Film Is Dead

[The Vulcan]

Recently I acquired a flatbed scanner with the single intent of digitizing my old film stock.

Boy, what a shock. I’d forgotten just how good film images were.

There’s a “feel”, a “depth” that I just don’t believe digital can match. Digital seems almost flat.

Here are a few shots taken about 15 or so years ago on an old Mamiya C330F. Stock used was Velvia.

Maybe I’m imagining things – but it’s 3D versus 2D in my book.

What do you think?

Edited December 23, 2007 by The Vulcan

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

There have been lot of prognosticators claiming film is dead. Yet there is substantial evidence to the contrary. There are those that believe a high end digital SLR can do anything. Yet companies like Linhof and Toyo continue to sell film cameras that cost thousands. These are not small mom and pop companies. Linhof has been around for over a century though many who believe Digital SLR is the ultimate end have never heard of the company. When they do advertising photo shoots outside Thailand, large format film is still in demand. Arizona Highways, a magazine well known for its breath taking photos rarely accepts anything smaller than medium format. Despite what some may think, film is still available even in the larger formats. 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 color sheet film is available in a variety of immulsions. Even ultra large format film is readily available in black and wide. In Japan 11x14 ULF color film is still readily available. Both digital and film have thier place in the modern world. Each have their advantages. But its a bit premature to write off film.

There is an article on film vs digital that you may find interesting. A link is below. There is also a link to Linhof and Toyo.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

http://www.linhof.de/english/index.html

http://www.toyoview.com/LargeFrmtTech/lgformat.html

[Firefoxx]

I think that most people just aren't making the right distinction. Film is pretty much nearly dead... to the average consumer. Your average vacation photographer would have difficulty justifying buying a film camera vs a digicam these days. However, to a pro who knows how to use cameras and can appreciate the distinction, film still has a lot of life left.

To me, when I was beginning, I would have never appreciated several aspects of photography without a DSLR. With digital, I could have instant feedback on what settings produced what kind of picture, how I overexposed/underexposed, the depth of field possible, motion blur, perspective, etc. etc. etc, without having to wait to get to a lab and have prints (by then I would have forgotten what I did to get the picture), not to mention the fact that I didn't need to care about taking too many bad pics. It helped immensely in my learning experience. Of course, to a pro who already knows these things and has the years of experience to know how his photos will come out, it's not that important.

[Nordlys]

Is Mamiya C330F a medium format film camra?

There's no doubt medium format cameras fare better than full-frame sensor dSLR including Canon EOS1Ds Mk3. But I wonder how medium format digital sensor camera like Mamiya ZD, Hasselblad H3D or Pentax 645 digital compare with medium format film camera.

It's interesting to note there's even more professional reversal films (mostly from Fuji) available today than when I started shooting digital, although Kodachrome 64 is no longer available.

[The Vulcan]

Is Mamiya C330F a medium format film camra?

There's no doubt medium format cameras fare better than full-frame sensor dSLR including Canon EOS1Ds Mk3. But I wonder how medium format digital sensor camera like Mamiya ZD, Hasselblad H3D or Pentax 645 digital compare with medium format film camera.

It's interesting to note there's even more professional reversal films (mostly from Fuji) available today than when I started shooting digital, although Kodachrome 64 is no longer available.

Yes Nordys, the C330F was a medium format 6x6 TLR. Pretty basic really ; nothing like the class of Rollei or Hasselblad.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

Do you still have your C330F?

[astral]

To me, when I was beginning, I would have never appreciated several aspects of photography without a DSLR. With digital, I could have instant feedback on what settings produced what kind of picture, how I overexposed/underexposed, the depth of field possible, motion blur, perspective, etc. etc. etc, without having to wait to get to a lab and have prints (by then I would have forgotten what I did to get the picture), not to mention the fact that I didn't need to care about taking too many bad pics. It helped immensely in my learning experience. Of course, to a pro who already knows these things and has the years of experience to know how his photos will come out, it's not that important.

Even as a keen amateur I tend to agree with FireFoxx.

My father was also a keen photographer and he taught me a lot.

I have a set of books on my shelves explaining all the ins and outs,

but digital set me free.

I did not always want to shoot a whole roll of film, so I had to wait until I finished the roll,

or just trash the rest before going to the shop. Now I can have the results on my computer

within minutes.

As FF says we can experiment with all those techniques, see the results immediately,

and even have a exact record of exposure, focal length etc from the exif data.

I know my father would have loved to have seen what is possible with a digital camera, and

then how easily I can edit the images on the computer screen. Making adjustments that

would have taken hours and a great deal of skill, in the dark room.

There may well be a place for film in the professional world, but apart from that I believe it is dead.

Note that even Cinema Epics are being shot in digital format now and the latest cinemas will

be showing digital copies.

A google of "digital cinema film" brings up a string of results.

Here is just one link. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4297865.stm

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

For most amateurs film is dead. Most amateurs never shot medium or large format after the late 60s, early 70s when 35mm mass market cameras appeared. My uncle owned a commercial photography studio and aerial mapping company. I dodn't learn to shoot on a 35mm. I learned to shoot with a Ricoh TLR he bought me. I own digital equipment but i also own and shoot with film in 35mm through 8x10 large format. Advanced amateurs and most pros still shoot film along with digital. There are some things a digital camera, at least with current sensor size and technology simply cannot do as well as a full movement view camera. Ad agencies and the like still buy and use film cameras along with digital for that reason. Press photographers have largely gone to total digital however, some are still using film and still winning awards with film. As for video overtaking film in the motion picture market, it only has in low budget productions and for special purposes like those mentioned in the BBC article. With film supposedly dead why do Kodak, Fuji and several smaller manufacturers continue to manufacture it even in large format sizes? Why are companies like Linhof, Toyo, still manufacturing film cameras? Why aren't smaller companies like Wisner and Wista struggling to stay afloat. Most of Wisners sales go to advanced amateurs and art photographers. His cameras are not cheap either. And there are still other manufacturers of quality film cameras. Then there is the Chinese Holga. Definitely not a precision camera but do they sell. And certainly most sales aren't aren't going to the pro market. Claiming film is dead even among amateurs is a bit premature. Maybe one day but not now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/technolo...amp;oref=slogin

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo...iper/040226.htm

http://www.wisner.com/

http://www.wista.co.jp/e_wista/english.htm

http://shop.lomography.com/holga/

[The Vulcan]

Do you still have your C330F?

No sadly - sold many years ago

[cali4995]

Those are amazing, made all the more so because 15 years ago, that

must have taken quite a bit of effort to create those images. I guess

you got that scanner situation sorted out, it doesn't appear that you

could have lost much there. Interesting debate on all this.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

I have considered purchasing Mamiya TLR but never did so. However, about a week ago I picked up a Mamiya medium format, a 645 with an 80mm 2.8 lens and a 120 insert. The camera needs to be resealed but for all of $41 on Ebay I can't complain. The vendor has a good track record and confirmed after I had already paid him that the camera was functional except for the light seals. I picked up 2 metered prism finders and a waist level finder to go with it for $14. The prisms are usable but really need to be resilvered.

Every few days there are sleepers on Ebay that for unknown reasons not many people see. A lot of times is the hour the item closes. Sometimes it is listed in the wrong section. About a year ago I bought cased 4x5 Graflex Anniversary with a ton of accessories for all of $59. As part of the kit it had a Heiland flash as in Star Wars Light Saber. There was also a roll film back. I already had one but the price was so low so... I was worried the vendor wouldn't ship that one. They did. I could have parted the set out for a lot more than I paid for it. I use a sniping program to bid so I don't get caught making emotional decisions at the last minute.

If you want to get back into medium format film check out Ebay. There are always a few decent buys every week. Among the decent medium format TLRs that can be found relatively cheaply on Ebay is the Ricoh Diacord. I bought both of mine, L models, for less than $50. I even picked up a couple of Rolleiflex Standards with Tessar lenses for under $50 each. The shutters on the Rolleiflexes needed a CLA otherwise no problem. I bought them in pairs to set up a medium format stereo rig. While the Rolleiflexes and the Diacords don't allow lens changes like the C330 they do have excellent lenses.

Let me know if you get back into medium format film. I would be nice to find a few others here shooting analog medium and large format.

Edited December 23, 2007 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[Ieyuhrah]

As long as we are willing to buy film then somewhere, someone will hopefully be willing to produce it. Many of the 'rediscovered' formats are being supplied from eastern Europe. I can still get 110 & 126 processed locally. I respool 120 and use it in my 620's. 127, 116, & 122 as well as 828, 8mm, 16mm, and even 'Hit type' format films can be had over the internet. 8mm home movie cameras are being picked up and used by students wanting the experience of frame by frame animation. The variety of films available (as with print papers) are grossly limited when compared to earlier times and it is something that must be lived with. I am also stocking up on the chemicals needed to do alternative processes (pre-1870 or so). But those also may be purchased in complete kit form from specialty companies. It is still out there and being produced by new companies. Now if they will only start producing (for public sale) the blank reels for my View Master camera.......

[Ieyuhrah]

ChiangMaiAmerica, I am assuming that you do your own darkroom work. Are b&w chemicals readily available there? Have you ever messed with alternative processes in Thailand? Is it be possible to get ahold of mercury, bromine, silver nitrate, acetone, etc. there in CM? Am I looking at problems bringing in field cameras and less common equipment through customs? Do I need to move this into another thread or by itself? My thanks, Ieyuhrah~

[astral]

I have not seen 120 film since I sold my father's Zeiss Ikonta, 20 years ago.

[Ieyuhrah]

Actually, some police departments in the area still use both b&w and colour film (120 format) for the more serious investigations. Some defense attys. have been questioning the validity of digital images. With the film they can have the entire roll examined and show original, unretouched images to back up the prints. Ever since the creative OJ Simpson magazine cover, digital images have been suspect. I have & use both 120 & 35 film backs with my Reccomar 33. I am choosing to have my laundry done so that I can use the plumbing & have a wet darkroom. The thread is correct that there is still a following of film shooters in the art world and with 'serious amateurs' such as myself. There has also been an increased interest in several 'obsolete' formats & camera types (take the 126 cartridge 'Instamatic', for example) to where new companies are starting to produce film for them to fill the niche demand. Out of fear that film could become harder to find and an appeciation of and for history, I became interested in pre-1870 photographic processes and will be playing with those as well. There has been an increased interest in reenacting the period of The War for Southern Independence with increased interest in taking daguerreotype & collodion images. So in answer to the general question regarding the extinction of photographic 'film' of whatever format or process, I would say "Not yet."

[jitagon]

After browsing gallery after gallery on the net of overprocessed, slick HDR images, a big advantage of film over digital is the fact you can't do this with film. There's an awful lot of 'flat' photography out there.

But as has been said, where would you be able to source the chemicals, black and white film etc here? I went to Fotofile in MBK once and got the mai mee. I use an SLR with photoshop because it's much more convenient here. But with a restrained hand on the mouse ...

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

You can obtain chemicals in Bangkok though you will have to start with the Kodak or Fuji headquarters in Thailand. E6 and C41 are both available. I priced it through the Photo Bug near the Thapae Gate in Chiang Mai but he said it would have to come from Bangkok hence my suggestion. That Photo Bug has B&W chemicals in the cooler along with their film though I never inquired about the price. As to alternative processing you should be able to find most of what you are looking for at a chemical supply house. I doubt you could get mercury though since it is veryy toxic. Don't count on most photo shops here to have the information. If it isn't 35mm consumer grade film or digital they usually don't have a clue. In fact they are usually shocked that someone would still shoot film particularly large format which they believe the world outside Thailand stopped using long ago. The previously mentioned Photo Bug has been an exception. He usually has a small quantity of medium format Velvia and some B&W in stock. He can obtain 4x5 from Bangkok at a high price. No one appears to have a clue about larger format films thugh the previously mentioned Kodak and Fuji headquarters should be able to thelp with that one too. It is easier and less expensive to buy in film bulk abroad and import particularly the larger formats. You can usually find great buys on short date too if you don't mind the minor risk of color shift. If you plan to be here a while buy a freezer and import. We bought a small chest freezer for exactly that purpose. Film comes out a day before it is used. Locally, I believe Kodak has a factory in Malaysia though I haven't checked yet. That would be a more local source for larger formats if purchased in bulk. China also has factories producing large format but only in B&W at this time. My 4x5 B&W I have yet to shoot came from the Lucky Factory in China via an online merchant.

It's nice to see someone else shooting stereo film. Everything I have in film at present is realist format. I shoot digital via a Stitz beam splitter but I am not real happy with the results. Two lenses and shutters on two frames is definitely better. I plan as mentioned to pair a couple of Diacords Ls and Rolleiflex Standards and fire them with a dual release to experiment with medium format stereo. I also picked up a bunch of NOS Kodak Bellows in several sizes last year. Time permitting I plan to put together a large format stereo cam with more modern coated lenses and better shutters than those found in the previous era. I have an old 4x5 Busch Pressman that isn't in the best of shape I will likely use for this experiment. One nice thing here is you will likely be able to find someone to make prototypes for you for a reasonable price. I will shop around and have someone make a pair of front standards. At some point in the not too distant future I will be contacting some of the independent optics manufacturers here to see if I can get them to polish and coat some of my classic lenses. I can have it done in the Ukraine at a decent price (about 1000 baht per surface) but I don't trust the shipping process I would be using. The price in the US is out of the question. Hopefully the prices here will be competitive with Eastern Europe. If you need more viewmaster reels, you might even be able to find a shop to make a set of dies if you check at some of the smaller machine shops.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

ChiangMaiAmerica, I am assuming that you do your own darkroom work. Are b&w chemicals readily available there? Have you ever messed with alternative processes in Thailand? Is it be possible to get ahold of mercury, bromine, silver nitrate, acetone, etc. there in CM? Am I looking at problems bringing in field cameras and less common equipment through customs? Do I need to move this into another thread or by itself? My thanks, Ieyuhrah~

Forgot your questions about customs. I have always had my large format cameras shipped. If you bring them with you as baggage which I wouldn't recommend make certain you have your receipts. This applies to shipping too. The last shipment of gear I brought in my shipper asked for copies of my invoices since I had acquired much of my equipment at well back of market price on Ebay. I forwarded digital copies. Everything cleared no problem.

[rafval]

a digital camera is a direct scan, this is film that is then scanned, Im sure velvia on a lightbox looks better then anything on a monitor but as soon as you scan it its digital, maybe subtly different from what comes out of a digital camera but nothing that cant be replicated with photoshop

Edited December 24, 2007 by rafval

[PadThaiGuy]

Let's look at it this way.

If digital came first then film came along, people would think your crazy to go with film.

Can't review the images, must use a bunch of chemicals in a dark room.....certainly less creativity.

I predict film will make a somthing of a comeback... some day... just like the revival of vinyl records are with audiophiles.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

a digital camera is a direct scan, this is film that is then scanned, Im sure velvia on a lightbox looks better then anything on a monitor but as soon as you scan it its digital, maybe subtly different from what comes out of a digital camera but nothing that cant be replicated with photoshop

Not exactly. Open the link below to take a look at a comparison of a section of a digital image from a Nikon D200 with scanned film of the same shot. Comparing 35mm to DSLR might work but when you move up in film size it all changes. Major difference in image quality when large format film is enlarged.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200/d200-vs-4x5.htm

Look at this too:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/fil...l.summary1.html

Edited December 25, 2007 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

I predict film will make a somthing of a comeback... some day... just like the revival of vinyl records are with audiophiles.

Film never left. In 35mm it dropped a lot because the point and shoot crowd switched to digital but a number of manufacturers including the big boys still produce a variety of 35mm products. In larger formats film remains king and is in fact the only choice above 4x5 formats. They still haven't made a commercially viable 4x5 sensor that can take shots with any motion in the image.

Edited December 25, 2007 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[rafval]

a digital camera is a direct scan, this is film that is then scanned, Im sure velvia on a lightbox looks better then anything on a monitor but as soon as you scan it its digital, maybe subtly different from what comes out of a digital camera but nothing that cant be replicated with photoshop

Not exactly. Open the link below to take a look at a comparison of a section of a digital image from a Nikon D200 with scanned film of the same shot. Comparing 35mm to DSLR might work but when you move up in film size it all changes. Major difference in image quality when large format film is enlarged.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200/d200-vs-4x5.htm

Look at this too:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/fil...l.summary1.html

how does it compare to the medium format digital backs that are coming out now tho?

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

They may get closer to film but they're priced beyond what nearly all advanced amateurs and most professionals can justify. To achive the quality in some shots partcularly architectural shots you need a full movement camera like the 2x3 Linhof Super Technika. It doesn't even come in digital. Then there's the price of a new mamiya or Hasselblad. On the good quality low end there is the Mamiya 645ZD starting at about 330,000 baht for a complete kit. low end Hasselblad come in at about 400,000 baht and thats when its on sale. The full movement Linhof which is only made in film comes in at about 181,000 baht. Used they are around 100,000 baht. Then you need lenses. If new add 30,000 baht up. Then there is the digital back. New digital backs that might perform as well as film in that format start at about 500,000 baht for a Phase one back and go up. A good quality Mamiya Back of 22 megapixels is about 230,000 baht. A top of the line Hasselblad back is about 1,250,000 baht. Again high end backs have price tag that most advanced amateurs and professionals can't justify. the Technika 23 Got 330,000 baht up to drop on a MF back? They really aren't that new just as practical digital has been around since 1991. The 400,000 baht price tag scared away most people. The 35mm landscape changed when they started offering cheap point and shoots with decent resolution. Medium format is a big as a practical field camera back gets. There is nothing larger that will work unless the subject is motionless. Phase one and Better light manufacture 4x5 backs but these are scanning backs and require a motionless subject. Good for product shoots. Bad for portraits and landscape unless the landscape is shot on a windless day. As long as the technology remains limited as is the case in 4x5 up or the price remains high as its the case of medium format cameras and backs backs film will continue to be the medium of choice for advanced amateurs and many professionals.

Edited December 25, 2007 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[The Vulcan]

Moving along (or sideways) the one certainty is that "35mm" digital is dramatically sharper than its film counterpart.

I've just scanned in some shots I took in the UK using a Canon EOS 1n and L lenses on Velvia. Comparing the sharpness against the same lenses on my Canon 5D is laughable. The 5D is just so much sharper. Taking this a stage further and comparing with the latest L lenses the sharpness is even more significant.

So, where are we? Well. I figure that medium format roll film is a little sharper and more detailed than my 5D. However, the 5D at 12.8 megapixels has destroyed my 35mm film stuff, some of which was shot on Contax, Leica as well as Canon. The "35mm" move was, as such, significant and worthwhile.

Conversely, digital "35mm" has still some way to go to equal roll film and a long, long way to go to equal 5x4 and upwards.

For me, I've now decided that my 5D is optimum for snapshots, sport and editorial but I'll be looking at medium format for landscape, architectural and the like where greater depth and feel is essential.

Horses for courses then!

[Nordlys]

I've just scanned in some shots I took in the UK using a Canon EOS 1n and L lenses on Velvia. Comparing the sharpness against the same lenses on my Canon 5D is laughable. The 5D is just so much sharper. Taking this a stage further and comparing with the latest L lenses the sharpness is even more significant.

But what if you didn't scan it but compared direct print out of Velvia with print from 5D? Is 5D image still sharper than print from Velvia?

[Firefoxx]

I've read that most pros agree that for 35mm, digital is indeed higher resolution than film (and don't forget you'll need an EXPENSIVE scanner or service to get the most out of film). However, for medium format, it's another story, but medium format has *always* been another story. It's the realm of really rich amateurs or pros, since the equipment costs so much in retail (I'm not talking about the occasional ebay bargain) and isn't what you'd call user friendly. The market has never been that big, and so development has never been as rapid as 35mm. Prices and quality of the digital options are therefore not yet fully mature.

So, yes, use film for medium format. It's far from dead in that realm. To tell you the truth, I've yet to personally witness a person taking a picture in medium format. But DSLRs? Tons. P&S's? Too many to count.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

I've read that most pros agree that for 35mm, digital is indeed higher resolution than film (and don't forget you'll need an EXPENSIVE scanner or service to get the most out of film). However, for medium format, it's another story, but medium format has *always* been another story. It's the realm of really rich amateurs or pros, since the equipment costs so much in retail (I'm not talking about the occasional ebay bargain) and isn't what you'd call user friendly. The market has never been that big, and so development has never been as rapid as 35mm. Prices and quality of the digital options are therefore not yet fully mature.

So, yes, use film for medium format. It's far from dead in that realm. To tell you the truth, I've yet to personally witness a person taking a picture in medium format. But DSLRs? Tons. P&S's? Too many to count.

The original topic of this thread is "film is dead or is it". The Vulcan's scans of old slides using a consumer grade scanner not a two million baht drum scanner speaks volumes to the fact film remains a high quality medium. I think its well established now that film is not dead, at least not yet. There is still enough demand to support several small manufacturers (though Lucky Film in China isn't exactly small) not to mention the fact that Kodak and Fuji continue to make it in multiple formats and emulsions.

As to medium format being too expensive, the facts speak otherwise. Don't forget the cheap, plastic, Holga with the plastic lens. Probably the biggest seller in medium format right now. You can find them on Ebay. Even big US camera retailers Like B&H and Adorama carry them. At less than a thousand baht, they are very popular (except in Thailand). And amazingly, they win awards, even press photography awards. I know one pro in Thailand who always takes his Holga along with his digital equipment when he shoots so they aren't completely unheard of here. I don't own one but I might soon.

For better quality cameras there are other options. If anyone wants to try medium format there are bargains everyday on Ebay if you watch. You can pick up Ricoh Diacords most every week for under $100 US or bout 3300 baht. Diacords are a Ricoh copy of a Rolleiflex with modern coated Tessar type lenses. Then there is the Zeiss Ikoflex. They are more plentiful. You cn pick up one of those with the Zeiss Tessar lenses for about the same price. The coated lenses on these are labeled Opton Tessar. Then there are the Rolleiflexes and Rolleicords. Examples of both with Zeiss or Schneifer optics can be had for the same low price. Yashica TLRs have excellent optics. They are plentiful and many sell for under 3,000 baht. Also watch for the Mamiyaflexes these can regulrly be found at a low price with excellent optics. For medium format SLRs look through the ebay medium format listing. There are always bargains. There is a nice Koni Omega that will close today likely for about $150 US dollars. Medium format doesn't have to break the bank.

Then there is the user freindly issue. You have to do basic things like focus the camera, set the shutter speed and aperture. You will need to learn to use a light meter (not difficult). I learned to do that when I was 15 years old and got my first real camera (a medium format TLR) with help from my professional photographer uncle. If you get a camera with movements you can learn to improve your photography by using those movements or just shoot using the basic settings. Old Graflex or Busch medium format press cameras aren't that expensive and offer some movements. Roll film backs for those cameras are readily available. You can add a digital back if you want to spend the money. Burke and James 4x5 field cameras can be found for good prices and offer full movements. They can easily be fitted with a Calumet medium format roll film back or a digital back if you want to spend the money. Burke and James has been out of business since the 1970s but the cameras remain popular. For those who think that learning to focus, set speed and aperture is too much trouble you can even find a used automated medium format cameras for less than the cost of a DSLR. For new a Pentax 645N medium format autofocus body can be had for about 40,000 baht. The price of a complete outfit is comparable to the price of some popular DSLRs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo...iper/010706.htm

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/3693...cus_Camera.html

http://www.adorama.com/CZHN.html

http://photography.search.ebay.com/holga_F...15230QQsbrsrtZd

http://cgi.ebay.com/Zeiss-Ikoflex-1a-854-1...1QQcmdZViewItem

http://cgi.ebay.com/TLR-RolleiCord-Vintage...1QQcmdZViewItem

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...hlink:middle:us

http://photography.listings.ebay.com/Film-...ListingItemList

Edited December 26, 2007 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[The Vulcan]

I've just scanned in some shots I took in the UK using a Canon EOS 1n and L lenses on Velvia. Comparing the sharpness against the same lenses on my Canon 5D is laughable. The 5D is just so much sharper. Taking this a stage further and comparing with the latest L lenses the sharpness is even more significant.

But what if you didn't scan it but compared direct print out of Velvia with print from 5D? Is 5D image still sharper than print from Velvia?

Yep, I guess that would be a great test. If I get the chance I'll get a pro lab to print from the relevant formats to satisfy my curiosity.

I do remember how sharp and "alive" cibachrome prints were, but that was so long ago maybe my memory is clouded.

[The Vulcan]

I've read that most pros agree that for 35mm, digital is indeed higher resolution than film (and don't forget you'll need an EXPENSIVE scanner or service to get the most out of film). However, for medium format, it's another story, but medium format has *always* been another story. It's the realm of really rich amateurs or pros, since the equipment costs so much in retail (I'm not talking about the occasional ebay bargain) and isn't what you'd call user friendly. The market has never been that big, and so development has never been as rapid as 35mm. Prices and quality of the digital options are therefore not yet fully mature.

So, yes, use film for medium format. It's far from dead in that realm. To tell you the truth, I've yet to personally witness a person taking a picture in medium format. But DSLRs? Tons. P&S's? Too many to count.

Not being "user friendly" is one of the great attributes of medium format!

The discipline that is required prior to hitting the shutter is a marvelous learning tool.

Waiting for the right light, checking the light with a hand held meter, taking incident readings and spot readings to compare the final outcome, gauging the correct depth of field, manual focusing, ensuring the horizon is level, choosing the correct lens, what filters will be needed, correcting the perspectives, tripod alignment etc etc.

These factors I'm sure go a long way towards producing the shot you want.