What I find interesting is the constant process we have whereby a new type of product comes out which is supposedly superior to the old technology in every way. Then later they are forced to improve the new technology because they realise it isnt.
CDs were supposed to sound better than vinyl, now (20 years later) we have SACD and DVD-A with higher sampling rates and/or wider frequency response for better sound. What this means is we are getting closer to the vinyl sound because the old technology was missing too much. Digital was soo much better than Film. We didn't need to wait 20 years for this technology to be improved. There have been many improvements, and at each step digital has apparently equalled film (esp according to M Reichmann). Now Fuji is on the verge of 'dual sensor per site' CCDs to provide the lattitude of film, Foveon says that bayer loses too much info (and everyone seems to agree) and has some 'early days' technology to get around this, we all know that sensitivity at higher ISOs is a problem and on and on. How are we to know who to believe, or more accurately how are we to know WHEN and who to belive when they say that digital has finally equalled film? This is all rather academic as 6MP full frame was my goal. 12MP full frame was my dream as it allows for cropping AND reasonable enlargement (eg when my long lenses arent quite long enough or I decide I sould have shot vertically rather than horizontally etc). The 1DS is every bit the camera I want in spec terms. Just put the technology in the MZ-D with Pentax mount and MZ-S controls and you would get a sale from me, even at $8K. However, imaging a D1s with Foveon layering and dual photosites for extra lattitude and up to ISO 3200 noise free. When we get that there will be no more arguments. Digital is now GOOD ENOUGH. Whether it is up to film is debateable, and irrelevant.
