Recently, George Patterson posted:

Ice blonde wrote:

I would agree with Greg too about film over digital, it would take a
very very good digital to match film quality, and when your talking
slide film, I'm not sure even the best digitals are there yet, but
correct me if I'm wrong.

According to tests run by Popular Photography magazine, both the
latest Canon and Nikon digital 35mm SLRs beat out film, but we're
talking better than $5,000 for the body. I've not seen anything to
indicate that the mid-size format camera manufacturers can beat film
with digital yet, but I could easily have missed an article.

While many agree that, for the same physical area, digital sensors can
compete well against film -- e.g. a full-frame 35mm digital camera can
produce images competive with 35mm film as in a Popular Photography type
of comparison -- there are other factors to consider. For one, as yet
there are no full-frame (56x56mm) medium format digital sensors, so a
typical medium format camera will still outperform the best 35mm format
digital cameras.

For the kind of images that Jason presented in this thread (very nice
shots, btw!), the higher ISO range (1600-3200) of a pro digital camera
could allow higher shutter speeds and/or smaller apertures than one could
use with ISO 400 film, but at the cost of less image area than with 120
film, and consequently less subtle gradations and detail. IMO, the bottom
line is that film and digital are just two imaging media, each with their
own 'look', advantages and limitations.

Regards,

Neil