From: "Matt"

I heard someone say that 8Mp digital cameras were the equivalent to 35mm
film quality?

A dSLR like the Canon 1D Mark II with 8 Mpixels and a large sensor seems to
produce better large prints for me than ASA 100 speed Provia 100 F or Velvia
scanned with a 4,000 dpi scanner. I'm getting 16x20" prints from the 1D that
are better than any prints that size I've gotten with even Velvia 50.

But 8 Mpix from a smaller sensor camera might give different results, so "it
depends" on where the 8 Mpixels came from and what kind of film you are using
for your comparison.

Does this mean they have the theoretical equivalent resolution?

No, fine grained film still does better at resolving lines on test targets, yet
the digital prints look better ... how? Because of the lack of apparent grain.
Digital simply blows up better than film.

Are they the equivalent to 35mm?

Download some Mark II sample images from the Canon site and resize them
carefully and print them to see for yourself, though these jpegs aren't as
smooth as RAW file conversions.

Here's a good summary by Roger Clark of the film vs digital debate. Others
give digital a wider edge, still others feel film is much better, but what he
describes is close to the majority viewpoint.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html

Bill