> But a 4000 dpi scan resolves more of the negative than an enlarger, at > least in my experience. However, there are too may variables here to > judge Reichmann's results as gospel.
Here's Michael R.'s general response (again, this was an e-mail sent to me, repeated with permission): >>> The problem is that most people have not seen output from the 1Ds, just as they hadn't seen output from the D30 when I first reviewed it and the D60 in its turn. In all cases I was one of the first people in the world to review the cameras and I didn't have the crutch of someone else's opinion. I had to form my own. At the time I said that the D30 was superior to scanned [35mm] film in print sizes up to about A4 or slight larger. I was vilified for this, yet now no one disputes this. When I reviewed the D60 in early 2002 I said that it bested 35mm film in every regard - no exceptions, and many disputed this. Now professional photographers by the thousands have switched to cameras such as the Canon D60, Fuji S2 and Nikon D100 because the image quality surpasses film in every respect. Anyone that thinks otherwise is almost certainly basing their opinion on "belief" rather than empirical tests. When I was the first person in the world to review the Canon 1Ds I wrote that it equaled and in many ways surpassed 645 medium format. Now, just a few months later I know at least a dozen professional photographers who are selling their medium format film systems because their hands-on experience has proven to them that in terms of resolution, grain, colour purity and every aspect that counts toward ultimate print quality, the 1Ds is superior. I can't convince anyone of this, and frankly have no interest in doing so. But, anyone that thinks otherwise without having a close look for themselves is living with blinders on. <<<
