Most of us know about the obvious advantages of digital: the convenience, the instant review, the endless roll of virtual film etc. But what I would really like to know is how quality compares between digital and film in the hands of a professional.
I read somewhere that a slow film in a 35mm camera can record the equivalent of 20+ megapixels of information, but I have no idea if this is correct. Looking at enlargements produced from ISO 100 shots, I'd say you have at least 10 Mpixels worth in a decent shot. I recently met a professional photographer (took him observing and he loved it btw) and he swears by his medium format film camera, and claims that it's miles ahead of digital cameras costing a lot more.
Having had a quick froogle for "medium format digital camera" I see that most new ones now accept both film and CCDs or "digital backs". Now, wouldn't that be a fun toy! Only about $US22,000 for a medium format with a 22 Mpixel digital back with 16-bits per colour. Maybe I could talk them down to $20,000.
