Alan Justice writes ...

Shooting the same scene under the same conditions (e.g., ISO 50 film and
digital set to 50, same lens etc.), you're saying that an 8 MPix (or 16?)
digital is better than film (resolution AND color?), using the best
availible method of printing each?

Not quite what I said, but close ... to be precise, I don't have a 16
Mpix body and haven't downloaded one of the test files but we do have
6, 8 and 11 Mpixel bodies (Canon 10D, 1D Mark II and 1Ds) ... when
debating whether to switch to digital I took my wife's 10D and two
EOS-3 film bodies to Alaska two winters ago and was able to photograph
eagles at close range under similar circumstances, using Provia 100F in
one film body and Velvia 100F in the other (I was testing films too)
with a 1.4x converter on the 500 compared to the 10D without a
converter (there's a built-in 1.6x f-o-v difference because of the
smaller sensor, so this left me at 700 mm vs 800 mm fov). I also shot
the 10D with a 1.4x vs film with a 2x. This was as close as I could
get to real-life comparisons ... here are links to two of the 10D shots
that I could duplicate almost exactly with the film cameras with the
1.4x or 2x since he sat on this post for 15 minutes eating a fish ...
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/ea...gital/head.jpg (500 mm w/
1.4x)
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/ea...igital/cry.jpg (500 alone)

So I printed those (and others) 12x18" and printed the film scans and
felt the film scans looked a bit better at this size print, with more
detail in the feathers and eye. In other words 35 mm film beat a 6
Mpixel Canon 10D at this print size, but I sure liked skipping the 1.4x
converter with the digital and I would have liked looking at the images
each night (I didn't take a computer on this trip, no room), and I
liked increasing the ISO to freeze the wings as I needed a higher
shutter speed, and I liked not having to pay $12 per roll for film and
processing ... in other words, I was ready to switch to digital but not
at 6 Mpix. I also found the 10D's autofocus slow and lacking compared
to the EOS-3.

A month or so later I made the plunge and got the 1Ds which has 11
Mpixels and there was no comparison, I could make 12x18" prints with
these files that were much smoother and more detailed than I could with
Provia 100F slides scanned at 4,000 dpi on a Nikon 8000. I pretty much
quit using 35 mm film at that point, but still used two medium format
systems (645 and 6x7 cm) with Velvia. Twice I took the 1Ds and the
medium format systems on trips and shot the same things and felt the
prints from medium format film were noticeably better than prints from
the 1Ds (some people disagree with this but that's what I saw on my
equipment). By this time I had an Epson 4000 printer which can print
up to 16x24" and at 16x20" I feel MF has the advantage.

In June 2004 we also got two 1D Mark II's for wildlife (the 11 Mpix
body is a bit slow for birds-in-flight etc) and these are excellent
cameras, with 1.3x f-o-v so you get almost a 'free' 1.4x converter. I
didn't shoot them side-by-side against 35 mm film since I was no longer
shooting 35 but when everything goes just right with the shot (ie
perfect focus, no subject motion) we get better 16x20" prints from
these than we ever got from scanned 35 mm. This is comparing digital
shots taken generally at ISO 250-320 to film shots at ISO 100
(occasionally pushed to 200).

So that's what I'm seeing ... I think a lot of others are seeing pretty
much the same trend. I think you have an Epson 2200 or similar 13x19"
printer and you can download test images from bodies like the 1D Mark
II or 1Ds M II (16 Mpix) or, for grins since you don't do Nikon, 12
Mpix files from the D2x and print them to see how smooth they are. I
think you'll be surprised.

Bill