"etosha" writes:

Okay, this is just hypothetical, as I won't be going digital for quite
some time (I intend to make the most out of my Dynax 9), and Velvia 100
is simply outstanding. But, as that day will eventually come, and I am
completely in the blue about digital cameras and pixel rates...

Minolta now has a 6 million-pixel body called Dynax 7D, and Canon and
Nikon have digital SLRs that produce 12 million pixels.

The question is: to be able to match the sharpness and saturation of
Velvia 100 and Provia 100F, would the Minolta body suffice, or would I
need the new Nikon or Canon models?

You can match the saturation and sharpness easily at 6 megapixels.

You can't match the full level of *detail*, though, you have to go
higher for that.

There are all sorts of surprises in comparing digital enlargements to
film enlargements -- they behave very differently. The grain
structure is a dominant feature in determining what you can do with a
picture on film -- and it's completely absent in digital. That
changes everything. So you can get a really good-looking 16x24 print
from 6 megapixels, sharp as blazes (unsharp masking is your friend).
But if you compare it with a print from say a 6x7 negative, you
realize there's a lot of detail not there. But your eye didn't notice
the lack in the original print.

So the usual questions for a film photographer aren't always the most
important questions to ask.

In other words, does digital deliver?

For 35mm applications, I think digital delivers in spades.

But lots of people really attached to Velvia seem, to me, to be doing
in 35mm things that really belonged in medium format. Only the high
end of digital really delivers for that, I think. That's not where I
work, and not where my expertise, such as it is, lies.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/