to beat.
Digitals win when you need the speed.

I agree with half of this... the cost of MF is hard to beat for creating
high-quality images. However, speed is not always in digital's favor. As I
pointed out in another post, downsampling a 64 MP image to be used at, for
example, 3" x 3" in a publication can take much longer than scanning MF
film to that finished size. Combined with the archival issues, digital's
advantages are in producing images for short-term uses and for unique
features such as the ability to shoot at 4-5 fps without having to change
film / backs.

Neil